Fuck me, GS makes my point with less words.
Fuck me, GS makes my point with less words.
Maybe not if you want to win (buy) votes though.
Tbh I agree, the issue is overregulation and taxation not tariffsOriginally Posted by GS
Yes, Hillary is a cunt too, we've established that. Fucking hell, you're like a child demanding he get the same toy as his friend.
It's not often that happens.
It's not, but this isn't a difficult issue. They're just shit and everybody sensible knows it.
This is like fans of those really shit clubs. Clubs so shit that everybody agrees with how shit they are apart from a vocal minority of brain-damaged fucks because this shit team is all they have.
I'm actually looking at Trump's wikipedia entry on his 2000 campaign. He won two primaries after he'd exited the race (!) and had Oprah Winfrey as his proposed VP. Fuck.
Conservative meme of the day:
Fuel for the fire.
Here's what he said about the two:Katy Tur @KatyTurNBC 25s25 seconds ago
Trump refuses to support Paul Ryan, John McCain in upcoming Republican primaries - The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...856_story.html
“I’ve never been there with John McCain because I’ve always felt that he should have done a much better job for the vets,” Trump continued. “He has not done a good job for the vets and I’ve always felt that he should have done a much better job for the vets. So I’ve always had a difficult time with John for that reason, because our vets are not being treated properly. They’re not being treated fairly.”That last bolded part is exactly what Ryan said leading up to him endorsing Trump. This is the pettiest shit I've ever seen. He has to be a Clinton plant.“I like Paul, but these are horrible times for our country,” Trump said. “We need very strong leadership. We need very, very strong leadership. And I’m just not quite there yet. I’m not quite there yet.”
I don't see how anyone sensible can continue to excuse his actions.
It's a perfectly fair position to say that you're supporting him because, say, you would prefer his Supreme Court nominations. Or because you just hate Hillary Clinton that much. But there's surely no way one can excuse his stupid policies, crass behaviour or self-evident extreme hubris.
Why isn't Trump allowed to treat other people how he's treated?
More fun details overlooked by the mainstream media, turns out our buddy Khizr Khan wrote extensively in favor of Sharia law, you know the one where women are 2nd class citizens, men can have 4 wives, homosexuals and adulterers should be executed, the punishment for robbery is amputation, etc:
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presid..._medium=social
This is the Democrats hero...could you imagine if a prominent speaker at the RNC had written an academic article condoning slavery because of the supremacy of the Bible over man-man law? The media is completely orchestrated, this is worse than the Soviet Union, because at least there people knew they weren't free.“The Shari’ah-was completed during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammed, in the Quran and Sunnah. This brings up an important fact which is generally overlooked, that the invariable and basic rules of Islamic Law are only those prescribed in the Shari’ah (Quran and Sunnah), which are few and limited,” Khan continues to write. “All other juridical works which have been written during more than thirteen centuries are very rich and indispensable, but they must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah and open to reconsideration by all Muslims.”
Because he's putting himself forward to be President of the United States and you can't have someone who feels the need to react every time someone baits him. It's fine if you're some TV celebrity with a questionable hair-do - it's quite another when you're the leader of the free world. It suggests he doesn't have the temperament.
On your second point, it's largely irrelevant in the context of what he said. You're just trying to excuse things which you know you should be condemning.
It's not so much excusing as much as exposing the hypocrisy of the media. It's just so exasperating / frustrating...people are being kept deliberately blind to the Truth...Trump is a poor candidate but these people are existential threats to democracy as we know it and literally destroying the country while they personally benefit...
Anyways, I just want my SCOTUS nominees man.
The media are shit, but the unfortunate truth here is that they're just reporting what Trump says. He's exposing himself, rather than it being any sort of media conspiracy. I grant you that they're getting stuck in with a certain glee, but that's hardly surprising given the long list of shit he's coming out with. He's complaining about the heat from the fire whilst he throws armfuls more kindling on every day.
That said, it's a perfectly valid position to want him to win for SCOTUS nominations. I can certainly understand it. But you know you're trying to condone shit that you wouldn't with anybody else. I assume you're trying to positively reinforce the idea, to yourself, that it would be alright to vote for him, even though he's an awful candidate because the direction of SCOTUS is more important in the long-run than what he does in office before he'd inevitably lose in four years.
That quote on John McCain's a fun one. Aside from having Oprah as his VP, his 2000 cabinet picks included the very sensible Colin Powell as Secretary of State and John McCain as Secretary of Defense.
