|
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 24 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 07:31 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2017 07:22 Danglars wrote:On February 24 2017 06:43 LegalLord wrote:On February 24 2017 06:03 On_Slaught wrote:
Hey xDaunt\Danglars, are you tired of winning yet? Only been 5 weeks, they need to win a while longer before it starts to be a problem. Repeal and Replace might be enough to push it over. Then I'll legitimately have very few more campaign promises to expect fulfilled. Just the wall. Win weariness could set in at that point. But first he'll have to cajole, bribe, threaten, and otherwise bully congressional Republicans to unite behind any one of the great plans out there ... his second big test. He's already done so much on the govt culture/discourse part that maybe I should count it his third big test. Suppose it's good that your concerns were small enough that they could all be resolved in 5 weeks. My concerns about the leadership of the nation are another thing entirely. Campaign promises delivered is what might make me tired of winning, and they've been proceeding apace. And did you even read the context for the mention of "five weeks?" You said the opposite.
Well, you said there were very few more campaign promises you want fulfilled. Considering that very little has actually been accomplished thus far, it didn't take much to satisfy the promises that are already fulfilled for you.
|
On February 24 2017 09:25 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:On February 24 2017 07:31 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2017 07:22 Danglars wrote:On February 24 2017 06:43 LegalLord wrote:On February 24 2017 06:03 On_Slaught wrote:
Hey xDaunt\Danglars, are you tired of winning yet? Only been 5 weeks, they need to win a while longer before it starts to be a problem. Repeal and Replace might be enough to push it over. Then I'll legitimately have very few more campaign promises to expect fulfilled. Just the wall. Win weariness could set in at that point. But first he'll have to cajole, bribe, threaten, and otherwise bully congressional Republicans to unite behind any one of the great plans out there ... his second big test. He's already done so much on the govt culture/discourse part that maybe I should count it his third big test. Suppose it's good that your concerns were small enough that they could all be resolved in 5 weeks. My concerns about the leadership of the nation are another thing entirely. Campaign promises delivered is what might make me tired of winning, and they've been proceeding apace. And did you even read the context for the mention of "five weeks?" You said the opposite. Well, you said there were very few more campaign promises you want fulfilled. Considering that very little has actually been accomplished thus far, it didn't take much to satisfy the promises that are already fulfilled for you.
The executive orders get a lot of media attention because Trump makes it a media event, but they are not necessarily sweeping. In some cases they are just statements of intent.
|
United States42014 Posts
On February 24 2017 08:54 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 08:51 KwarK wrote:On February 24 2017 08:41 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On February 24 2017 08:29 KwarK wrote:On February 24 2017 08:06 LegalLord wrote:
a leader who will see things through to the end. Like FDR. Wait, you think FDR led America to the end of WWII? well its not like he decided to leave the clean up to Truman. Certainly didn't see things through. Didn't even set Truman up to properly succeed him when his health started to fail. He just got sick, neglected his responsibilities and died, leaving the end of the war and the postwar global settlement without any real American leadership. Half of Europe fell under totalitarian rule because FDR couldn't see things through. Like honestly, that specific example being picked has to be trolling. Nobody is as stupid as LL pretends to be sometimes. I doubt there was an alternative to be honest. The military situation was like that and the ussr would not have drawn back voluntarily. The only alternative I can see is another war right after ww2 which would have been impossible to win for the usa anyway.
We're getting off topic here but the Allied advance on the Western front was significantly stunted by leadership crises within the American government, starting before FDR's death as he became incapable of effective leadership before dying but failed to pass power to Truman. The lines were set by the advancing troops, if you tell the troops not to advance then you abandon the people on the other side of it.
|
On February 24 2017 09:25 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:On February 24 2017 07:31 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2017 07:22 Danglars wrote:On February 24 2017 06:43 LegalLord wrote:On February 24 2017 06:03 On_Slaught wrote:
Hey xDaunt\Danglars, are you tired of winning yet? Only been 5 weeks, they need to win a while longer before it starts to be a problem. Repeal and Replace might be enough to push it over. Then I'll legitimately have very few more campaign promises to expect fulfilled. Just the wall. Win weariness could set in at that point. But first he'll have to cajole, bribe, threaten, and otherwise bully congressional Republicans to unite behind any one of the great plans out there ... his second big test. He's already done so much on the govt culture/discourse part that maybe I should count it his third big test. Suppose it's good that your concerns were small enough that they could all be resolved in 5 weeks. My concerns about the leadership of the nation are another thing entirely. Campaign promises delivered is what might make me tired of winning, and they've been proceeding apace. And did you even read the context for the mention of "five weeks?" You said the opposite. Well, you said there were very few more campaign promises you want fulfilled. Considering that very little has actually been accomplished thus far, it didn't take much to satisfy the promises that are already fulfilled for you.
So having not read or understood anything, you're ready to respond. When I do an if-then, and the if is explained to be a big deal, that isn't an invitation to half-hear the then, mush it around a little, then spit it up. Don't double down on misreading five weeks, dude.
|
CNN reported Thursday that the FBI and other federal agencies rejected the White House’s request to refute stories about contact between members of the Trump campaign and Russian nationals, including members of the Russian intelligence community.
