-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 15, 2021, 12:47:05 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: peteramescarlin.com
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Politics: 2016 Lame Duck and 2017 New Administration
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 32   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Politics: 2016 Lame Duck and 2017 New Administration  (Read 161395 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8316



View Profile
« Reply #425 on: January 29, 2017, 07:50:03 AM »

Could you do a faux Filleplage post to make me believe in love again?
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #426 on: January 29, 2017, 07:51:34 AM »

I don't know what you're talking about.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8316



View Profile
« Reply #427 on: January 29, 2017, 08:03:18 AM »

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24600.msg597293.html#msg597293          Wink
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #428 on: January 29, 2017, 08:14:02 AM »

Still no idea. That was just me posting in my usual, inimitable style, making the kind of logically sound points I always make.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8316



View Profile
« Reply #429 on: January 29, 2017, 08:21:00 AM »

Fair enough, just reading your usual banter with her on the other board made my week.
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #430 on: January 29, 2017, 11:04:22 AM »

I don't want to be dual-posting everything, but I did post this at psf and want to do so here, too. Some might be interested.
...

Speaking of executive orders, by the way, with our new administration in place the data can be collected and reported on the previous one: Pres. Obama executed the fewest executive orders per year of any president since Pres. Cleveland. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/23/obama-executive-orders/

Obviously substance and quantity are two different things, however, which I grant. Anyone interested in actually learning as opposed to taking their preferred media source's word for it can pretty easily dig in: www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html

Pres. Trump, despite his own and his party's incessant rallying against the idea, has broken Obama's record for executive actions (EOs and Presidential Memoranda) in his first week, and I think any fair observer would agree they have been at least as substantive, if not more so. (Note that while the story used as a source here says he didn't release anything about ethics, he shortly thereafter did. It adds to the time former administration officials must sit before going into lobbying; however, it removes the time former lobbyists must wait before going to work for the agencies they lobbied. Cute.) www.npr.org/2017/01/28/512055554/trump-signs-a-record-number-of-executive-actions-but-nothing-about-ethics
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
alf wiedersehen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2178


View Profile
« Reply #431 on: January 30, 2017, 09:35:41 PM »

I took yesterday off.

But today.... seriously
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #432 on: January 31, 2017, 05:12:10 AM »

Silence in this thread - what's there to say? We're going to have a constitutional crisis along here somewhere and it looks like a significant percentage will be on the side of Trump over everything that we claim to stand for as a country - even everything they have always claimed we stand for as a country. All the people who tell themselves they would have done differently than those who supported or turned a blind eye to slavery, genocide, fascism, internment, McCarthyism, etc. - now's the test - or have we already had it?
Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8316



View Profile
« Reply #433 on: January 31, 2017, 05:32:20 AM »

Steve Bannon is running the country........ Angry
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #434 on: January 31, 2017, 05:55:56 AM »

Silence in this thread - what's there to say? We're going to have a constitutional crisis along here somewhere and it looks like a significant percentage will be on the side of Trump over everything that we claim to stand for as a country - even everything they have always claimed we stand for as a country. All the people who tell themselves they would have done differently than those who supported or turned a blind eye to slavery, genocide, fascism, internment, McCarthyism, etc. - now's the test - or have we already had it?

Yeah, what can be said? It's time to organize and quickly. I am attending a peacefully rally today in protest of the ban and to show empathy for the people who lost their lives in Quebec as a result of all this hateful rhetoric that is so dominant right now. Every single person who is opposed to this President and I would guess it's the majority of the US need to make themselves visible and need to make themselves heard - as peacefully and as coherently and as organized and unified as possible.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #435 on: January 31, 2017, 06:03:27 AM »

Oh, what’s the big deal? So the president ordered a possibly illegal, obviously immoral, and certainly ineffective solution to a problem that doesn’t exist, not only affecting the administration-counted 100ish people it meant to affect, but, oh, thousands of people as they try to go about their businesses and lives, just so he can score political points with people too dumb to understand that even if the “solution” works perfectly, it doesn’t actually do anything to address the problem that does exist.
 
Is it legal? I don’t know. I am not an attorney. Obviously some highly qualified attorneys think it is not, such as the recently fired Ms. Yates and those who filed suit. Obviously some think it may not be, such as the judge in New York who issued the stay. And obviously some think it is legal. This is one reason why we don’t dump such massive changes without “extreme vetting,” to use a phrase the guy in office likes to use. We seek counsel. (He obviously failed to go through Justice.) I know that the guy in office talked about how neato it would be for him to have secrets and then just act—BLAMMO!—but that is, like most of what comes out of his mouth, stupid for the most powerful nation on earth to do. We have citizens, businesses, allies, enemies. Instability is not good.
 