That is a slanderous lie invented out of whole cloth by the right. Who apparently don't understand what a "research article" is. Quelle surprise.
He wrote an article explaining Islamic law in his capacity as an expert in international trade law. That's it.ThinkProgress says the article is “less of an article and more of a fever dream of conspiracies strung together,” but it barely qualifies as that. The entire cockamamie conspiracy theory is based on the fact that Khan, who is a specialist in international and trade law, published an article more than three decades ago in a major law journal explaining the structure of Islamic law, including its sources and historical development. And one of the people whose work he cites in that article, Said Ramadan of the Islamic Center of Geneva and also a well-known legal scholar, is allegedly a “major icon of the Muslim Brotherhood.” That’s it. From that, they actually imply that Capt. Humayun Khan was a “double agent for Al-Qaeda.”
Seriously. You'll believe anything.
Are you literally retarded? Read the quotes from the article, THERE ARE DIRECT QUOTES, no it's not a conspiracy, here are two particularly shocking ones:
"All juridical works...must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah and open to reconsideration by all Muslims.” And, "the Quran being the very word of God, it is the absolute authority from which springs the very conception of legality and every legal obligation."
What does that fucking sound like? He directly states that Sharia Law should supersede Man made law. You're a pathetic shill.
But The Truth!
Those are true statements about how Islamic law works from the perspective of within. They're not endorsements. I would say the same if I were describing Islamic law. Those are precepts of the system, and to understand how it works, you need to understand those foundations.
You do understand that research papers in international law journals typically aren't accepted if they're "iSlamic LaW is gr8 yo", right?
It is interesting to see the scattergun approach taken by Trump's band when some mud finally starts to stick, mind.
You do realize that I'm on a law journal? You write in an argumentative tone in 'research papers' and take a definitive position that you then defend. It's also published by the Law School of the University of Houston (LOL) hardly the most prestigious or legitimate source for international law articles; they would 100% publish a hip trendy pro Sharia-law article to show the world how open minded, tolerant and brave they are.
But please tell me more abut how law school works though.
Then you'll appreciate that this is a desperate attempt to discredit someone who has actually hit Trump's numbers and Republican support.
This paper was just a report on the basis and history of Islamic law in the context of international trade. I presume you have access to journal materials, so you can look at the article itself to see this context. It's not secret - I have institutional access to it, and I have to assume you do too. It's an incredibly dry article, largely about positioning Islamic law within historical context, and how that affects interactions at an international law level.
Mind you, Trump is so obviously in the wrong here that even his own side are hanging him out to dry.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/trum...n-controversy/
It's not working though. Republican politicians know that this one is toxic. They're not touching it, because they don't want to hit their election chances. McCain and Ryan have directly criticised his statements.Rob Wasinger, a onetime congressional candidate who has been working for the Trump camp on congressional outreach, sent an email to senior Senate aides saying, “We want to get several member statements out today on this, and would really appreciate your help.”
A similar appeal was made to Republicans in the House of Representatives, according to a senior aide.
LOL...you just cited Rawstory to prove a point...and I'm the one grasping for straws?
I don't have access to the article and commentary I'm seeing is in-line with my interpretation of the quotes provided in the Breitbart article.
Again...that's not how research articles work and regardless he's incontrovertibly incorporated in some overtly political statements about the supremacy of Shari'ah that are mainstream views among the Muslim community.
Harold vs Toby > Mert vs Ital
Mert definitely reached Harold status in this thread a long time ago. Why Ital (or anyone else) is giving his words any thought is sort of beyond me.
The Romney and Kasich strategists really are the best at this stuff. I don't think anyone hates Trump quite like they do.
https://mobile.twitter.com/stuartpst...28769471119360
Still waiting on you to contribute something substantive pussy, but I know delusionally condescending comments are safe so I doubt that'll be changing any time soon
I do know that they're a partisan source (not as openly willing to fabricate as Brietbart, but still). That's why I only pulled the direct quote, and omitted any editorialising. Feel free to interpret the quote differently. But it's hard to see it as anything other than the Trump camp looking for anyone at all to support them on this. And given the chilly response from members of the Senate and Congress on the matter, it got the reception it deserved.
How's the weight loss going?
The best bit is that if Trump just waited out a news cycle, the whole thing would have been gone. Throw out a couple of platitudes, support the troops, etc., nothing to see here. It's only his thin skin that forced him to respond at all in the first place.
It'll still be superseded by other topics as the race goes on, but it's quite telling.
What even started this whole Constitution waving dead muslim soldier thing?