CNN's report was based on multiple unnamed U.S. officials briefed on the matter.
The New York Times and CNN reported last week that members of the Trump campaign and Russian nationals were in repeated contact during the campaign.
Trump affiliates mentioned in the Times’ story all denied that they knowingly had untoward contact with Russians during the campaign. Roger Stone later denied any contact categorically.
CNN reported that contact between the White House and FBI began on Feb. 15, the day after the stories were published. FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus spoke about the story on the sidelines of a meeting about an unrelated matter, according to the network.
The White House pushed back on CNN's characterization of the exchange. McCabe apparently told Spicer that the reports were overstated, an unnamed White House official told CNN.
[CNN has updated their story to reflect that an unnamed White House official later confirmed the network's description of the exchange between McCabe and Priebus]
The network reported that FBI Director James Comey refused to tamp down on the stories publicly, because the contacts between Trump campaign staff and Russians is the subject of an ongoing investigation.
Source
|
If Tom Perez becomes DNC chair, I will be convinced that the democrats are trying to run Hillary in 2020.
|
On February 24 2017 12:11 Nevuk wrote:
If Tom Perez becomes DNC chair, I will be convinced that the democrats are trying to run Hillary in 2020.
that seems like an overwrought conclusion.
|
If they run out Hillary again, I think I'm going to just switch to Independent.
|
If Clinton runs again she better be laughed out of the place she announces her campaign.
|
On February 24 2017 12:14 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 12:11 Nevuk wrote:
If Tom Perez becomes DNC chair, I will be convinced that the democrats are trying to run Hillary in 2020. that seems like an overwrought conclusion.
My composition is 80% overwrought conclusions, 10% emotions, 7% first impressions, and 3% facts. I try to resemble the democratic base as much as possible.
Sidenote : Caitlyn Jenner is begging Trump to overturn his overturning of protections for Trans students. We haven't really talked about any of that situation in this thread, which is a little surprising given how much press it gets. Personally, I think it's definitely over-covered because it's such a small % of the population. I agree with the principle, but I don't really actually care.
|
ah, well, if your'e trying to resemble the populace at large that makes sense then.
|
On February 24 2017 12:19 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 12:14 zlefin wrote:On February 24 2017 12:11 Nevuk wrote:
If Tom Perez becomes DNC chair, I will be convinced that the democrats are trying to run Hillary in 2020. that seems like an overwrought conclusion. My composition is 80% overwrought conclusions, 10% emotions, 7% first impressions, and 3% facts. I try to resemble the democratic base as much as possible. https://twitter.com/Caitlyn_Jenner/status/834935434144731136Sidenote : Caitlyn Jenner is begging Trump to overturn his overturning of protections for Trans students. We haven't really talked about any of that situation in this thread, which is a little surprising given how much press it gets. Personally, I think it's definitely over-covered because it's such a small % of the population. I agree with the principle, but I don't really actually care.
As a reality TV star, she certainly has a connection to our commander in chief.
|
I found this humorous. Not really sure how this would even work.
One Republican Iowa State Senator is so sick of liberal professors brainwashing students at local universities, he has a rather innovative approach to try to purge the school system of the overwhelming bias. State Sen. Mark Chelgren is proposing a bill that would impose an ideological litmus test of sorts, in which the university would keep tabs on individual professors’ party affiliation. He calls it an attempt to “balance” the political affiliations in faculty and staff at institutions of higher learning.
Here’s how it would basically work. The bill says:
“A person shall not be hired as a professor instructor member of the faculty at such an institution if the person’s political party affiliation on the date of hire would cause the percentage of the faculty belonging to one political party to exceed by ten percent the percentage of the faculty belonging to the other political party.”
Each year the state commissioner of elections would provide “free of charge” voter registration records for employees at each public university. The bill would prohibit universities from hiring professors that exceed the party affiliation limitations. The bill would allow teachers to register as “no party” and they would not be counted in the overall total.
“We have an awful lot of taxpayer dollars that go to support these fine universities,” Chelgren said in a recent interview. “(Students) should be able to go to their professors, ask opinions, and they should know publicly whether that professor is a Republican or Democrat or no-party affiliation, and therefore they can expect their answers to be given in as honest a way possible. But they should have the ability to ask questions of professors of different political ideologies.”
One local blogger called the bill a “soviet-style” purge.
“The most disturbing aspect of Chelgren’s legislation, however, is that it is outright fascist. Republicans haven’t even spent two full months in power at the Iowa Statehouse and they’re already trying to impose a one-party rule in the state in perpetuity. You’re a registered Democrat? You’re banned from getting a job,” said Pat Rynard with the Iowa Starting Line.
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/new-state-bill-would-purge-universities-of-liberal-professors/
|
On February 24 2017 12:11 Nevuk wrote:
If Tom Perez becomes DNC chair, I will be convinced that the democrats are trying to run Hillary in 2020.
