Donald John Trump

This is the Trump Presidency now. "Outright lies" are now called "Alternative facts."

 

The real crime is that all the attacks including "Trump's Con job enumerated" are ineptly written and boring.
Maybe it's true that American liberalism is a spent force, and conservatism is the new counter-culture.

 

OK...i'll even things up for the snowflakes-
How do you get a man to stop chewing his nails?- make him wear shoes...Men are stupid/ mean/horrible, OK...We all knew that already...My sisters must have brass balls, because they never cry over a stupid joke.

Not going to let the sharia bit slide...Are there any men/women here who would allow their daughters/sisters/ mothers etc, to marry a man who would insist they follow sharia?...anyone?...that's what i thought. All talk, but when this kind of shit eventually effects them, they complain loudest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

derr...Ban on sharia law -"A ban on sharia law is legislation that would ban the application or implementation of Islamic law (sharia) in courts in any jurisdiction. In the United States, as of 2014 seven states have "banned Sharia law", or passed some kind of ballot measure that "prohibits the states courts from considering foreign, international or religious law." These US states include North Carolina, Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota and Tennessee.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_on_sharia_law

i'm aspiring to graduate from idiot to savant...rich will always be an ass####.

 

Is intelligence learned or inherited...wish i was whip smart, but nooo.
So this fella said what i could not -
Tyler Durden -hehe- Zero Hedge Feb 10, 2017

"Leading-edge green, in the meantime, had taken to pursuing what looked like oppression anywhere it could find it, and with regard to virtually any minority. This goal is undoubtedly noble and very worthwhile, but it was taken—by a zealous and now dysfunctional green—to absurd extremes, in a way that its opponents derisively called “political correctness.” is has become such a hot-point button that the political divide has now become between those who see themselves as social justice advocates—pursuing oppression anywhere, looking for “triggers,” “micro-aggression,” and creating “safe spaces”—versus those who see themselves as against an out- of-control political correctness, and standing behind the First Amendment of free speech and against what they see as hyper-sensitive liberal do- gooders who are destroying the very capacity for the free pursuit of ideas and open knowledge."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-10/how-breakdown-liberal-ideology-created-trump-part-1

 

Poppy...both. Good post.

 

The British politician who branded Donald Trump ‘racist and sexist’ and said he should be banned from addressing the British parliament during his state visit this year is in danger of losing his job.

John Bercow, the Speaker of the House of Commons, has generated so much anger among some British politicians that he is in effect facing calls to quit after a Conservative MP, James Duddridge, tabled a parliamentary motion of no confidence in him.

Such a move against a sitting Speaker is rare in British politics but Duddrudge predicted Bercow could be “dead in the water” within days because so many MPs believe he overstepped the mark.

 

Democrats Are Losing Their War With Trump
Leaders in the Democratic Party probably should have thought twice before deciding to mount a scorched-earth campaign against President Trump. So far, they've failed to stop any of Trump's picks, or gain public support for their cause. They have, however, succeeded in making themselves look unhinged. [...]

They've also failed to convince a majority — or even a plurality — of the public to oppose any of Trump's executive orders, according to a Morning Consult/Politico poll, which asked about 11 of his most controversial ones.
In fact, the orders Democrats invested the most time and energy in attacking get the strongest public support.
This is a stunning failure on the part of Democrats to sway public opinion, despite having the full support of sign-wielding activists, several corporate executives, most celebrities and the entire mainstream press.
As for the press, their unrelenting campaign against Trump — and their determination to label just about everything he says as a lie — has backfired as well. [...]
Yes, Trump's approval ratings are low in most polls. But Trump has always been a polarizing figure, and his approval ratings were just as low when he was running for office as they are now. If the economy starts to noticeably improve, so will Trump's approval numbers.
What will Democrats do then?

 

Been attempted before and always fails. The bong-eyed fruitcake looneys hate him because he acts impartialy (as he should) and the haters believe anyone who does not agree with them is a left-wing commie agitator. Mr Speaker is safe.

 

As it should be. He's supposed to be neutral.

 

Meanwhile, the usual morons are behaving like they've actually been elected to speak on behalf of normal people-
"“We will resist. We are the majority. We are ready to make our voice heard.”
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/thousands-take-to-edinburgh-s-streets-in-donald-trump-protest-1-4363878

 

hmm...


His personal remarks using his public 'soap box' not an advantage given to him; but an advantage he has earned has allowed him to voice his opinions of a political matter.
He chose (probably most unwisely given his oath to neutrality) to use that soap box and speak his mind.
A dangerous thing in politics but speaking your mind worked for Donald Trump..
Let's not go witch hunting here.