Is it moral? No. Banning—even temporarily—people who otherwise qualify to enter this country because the countries from which they come are predominantly populated by people whose religion is also used by some people—usually from OTHER COUNTRIES, and most often THIS COUNTRY (you orange f*ckwit)—who have committed terrorism in the U.S.? And especially banning refugees, people fleeing abhorrent conditions in their native countries that in many cases we caused or contributed to? Absolutely not. We should be ashamed of ourselves. And we’re causing more instability. Instability is not good.
 
Is it effective? No. First of all, there is vetting for people coming from these places. One could call it “extreme vetting” if one were an orangeish moron. It’s there already. Is it effective? Well, let’s see, so far zero people from these places have gotten through it and committed terror here, so I guess so far, it is. It won’t be perfect because committing these crimes is easy to do, regardless of vetting. People lie. People change over time. Such is life. But for the most part, our vetting has worked. This policy, however, will not actually stop terrorism. Homegrown terrorists—you know, the kind that exist in America in real life!?—aren’t affected by this. And what’s obvious, was predictable, and is already happening, is that actual overseas terrorists are using this as propaganda. Ta-da!
 
A problem that doesn’t exist? That phrase might have raised eyebrows. But I’m not saying terrorism doesn’t exist, or that Islamic terrorism (or whatever phrase anyone, including GOPers or conservatives prefer to use) doesn’t exist. Duh. But we have not had refugees or immigrants from the banned countries committing terrorism in the U.S. under existing policy. This is a flashy solution to a problem that isn’t there, executed to look tough and come through on a moronic campaign promise. Conversely, by the way, the countries that have exported terrorists who committed acts here? Y’know, the little, under-the-radar things like (oh, what was it called?) 9/11? Y’know, Saudi Arabia? Oh, not on the list. Or what’s that country that obviously was sheltering Bin Laden? Oh yeah, Pakistan. Oh, not on the list. Neat. Good job, Donnie, ya got ‘em!
 
You’ll have to excuse me not going into more details on certain things that, contrary to reasonably good writing style, will be in my summary anyway. But I do have a job (and a meeting in 6 minutes as I type this), so…
 
Exporters of terror will still export terror, in many cases (e.g. the countries just named) without any new controls. Some of those on the list might still export terror because it’s impossible to prevent terror without changing minds, and the vast majority of domestic terror isn’t coming from overseas. And we are bungling into new, blunt, ill-conceived, laughably executed orders that disrupt Americans’ and international people’s personal lives, American and international businesses, and international relationships with allies and enemies alike, the negative weight of which is entirely on the backs of the innocent, all so our new president can convince himself and maybe some of the more gullible or inattentive Americans who support him that he’s tough, that he’s a man of action, that he’s strong. Counsel clearly will not be sought. Dissent clearly will not be tolerated.
 
In short: immoral, questionably legal, certainly ineffective order whose execution was either bungled or misconceived (or both).
 
He isn’t Hitler. But he doesn’t have to be Hitler to be terrible. There are degrees of terrible, and “not being Hitler” is hardly a compliment. He’s a terrible, terrible president—and he’s only been at it for a week and a half. And worse, he’s a terrible, terrible human being … he’s been that for seven decades, and yet he was elected. I’ve never been so embarrassed as an American. The only real solace is the knowledge that most people in the world understand that most people in America did not vote for him and do not support him.
 
(I’m now officially in my meeting. Luckily it’s a call and the phone is on mute. Apologies for the hasty, sloppy conclusion.)
 
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #436 on: January 31, 2017, 06:17:17 AM »

Naomi Klein made the strong point that about half of Trump's campaign focused on bringing jobs and prosperity back to the American people and getting the US away from the domination of major financial institutions, while the other half focused on whipping up hysteria against women, minorities, and immigrants. Since he has already made it perfectly clear that he has no intention of bringing jobs and prosperity back to the American people, he has to mask that and distract the population who had been won over by that message by ramping up the only thing he has left: hatred against women, minorities, and immigrants.
Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8316



View Profile
« Reply #437 on: January 31, 2017, 06:30:29 AM »

Great to hear CSM is rallying today!

Going to eat lunch with Addsome at Frans?
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #438 on: January 31, 2017, 06:36:01 AM »

Great to hear CSM is rallying today!

Going to eat lunch with Addsome at Frans?