What, specifically, do you not like about Tom Perez' record?
|
I wish legislators who submit dumb bills could be automatically fired. especially ones that submit blatantly unconstitutional bills (not that is in that category, but sometimes such bills are).
|
whoever wins DNC chair I'm going to give them a chance. Hopefully they empower local grassroots organizations.
|
On February 24 2017 12:25 Nevuk wrote:I found this humorous. Not really sure how this would even work. Show nested quote +One Republican Iowa State Senator is so sick of liberal professors brainwashing students at local universities, he has a rather innovative approach to try to purge the school system of the overwhelming bias. State Sen. Mark Chelgren is proposing a bill that would impose an ideological litmus test of sorts, in which the university would keep tabs on individual professors’ party affiliation. He calls it an attempt to “balance” the political affiliations in faculty and staff at institutions of higher learning.
Here’s how it would basically work. The bill says:
“A person shall not be hired as a professor instructor member of the faculty at such an institution if the person’s political party affiliation on the date of hire would cause the percentage of the faculty belonging to one political party to exceed by ten percent the percentage of the faculty belonging to the other political party.”
Each year the state commissioner of elections would provide “free of charge” voter registration records for employees at each public university. The bill would prohibit universities from hiring professors that exceed the party affiliation limitations. The bill would allow teachers to register as “no party” and they would not be counted in the overall total.
“We have an awful lot of taxpayer dollars that go to support these fine universities,” Chelgren said in a recent interview. “(Students) should be able to go to their professors, ask opinions, and they should know publicly whether that professor is a Republican or Democrat or no-party affiliation, and therefore they can expect their answers to be given in as honest a way possible. But they should have the ability to ask questions of professors of different political ideologies.”
One local blogger called the bill a “soviet-style” purge.
“The most disturbing aspect of Chelgren’s legislation, however, is that it is outright fascist. Republicans haven’t even spent two full months in power at the Iowa Statehouse and they’re already trying to impose a one-party rule in the state in perpetuity. You’re a registered Democrat? You’re banned from getting a job,” said Pat Rynard with the Iowa Starting Line.
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/new-state-bill-would-purge-universities-of-liberal-professors/
Is this actually a thing, or just random crap? Sounds too stupid to be true.
|
On February 24 2017 12:19 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 12:14 zlefin wrote:On February 24 2017 12:11 Nevuk wrote:
If Tom Perez becomes DNC chair, I will be convinced that the democrats are trying to run Hillary in 2020. that seems like an overwrought conclusion. My composition is 80% overwrought conclusions, 10% emotions, 7% first impressions, and 3% facts. I try to resemble the democratic base as much as possible. + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/Caitlyn_Jenner/status/834935434144731136 Sidenote : Caitlyn Jenner is begging Trump to overturn his overturning of protections for Trans students. We haven't really talked about any of that situation in this thread, which is a little surprising given how much press it gets. Personally, I think it's definitely over-covered because it's such a small % of the population. I agree with the principle, but I don't really actually care.
One bathroom, properly isolated stalls with all the necessary facilities and nobody has a reason to care.
On February 24 2017 12:27 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 12:11 Nevuk wrote:
If Tom Perez becomes DNC chair, I will be convinced that the democrats are trying to run Hillary in 2020. What, specifically, do you not like about Tom Perez' record?
I don't know about his record, but I don't see anything from him about making the democratic party a grassroots organization or refusing large donations that will excessively influence the messaging/policy/tone of the party.
|
On February 24 2017 12:24 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 12:19 Nevuk wrote:On February 24 2017 12:14 zlefin wrote:On February 24 2017 12:11 Nevuk wrote:
If Tom Perez becomes DNC chair, I will be convinced that the democrats are trying to run Hillary in 2020. that seems like an overwrought conclusion. My composition is 80% overwrought conclusions, 10% emotions, 7% first impressions, and 3% facts. I try to resemble the democratic base as much as possible. https://twitter.com/Caitlyn_Jenner/status/834935434144731136Sidenote : Caitlyn Jenner is begging Trump to overturn his overturning of protections for Trans students. We haven't really talked about any of that situation in this thread, which is a little surprising given how much press it gets. Personally, I think it's definitely over-covered because it's such a small % of the population. I agree with the principle, but I don't really actually care. As a reality TV star, she certainly has a connection to our commander in chief.
She certainly does in South Park
But then again, it's technically not exactly Trump who became president in South Park
|
A White House adviser made an angry phone call and threatened a lawsuit over a critic's tweets about him, Newsweek reported Thursday.
The Newsweek story includes a recording of the lengthy phone call Gorka made after counterterrorism expert Michael S. Smith II questioned Gorka's qualifications to be a national security adviser.
Gorka, whose experience and views on Islam have come under recent fire, phoned Smith Tuesday, asking to know “why this vitriol” was coming from him.
Gorka repeatedly expressed confusion as to why Smith would attack him, emphasizing the fact that they have never met in person.
The Hill
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
