6 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Which American government in the past 40 years hasn't thrown support, investment, industries and jobs to that totalitarian government? If anything, I think that trend may be slowing. Better to watch what's done, than watch what's said. Shame on all Americans that support the most polluted nation on earth with no free press and limited personal liberties for the sake of enriching the 1%.

But it's the totalitarianism that Trump clearly approves of and envies.

9 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

that support the most polluted nation on earth with no free press and limited personal liberties for the sake of enriching the 1%.

I can think of another nation already heading down a similar path. 

9 hours ago, marginline said:

Thank you Benmart for writing what you did. Er...hello people; President Trump's comments were merely tongue in cheek - you do realise that right???

 

This comment came at a Trump fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago - where POTUS logged his 100th day of golfing - and was captured on tape. After hearing it, as with so many of his rambling thoughts, I was hard -pressed to tell if he was joking. There were people yelling, pre-punch-line, things like "Can we do that here", so it did resonate with the crowd who love Trump.

 

Now if he said the same thing at the Gridiron Dinner, I might think it was Stephen Miller's form of a joke? BTW, some of the jokes here were pretty funny (re: Jared and Sessions) although the one about who's leaving first: Stephen Miller or Melania was a dud.

13 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

But it's the totalitarianism that Trump clearly approves of and envies.

But the fact is he is not becoming a totalitarian and he's sanctioning the totalitarian regime for commodity dumping. Say vs. Do. All of that is not to say he won't change his mind next week.

9 hours ago, marginline said:

Thank you Benmart for writing what you did. Er...hello people; President Trump's comments were merely tongue in cheek - you do realise that right???

Many times, after Trump says something stupid or harmful, ....his aides whisper in his ear, "sir, you probably shouldn't have said that using those words"  

.....and Trump, like the dumbass child he is, pretends he was just kidding.

He did it when he did a 180 on criminalizing women who seek abortions.

He is doing it about "....AND MEXICO WILL PAY FOR IT, BELIEVE ME!"

He did it after saying repeatedly, "I would love to release my tax forms, believe me."

He's doing it now, "I would love to answer questions from Mueller, believe me."

 

He did it after throwing shit at Obama for 5 years about a birth certificate.

BTW, Trump said publicly he would give away 1 million dollars (to Bill Maher, or who?) if Obama released his long-form birth certificate.  Obama did.  Where's the $1 million Mr. Potty Mouth?

 

16 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

But the fact is he is not becoming a totalitarian and he's sanctioning the totalitarian regime for commodity dumping. Say vs. Do. All of that is not to say he won't change his mind next week.

 

Meh.

 

I doubt he'll ever "become anything" other than what he is currently, although he probably enjoyed totalitarian control of the Trump Organization, and assumed he could do the same as POTUS?

 

In the same speech, he did praise Xi.

 

And not sure what he's doing "sanctioning" anything? China's steel imports to the U.S. are barely a blip (2 %).

 

He needs the totalitarian regime to manage North Korea.

2 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Meh.

 

 

I'm gonna get out my glass cutter and frame that on the wall. Thanks!

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

But the fact is he is not becoming a totalitarian and he's sanctioning the totalitarian regime for commodity dumping. Say vs. Do. All of that is not to say he won't change his mind next week.

Really? Threatening political prosecutions against his political enemies? Publicly chastising the Dept. of Justice for its investigation? Firing Comey? Undermining the justice system is one of the first things that would-be dictators do. 

At this same event, Rudy Giuliani made a joke about Hilary Clinton that I guess didn't go over so well...

 

 

Rudy Giuliani Rose From His Coffin Just in Time to Make Fat Jokes About Hillary Clinton

 

On Friday, Mayor of 9/11 Rudy Giuliani alit from the stalactite he spends daylight wrapped around to attend a reception for President Trump’s donors at Mar-a-Lago. There, Axios reports, he was invited to speak onstage, during which he recalled attending Trump and First Lady Melania Trump’s 2005 wedding—a happy occasion indeed—and made the following very clever joke:

 

“Hillary was also there,” Giuliani said, per Axios. “And she actually fit through the door.”

 

Apparently Giuliani’s wife, Judith Giuliani, gave Giuliani a “most foul look,” while Trump reportedly joked, “I’m just glad I didn’t say it.”

 

https://theslot.jezebel.com/rudy-giuliani-rose-from-his-coffin-just-in-time-to-make-1823504644

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Really? Threatening political prosecutions against his political enemies? Publicly chastising the Dept. of Justice for its investigation? Firing Comey? Undermining the justice system is one of the first things that would-be dictators do. 

 

Oh, I smell a wager. So, you think Trump's going to become a dictator. How much do you believe that or is it, as you like to say, bloviating?

5 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Oh, I smell a wager. So, you think Trump's going to become a dictator. How much do you believe that or is it, as you like to say, bloviating?

He can do it while still observing the legalisms. For instance, he can continue not authorizing action to interfere with Russian attempts to undermine elections. And I"m not referring to their misinformation campaigns but actual attempts to gain access to the voting infrastructure. A decent President would see that as a major threat.

Edited March 5, 20188 yr by ilostmypassword

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

He can do it while still observing the legalism. For instance, he can continue not authorizing action to interfere with Russian attempts to undermine elections. And I"m not referring to their misinformation campaigns but actual attempts to gain access to the voting infrastructure. A decent President would see that as a major threat.

 

I remember Obama actually waiving provisions of Obamacare for employers, once it had already been signed into law. That's illegal of course. That's what dictatorial tendencies look like. But everyone liked Obama so it was no big deal. For those it may have been a big deal to, well, no one likes being called a racist.

