He would be able to fill the spot easily if he didn't keep vetoing people for having criticised him at any point in the past.
He would be able to fill the spot easily if he didn't keep vetoing people for having criticised him at any point in the past.
It sounds like a pretty nothing SCANDAL, and any half decent legal brain could surely claim that his previous answer was in reference to the campaign having Russian contact, rather than him doing his other job like he was doing. It only has legs if you happen to believe that Donald Trump is the Manchurian Candidate (lol by the way at Americans taking Louise Mensch seriously as an anti-Russian lunatic), in which case the blanks fill themselves in.
Brb doing my job as a senator
Brb this is somehow controversial because the Dems are a shambles
Like most of the Russian shit, it's probably nothing. But they've got to be pretty stupid not to be making sure they're 100% clean on this when they know that the Demmie-crats are trying to make a big deal out of it.
Al Franken's a senator?
I read the other day that of the something like seven hundred positions that require senate confirmation he hasn't even nominated anyone for six hundred and seventy.Originally Posted by Disco
Don't most presidents normally never full them all?
Full them?
The same article reckoned Obama had filled a hundred and odd by this point and nominated a load more who had yet to be confirmed.
My First Day At Army Camp
That's clearly the navy.
You're clearly the navy.
edit: Dang, 'Boat School' would have been a much better punchline as well.
He said that he didn't think those agencies needed those people. It's a deliberate move.
Zing.
The problem for the Republicans with Trump being so slow to fill those roles is that the process of approval will now stretch out for much longer, and mean that Congress has less time to legislate.
Probably a blessing for the rest of us, then.
An actual tweet from the President of the United States.
This was in the middle of the night. I'm assuming that he was intoxicated in some way.@realDonaldTrump 5h5 hours ago
How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!
It's based off some bullshit Breitbart article, apparently. Presidents can't order wiretaps, specifically because of Watergate. He's just a fucking moron
It took him three attempts to spell 'hereby'.
Yeah they (indirectly) can. Which it seems like Obama DID do (over Russian ties), although this was old news. Trump just going on the offensive because 4D chess.
He's signed another travel ban. I presume there will be comparable outrage and marches as last time. It's not as if these protestors have a finite amount of seethe to expend on the topic before needing to find something else to fume over instead.
You either want them to protest more or protest less?
It hardly matters, but they'll presumably convince themselves it does because of bollocks like "not in our name".
Not added Saudi Arabia to the list though. What a cuck.
Because it's self-indulgent bollocks.
She was trying to goad Mike Cernovich (probably the biggest pleb on the internet, for those who don't know) into a debate earlier, after Sam Harris lolled his debate challenges off of the Twitter. Love, just retire.
EDIT: lol he agreed to it. In person as well. That will be required viewing.
So you disagree with all forms of protest as a general principle?
Which is fine, of course. I'm just curious if that's actually your stance.
Hold on, didn't the original ban get overturned because of the outrage and protesting?
I'm not 100% certain that the judges would have overturned the decision if their wasn't such a public backlash.
(I could be wrong, of course, but to decry all protesting as a waste of time seems a little bit of a stretch).
Expecting people to suck it up when their government turns authoritarian is not fine.
By that I mean it's consistent. I disagree with it, but some people are honestly authoritarian in their political outlook.
His entire presidency is just going to be the old developer strategy. Threaten to build a 400-storey megaplex hotel and golf course on a nature reserve and demolish six orphanages to do so. Everyone gets outraged. Revise the plans so it's only a 200-storey hotel and you only have to demolish three orphanages. Everyone says hey, that's not so bad.
Not with all forms of protest. However, here there is a clear issue. Trump, cunt that he is, stood on a platform of massive increase in border security and implementation of extreme vetting. He won. He's now implementing that platform. You have checks and balances in the system. Your chance to register your discontent with that platform and "take a stand" was at the election. It is not taking to the streets after it because you didn't like the result. Nobody should be changing their mind on the merits of the argument because there's a few people down at the airport holding placards.
Similar logic applies to the pro Europe matches AFTER leave had won the referendum. They are self indulgent nonsense, in these instances.
Some protests are fine, but I would hazard that the fewer celebrities involved then the more likely it is to be actually worth listening to.
If it was suspended for any reason other than it didn't adhere to the constitution, the judge should be sacked. You can't have judicial activism operating in a partisan fashion - it's fucking daft.
1) You don't govern the 48% of people who voted for you. You govern the whole population. They're well within their rights to protest.
2) It was an illegal implementation so they were right to protest
3) He didn't run on a platform of 'extreme vetting', he ran on a platform of a completely unconstitutional Muslim ban (the language is still on the campaign website, feel free to take a read).
4) His extreme vetting doesn't address any countries that, ya know, produce terrorists. I'm pretty sure I remember a certain country having a large part to do with 9/11. Weird.
5) You would have definitely been a collaborator back in the day. 'Sorry lads, they occupied us fair and square, now get in the chamber'
I shouldn't engage, but whatever. The Muslim ban was 2015. He modified the rhetoric and plan during the campaign proper. This is what he articulated in the debates. Do I personally agree with it? No. However, those who voted for him would have a reasonable expectation that such policies, more hard-line than previous, would be implemented. Your opportunity to disagree with this approach was in the campaign.