Haha. Would love to! Unfortunately there are no Frans where I am living at the moment.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #439 on: January 31, 2017, 02:44:19 PM »

Oh, what’s the big deal? So the president ordered a possibly illegal, obviously immoral, and certainly ineffective solution to a problem that doesn’t exist, not only affecting the administration-counted 100ish people it meant to affect, but, oh, thousands of people as they try to go about their businesses and lives, just so he can score political points with people too dumb to understand that even if the “solution” works perfectly, it doesn’t actually do anything to address the problem that does exist.
 
Is it legal? I don’t know. I am not an attorney. Obviously some highly qualified attorneys think it is not, such as the recently fired Ms. Yates and those who filed suit. Obviously some think it may not be, such as the judge in New York who issued the stay. And obviously some think it is legal. This is one reason why we don’t dump such massive changes without “extreme vetting,” to use a phrase the guy in office likes to use. We seek counsel. (He obviously failed to go through Justice.) I know that the guy in office talked about how neato it would be for him to have secrets and then just act—BLAMMO!—but that is, like most of what comes out of his mouth, stupid for the most powerful nation on earth to do. We have citizens, businesses, allies, enemies. Instability is not good.
 
Is it moral? No. Banning—even temporarily—people who otherwise qualify to enter this country because the countries from which they come are predominantly populated by people whose religion is also used by some people—usually from OTHER COUNTRIES, and most often THIS COUNTRY (you orange f*ckwit)—who have committed terrorism in the U.S.? And especially banning refugees, people fleeing abhorrent conditions in their native countries that in many cases we caused or contributed to? Absolutely not. We should be ashamed of ourselves. And we’re causing more instability. Instability is not good.
 
Is it effective? No. First of all, there is vetting for people coming from these places. One could call it “extreme vetting” if one were an orangeish moron. It’s there already. Is it effective? Well, let’s see, so far zero people from these places have gotten through it and committed terror here, so I guess so far, it is. It won’t be perfect because committing these crimes is easy to do, regardless of vetting. People lie. People change over time. Such is life. But for the most part, our vetting has worked. This policy, however, will not actually stop terrorism. Homegrown terrorists—you know, the kind that exist in America in real life!?—aren’t affected by this. And what’s obvious, was predictable, and is already happening, is that actual overseas terrorists are using this as propaganda. Ta-da!
 
A problem that doesn’t exist? That phrase might have raised eyebrows. But I’m not saying terrorism doesn’t exist, or that Islamic terrorism (or whatever phrase anyone, including GOPers or conservatives prefer to use) doesn’t exist. Duh. But we have not had refugees or immigrants from the banned countries committing terrorism in the U.S. under existing policy. This is a flashy solution to a problem that isn’t there, executed to look tough and come through on a moronic campaign promise. Conversely, by the way, the countries that have exported terrorists who committed acts here? Y’know, the little, under-the-radar things like (oh, what was it called?) 9/11? Y’know, Saudi Arabia? Oh, not on the list. Or what’s that country that obviously was sheltering Bin Laden? Oh yeah, Pakistan. Oh, not on the list. Neat. Good job, Donnie, ya got ‘em!
 
You’ll have to excuse me not going into more details on certain things that, contrary to reasonably good writing style, will be in my summary anyway. But I do have a job (and a meeting in 6 minutes as I type this), so…
 
Exporters of terror will still export terror, in many cases (e.g. the countries just named) without any new controls. Some of those on the list might still export terror because it’s impossible to prevent terror without changing minds, and the vast majority of domestic terror isn’t coming from overseas. And we are bungling into new, blunt, ill-conceived, laughably executed orders that disrupt Americans’ and international people’s personal lives, American and international businesses, and international relationships with allies and enemies alike, the negative weight of which is entirely on the backs of the innocent, all so our new president can convince himself and maybe some of the more gullible or inattentive Americans who support him that he’s tough, that he’s a man of action, that he’s strong. Counsel clearly will not be sought. Dissent clearly will not be tolerated.
 
In short: immoral, questionably legal, certainly ineffective order whose execution was either bungled or misconceived (or both).
 
He isn’t Hitler. But he doesn’t have to be Hitler to be terrible. There are degrees of terrible, and “not being Hitler” is hardly a compliment. He’s a terrible, terrible president—and he’s only been at it for a week and a half. And worse, he’s a terrible, terrible human being … he’s been that for seven decades, and yet he was elected. I’ve never been so embarrassed as an American. The only real solace is the knowledge that most people in the world understand that most people in America did not vote for him and do not support him.
 
(I’m now officially in my meeting. Luckily it’s a call and the phone is on mute. Apologies for the hasty, sloppy conclusion.)
 