Mert's played it about as well as the Donald by the looks of things. You can tell by the article's title it's going to be nothing more than a dry historical/functional narrative. Is it the era of clickbait which has lead to the proliferation of such wildly misleading headlines? Business Insider is one of the worst for it. You do have to wonder if anyone reads much beyond the headline and the first line of editorial these days. I can just see the gleeful intern charging into Donald's war room with this little gem.
There is a case to be made for bias in media coverage, but it's daft to try and manufacture outrage against individuals (in a perceived attempt to fight fire with fire).
Can only imagine what Trump would do with Supreme Court nominations. He'd probably put his daughter forward.
In other interesting U.S. Political news, the Kansas legislature that had been putting all those top, top GOP plans to work like getting rid of entitlements and welfare services and replacing it by cutting taxes on high level earners and businesses have just been ousted by... GOP moderates.
It's well worth a look at the state of Kansas at the moment, very interesting results.
Good ideas, implementation had to be much more gradual. I'm close friends with the son of somebody who's a big deal in Kansas politics...Kansas just needs a few years for the reforms to bare fruit there are already unprecedented shifts in investment / business expansion...but yeah it's pretty grim right about now.
Until he comes out and states that he hasn't actually said that, I'm going to believe it to be true.Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump. And three times [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked at one point if we had them why can't we use them.
Reddit said it better than I can: "All of the stupid, insensitive, neurotic, insane garbage he has spouted off with in the last couple of days is absolutely inconsequential in light of and compared to this. You have someone that wants to be president who legitimately doesn't understand why we cannot simply rain apocalyptic hellfire on people he doesn't like. This is unforgivable. It's insanity. Voting for trump is explicitly a vote against a stable global environment."
Eh, I've never taken anything to come out of Joe Scarbroughs mouth at face-value. Morning Joe was also one of the shows that gave him the air-time he needed to launch his campaign when no-one took him seriously and now The Donald slags them off as much as possible so I'd rather here it from this Foreign Policy Advisor (which will never, ever, ever, happen)
Like I said in the other thread. As the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki become historical paragraphs rather than remembered events, someone's eventually going to drop another one. It only takes one bad decision.
The use of nuclear weapons should be treated with such gravity that those comments (if he said them) alone should totally disqualify him from any right-thinking individual's voting list. And I would say that about any potential political leader, irrespective of their other political stances. They could be a progressive hero, but if they were to demonstrate a cavalier attitude towards nuclear weaponry, I couldn't in good conscience support them.
EDIT: One thing that does ring true is the idea that Trump would ask the same question three times in a single one hour briefing.
It's a good question. 'Consideration of the use of any weapon is always implicit in the very possession of that weapon', said the Truman White House.
When would you advocate their use, Ital?
It is America. The utterly egregious act of eating fried chicken with a knife and fork will do him in. Honestly, there shouldn't be debates. A Voight - Kampf test is all that is needed.
If anything, he is downplaying McCain in regards to veteran benefits.
He's not going to win anyway, but I suspect this week represents 'peak wanker'. There's no further depths for him to lower himself to, you'd expect.
Or pretending to eat it and getting it wrong.
Mark my words: he will win.
Most Americans no longer trust the mainstream media. This week has been a coordinated attack in response to the horror of Trump briefly dominating the polls. People are smarter than that.
Lol at thinking people are smart enough to not blindly take in the mainstream news but not smart enough to vote for a horrible cunt like Trump.
Have they just stopped trusting the media since yesterday when PEOPLE NEEDED TO WAKE UP, or is this just another example of you saying whatever suits the point you're making at the time, regardless of how many prior statements it contradicts?
Trump was exceptionally kind to have a go at the mother of a dead soldier on national television at the precise moment the media wanted to attack him.
I've just googled Trump nuclear unpredictability and got these:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ear-weapons-a/
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...m-muslim-world
http://time.com/4437089/donald-trump...weapons-nukes/
So, it's kind of a mixed bag. He sounds like he at least wants to threaten ISIS with one which, I'm sure you'll agree, will cause an everlasting negative legacy between the US and the Arab world.
https://twitter.com/noonanjo
There's a very good thread on there on the nuclear deterrent.
He's such good value.
He's being a bit dramatic, but the military would just ignore 'The Donald' if he rang them up wanting to flatten somewhere stupid for something stupid. What would he do, call them out on Twitter?
He'd be the commander in chief (fucking hell).
Imagine the constitutional crisis if the military refused to follow orders because they thought he was fucking bonkers.
Reply With Quote