You'll also find that I thought his policy stupid at the outset, but recognised he had a right to implement it. That's what democracy is. If it's unconstitutional, it will make its way through the court system to adjudication by the supreme court.
Right then. I found this darkly amusing:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...224-story.html
Paraphrased on Twitter by some wag:After struggling for years without insurance, the 55-year-old former small-business owner — who has battled diabetes, high blood pressure and two cancers — credits Obamacare with saving her life.
...
Watson also voted for Donald Trump, believing the businessman would bring change. She dismissed his campaign pledges to scrap the Affordable Care Act as bluster.
Adrian Bott
@Cavalorn
'I never thought leopards would eat MY face,' sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party
The right to disagree publicly (or privately, if you really believe what you wrote there) ends with the election result? That's pure authoritarianism.
So you're not allowed to voice your disagreement to any policy by any elected government? Sounds democratic.
There are checks and balances in the system to stop him doing anything unconstitutional. You can disagree with what he's doing. Fucking obviously. But organising mass protests against a democratic result is a complete waste of time, and it's self indulgent bollocks undertaken to make the individual feel better about themselves.The right to disagree publicly (or privately, if you really believe what you wrote there
Let's see how many of them are out pounding the street for the democratic candidate in 2020, or end up not bothering to vote.
There you have it. Nobody should express dissent outside of an election every four years, and the system is so perfect that it will automatically correct any abuses made by anyone who is elected.
Meanwhile, the "repeal and replace Obamacare" thing turns out to be not quite that. They're going to leave much of it in place, but just make it a bit worse.
Abuses can be corrected, but they won't be corrected by mass protest. The fetish that people of your political persuasion have for mass protest is bizarre.
In fairness I agree with what GS says about people making themselves feel better. I know a lot of people who go to protest and moan online but actually do fuck all in their day to day lives to make anyone's lives better, ever. They just shit about watching TV and playing on their X-Box.
I can't help but think that if they perhaps put a bit of effort in on a regular basis to contribute in some way towards helping out - in whatever way - they'd feel less of a sense of perennial, sub-level guilt that I think these kinds of things go a long way towards assuaging. They're often trying to show they give a fuck without any personal risk or exposure to something outside of their own comfort zone.
I might be influenced by the people I know in this respect, but there's a lot of that kind of hypocrisy out there.
There's a pretty big difference in letting Politicians know your'e unhappy with the society you live in and actively trying to do things to change that society. It's a bit like walking and running. But both are probably better than sitting still.
I work for an organisation that is helping to treat HIV across the world and volunteer at a soup kitchen for the homeless twice a month. Am I allowed to protest? Do you need to pass some sort of life test?
The world is shite, the system is fucked and we're the first generation in a century that are worse off economically than the previous. People should be protesting every day. Not once every 4-5 years.
You work in exchange for salary - let's not pretend it's altruism that's driving it.
On the latter point, I would have zero problem with you arguing a particular point to address the homeless issue. You give up your time for something worthwhile. That's commendable. However, you'd likely make more progress approaching and trying to work with elected municipal officials than getting tens of lads to parade along holding banners and calling them cunts for not fixing it already. Better yet, run for office yourself.
My flatmates are all into this 'social justice' shit which basically amounts to going on a march and posting shit on Facebook. Have they sought out jobs which contribute to anything positive whatsoever? No. Do they do anything with their spare time to contribute something? No. Do they donate to any charities? No. Do they fundraise at all? No. Do they volunteer? No.
But there they are, trying to look as though they care when basically, in their day to day lives, they do fuck all. Marches and posting shit online though is palatable to them because there is no personal risk of them doing something that'll take them out of their little bubble, and it is also easy to share those kinds of things with people on Facebook and shit like that and pretend that they give a shit.
They don't give a shit. Muggins here is counselling people who have been sexually abused as kids and every other shade of horrible imaginable and isn't allowed to tell anyone about it. That shit impacts my own mental health. They do fuck all in their lives and then go these marches as some kind of stupid fuckhead gesture to show they 'care', and reckon they're in a position to be getting righteous about apathy and social justice etc etc. Piss off. Go and do something with your actual lives if you want to care. Bubble-dwelling, armchair warrior arseholes.
I'm supposing he isn't getting paid for volunteering. I mean, if you are it's not exactly volunteering is it?
I'm not directing it at people on here, just people I know. I'm making the point that if people care, they should do something as part of their actual lives. Otherwise protesting is just an empty gesture.
For someone to piss their life away on escapist nonsense is about the biggest example of sitting on privilege going. A lot of people simply don't have that option. Which is fine if that's what people want to do, but to do exactly that and then at the same time get righteous about social justice etc grates me a fair bit. People should live their values, not talk about this shit in the abstract. I wouldn't even care either if they really were just completely apathetic - enough people are already. It's the self-righteousness of it and lack of self-awareness that pisses me off.
What a seethe.
It really is
The only true 'check and balance' in any system is that if you piss off enough people for a long enough time they will chop your head, literally or figuratively.
He also has a term limit.
Reply With Quote