However, you can't use somebody else to justify your actions.
So it doesn't matter if President Obama was right or wrong to advise Britain into remaining in the EU, that doesn't matter in regards to the Speaker; if breaking neutrality whilst representing a public political office that should be neutral, then that's down to these people; The Speaker and The President to make their own personal calls whether or not they feel their advice is right and if it's right to give it.
- Do they have the right? (perhaps not); but if they feel their speaking in the interest of Britain/the public; what can you do?
It's a minefield of friendly advise and liberties taken here.

This link/video is probably more for me than it is you (just to remind myself real quick of what he said)..
This is what happened:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9oH7z-GnCU

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0m7HgjNOlA

 

So.....the guy is standing up for what Is Good, and he is willing to put his job on the line.
Sounds like a real man to me.
People Also SWORE AN OATH to Hitler.
What is more important, the welfare of the bulk of society or an Oath To A False Cause.?

 

There is absolutely no chance The Speaker will be removed/reprimanded/punished or anything over his remarks. The whiney people can cry as much as they want but they are never going to be taken seriously. This is the reality and not the looney right-wing gutter press hysteria.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-parliaments-38929871


First there is no Commons majority to remove him. Support for the Speaker may be the love that dare not speak its name in the Conservative 1922 Committee, but there is a solid phalanx of Bercow-supporting Tories out there.
As one senior member of this elusive group put it, "with this Speaker, you have to take the rough with the smooth". They believe his failings are a price worth paying for a Speaker who they believe facilitates tough scrutiny of the government.
Second, the government has learned the lesson of its attempt to remove him on 26 March 2015, and doesn't want to place its dabs on the dagger this time.
And without a government whipping operation behind it, any direct attempt to topple the Speaker is doomed.
Third, MPs want to protect the Office. This is a more subtle point. If the Speaker is to be dethroned, his successor will feel vulnerable from day one. They will be less willing to offend, not just ministers, but pretty much anyone.
And that means the rights of individual MPs and backbench groupings like the pre-referendum Brexiteers to make life difficult, may be less diligently enforced. This argument convinces a lot of older hands who are not obvious Bercow backers on other grounds.

 

Well, that video is a real crime, I will give you that. Ineptly written and poorly edited- Conservatism is the "new" counter-culture? Really? I would have thought this schmuck would have heard of Nixon's "Silent Majority" or, more recently, the Tea Party...But, I guess he has not, or else he would not have made such an uneducated statement.

It was amusing how he picked on Hollywood "leftist celebrities", while spotlighting poor James Woods as the lone conservative martyr who "never expects to work again." Woods won't work again, because he is a flake - First, he endorsed Fiorina for President
http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/09/18/actor-james-woods-endorses-carly-fiorina/
Later, he endorsed Ted Cruz for President.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2015/11/24/actor-james-woods-endorses-conservative-stalwart-ted-cruz-for-president/
But, he never quite made the jump to endorse Trump for President.

Not to mention the video's author ignores the many "successful" Hollywood Republicans. Wonder why that is? Oh, yeah, the would not make good martyrs...

The right had been getting it's ass kicked in the culture wars for decades? Maybe in some alternative universe...But, not this one. The rube might try espousing this belief to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.

The rest of the remaining 6 minutes of the video is just more boring ramblings of "alternative facts."

 

My personal opinion is that this was far from "throwing away a vote". Not voting could be consider such but given the major alternatives is relatively understandable. What is really questionable is understanding that both of the major parties don't seem to care about the country or it's people and still supporting them by voting for one of their candidates. If one liked a candidate that's fine and if one hated a candidate so much you felt you had to vote for the other that's ok in some ways but rather indicates One may have missed something important.

The Constitution pretty much bans Sharia in courts even without such a system so the actions by the above legislatures are rather superfluous. That said there's a big difference between the imposition of Sharia law as a whole (and in particular the criminal parts of it) and agreeing to use parts of it as a framework for settling a domestic dispute. The former is completely unacceptable the latter should be permissible (although in many cases I would question at least one party's intelligence in agreeing to it).

 

I read that Trump was also planning to incorporate his wall around New Mexico as well. Can't get rid of the old Mexicans so he definitely ain't got time for new ones!

 

That sounds like something he'd do or at least say.

 

You would be surprised how many Americans actually think we still are part of Mexico and not an actual US State. The things you learn riding Amtrak......

 

As an update on this. Michigan went through a pretty through audit looking for such abuse. They did find a total of 31 people who voted twice (it's even possible that some of those were unintentional i.e. not fraud). See:
http://www.abc12.com/content/news/Early-and-often-31-people-likely-voted-twice-in-Michigan-413317683.html
That doesn't seem to fit the accepted definition of "rampant" to me.