All this, and more.  The ban is despicable but where the broader danger comes in is Trump throwing down the gauntlet to federal employees: 'me, and your job, or law - which is it?' This is where I'd expect the most right wing, the most conservative, the most ANYTHING that wants to bother to pretend to give a sh*t, excuse me, about the US, the world, ethics, anything, would draw the line.
Remember when Trump said the military would torture people at his command even if it's unconstitutional? This is the test. If the courts issued a stay, do we respect the stay? Trump has signaled 'no' - we do what Trump says regardless.
THIS is where the whole country is in the firing line.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2017, 02:48:43 PM by Emily » Logged
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11529


🍦🍦 fear2stop.bandcamp.com ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #440 on: January 31, 2017, 02:51:29 PM »

Steve Bannon is running the country........ Angry

Of course...Trump was a trojan horse, and will be nothing more than an offensive orange puppet. It's the guys pulling the strings that I'm deathly afraid of.
Logged

“Look, you’ve got it all wrong. You don’t need to follow me. You don’t need to follow anybody. You’ve got to think for yourselves. You’re all individuals.”
Crowd: “Yes, we’re all individuals!”
Individual: “I’m not!”

——————————————————————————
https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/C6fnbHnbhVmg8Tgj6
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8316



View Profile
« Reply #441 on: January 31, 2017, 03:08:31 PM »

My family loves Trump and Bannon.... Sad
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #442 on: January 31, 2017, 05:51:26 PM »

“A lot of people live better without having a job, than with having a job. I’ve had it where you have people and you want to hire them, but they can’t take the job for a period of nine months because they’re doing better now than they would with a job.”
“You know what solves it? When the economy crashes, when the country goes to total hell, and everything is a disaster, then you’ll have riots to go back to where we used to be, when we were great.”

Trump, Fox News interview, 2014.
Logged
18thofMay
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1433


Goin to the beach


View Profile
« Reply #443 on: January 31, 2017, 08:18:04 PM »

“A lot of people live better without having a job, than with having a job. I’ve had it where you have people and you want to hire them, but they can’t take the job for a period of nine months because they’re doing better now than they would with a job.”
“You know what solves it? When the economy crashes, when the country goes to total hell, and everything is a disaster, then you’ll have riots to go back to where we used to be, when we were great.”

Trump, Fox News interview, 2014.
This is end game stuff here!
Logged

It’s like he hired a fashion consultant and told her to make him look “punchable.”
Some Guy, 2012
"Donald Trump makes Mike Love look like an asshole"
Me ,2015.
alf wiedersehen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2178


View Profile
« Reply #444 on: January 31, 2017, 11:52:17 PM »

It's hard to imagine now that he at one point was almost coherent. 
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #445 on: February 01, 2017, 06:19:59 AM »

Approximately 1k State Dept officials have signed a dissent cable against Trump's immigration EO, "far more than any dissent cable in recent years" per NYT. Among the comments in the still-draft, still-circulating letter, are:

- will not make America safer
- lasting shame
- alienate allies
- hurt America economically

Then again, the press secretary said any dissenters should get with the program or leave. And clearly that's the healthiest way to run a country: do not seek the counsel of professionals or experts, but rather act on the impulses of a failed businessman and reality show host, and his tight circle of media-professional ideologues, and silence or punish those initially ignored professionals and experts for sharing the wisdom of their experience when it contradicts your rash, blunt actions.

America is so fucking great again!
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #446 on: February 01, 2017, 06:44:39 AM »

Meanwhile Nancy Pelosi was on CNN last night explaining that the Democratic party will not court left-wing populism as a strategy to counter right-wing populism. It truly is now up to genuine democracy (ie. activism) to counter these horrible policies since it is abundantly clear that the political system is established in a way that allows for them to be put into place. That has always been the case, but it is quite obvious now.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #447 on: February 01, 2017, 09:55:01 AM »

W Post printed an interesting op-ed from former AG William Barr arguing fthat Yates' instruction not to defend the immigration EO was inappropriate and that the president was right to fire her.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #448 on: February 01, 2017, 11:01:50 AM »

I don't disagree. I think it was right for her to resist on personal ethics, and right for her to be let go (given that my personal ethics agree with her and the REALLY right thing was for her not to be asked to argue for such a thing in the first place).
However, apparently several judges have disagreed with Barr re: the legality and have issued stays on aspects. It appears that Trump initially responded that DHS should continue enforcing despite the stays. This is aside from Yates, but more important. Ethical resistance and the consequences have been a well-discussed and accepted and legal aspect of our civic structure. The executive branch not obeying the orders of the judicial branch is a different matter.
Logged
alf wiedersehen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2178


View Profile
« Reply #449 on: February 01, 2017, 12:32:44 PM »

The Daily Donald:

everything is f***ed
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 32   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 1.153 seconds with 21 queries.