 

Voting infrastructure exists at state and local levels. What state and local governments say they worry about is the federal intrusion from DHS' "critical infrastructure designation" that the Obama regime requested. Voting is pretty well de-centralized. I'm sure the states will get it sorted.

12 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

I remember Obama actually waiving provisions

 

Whataboutism.

 

Obama is not the President.

 

 

6 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Whataboutism.

 

Obama is not the President.

 

 

 

I was just giving some perspective as people on social media have only got about a 24 hour memory.  The pest guy I was responding to was talking about dictatorial tendencies by a president who he admitted was acting within the law. I was only pointing out that's not what a dictatorial tendency looks like, citing an example of such.

 

Hey, thanks for not going but, but, but. Or I'd have had to ignore you. That's my new policy.

Edited March 5, 20188 yr by lannarebirth

18 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I remember Obama actually waiving provisions of Obamacare for employers, once it had already been signed into law. That's illegal of course. That's what dictatorial tendencies look like. But everyone liked Obama so it was no big deal. For those it may have been a big deal to, well, no one likes being called a racist.

 

Voting infrastructure exists at state and local levels. What state and local governments say they worry about is the federal intrusion from DHS' "critical infrastructure designation" that the Obama regime requested. Voting is pretty well de-centralized. I'm sure the states will get it sorted.

Yes because the states are so well equipped to deal with the kind of high-level hacking that the Russians employ. And that's assuming that all states are actually opposed to Russian hacking. Given the gerrymandering and voting suppression tactics applied by some many Republican run states, that seems a dubious assumption.

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Yes because the states are so well equipped to deal with the kind of high-level hacking that the Russians employ. And that's assuming that all states are actually opposed to Russian hacking. Given the gerrymandering and voting suppression tactics applied by some many Republican run states, that seems a dubious assumption.

 

I believe states are responsible for holding federal elections. Article 1 in the Constitution I think.

 

https://www.npr.org/2017/04/05/522732036/state-and-local-officials-wary-of-federal-governments-election-security-efforts

23 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I remember Obama actually waiving provisions of Obamacare for employers, once it had already been signed into law. That's illegal of course. That's what dictatorial tendencies look like. But everyone liked Obama so it was no big deal. For those it may have been a big deal to, well, no one likes being called a racist.

"For those it may have been a big deal to, well, no one likes being called a racist."  I wonder if they like being called ignorant? I hope so. Because they are.

 

"In fact, applicable judicial precedent places such timing adjustments well within the Executive Branch's lawful discretion. To be sure, the federal Administrative Procedure Act authorizes federal courts to compel agencies to initiate statutorily required actions that have been "unreasonably delayed." But courts have found delays to be unreasonable only in rare cases where, unlike this one, inaction had lasted for several years, and the recalcitrant agency could offer neither a persuasive excuse nor a credible end to its dithering. "

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/delaying-parts-of-obamacare-blatantly-illegal-or-routine-adjustment/277873/

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

"For those it may have been a big deal to, well, no one likes being called a racist."  I wonder if they like being called ignorant? I hope so. Because they are.

 

"In fact, applicable judicial precedent places such timing adjustments well within the Executive Branch's lawful discretion. To be sure, the federal Administrative Procedure Act authorizes federal courts to compel agencies to initiate statutorily required actions that have been "unreasonably delayed." But courts have found delays to be unreasonable only in rare cases where, unlike this one, inaction had lasted for several years, and the recalcitrant agency could offer neither a persuasive excuse nor a credible end to its dithering. "

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/delaying-parts-of-obamacare-blatantly-illegal-or-routine-adjustment/277873/

 

Put me down for "blatantly illegal" along with everyone else who doesn't fall in the apologists's role.

Just now, lannarebirth said:

 

Put me down for "blatantly illegal" along with everyone else who doesn't fall in the apologists's role.

Well, it's you against a huge body of judicial decisions. 

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, it's you against a huge body of judicial decisions. 

Even the guy who introduced the Act to allow for it thought it was illegal.

 

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

4 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Even the guy who introduced the Act to allow for it thought it was illegal.

 

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

"Even the guy..? Really? Wasn't the guy a Republican who introduced the act precisely on the specious grounds that it couldn't be delayed without such an act?

"The announcement of the delay was met with criticism by some.^[2][4] House Majority Leader Eric Cantor argued that Congress would need to formally approve any delay.^[2] The Authority for Mandate Delay Act was introduced by Rep. Timothy Griffin (R-AR) on July 11, 2013 arguing that this would be required to authorize the delay."

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

And even if this guy sincerely favored Obamacare, who cares what he thought? Was he some kind of legal scholar?

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

"Even the guy..? Really? Wasn't the guy a Republican who introduced the act precisely on the specious grounds that it couldn't be delayed without such an act?

"The announcement of the delay was met with criticism by some.^[2][4] House Majority Leader Eric Cantor argued that Congress would need to formally approve any delay.^[2] The Authority for Mandate Delay Act was introduced by Rep. Timothy Griffin (R-AR) on July 11, 2013 arguing that this would be required to authorize the delay."

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

And even if this guy sincerely favored Obamacare, who cares what he thought? Was he some kind of legal scholar?

 

No, but the others in the link were. How'd they escape mention in your quoted text?

 

here's one:

 

Quote

 

Legal scholar and former federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Michael W. McConnell, wrote in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal that Obama's decision "raises grave concerns about his understanding of the role of the executive in our system of government."^[16] He noted that "Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution states that the president 'shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.' This is a duty, not a discretionary power."^[16] McConnell argued that President Obama had blatantly exceeded the limits of executive power in this decision and provided other examples of his behavior doing so in the past.^[16]

Critics from both political parties shared similar opinions to McConnell, arguing that this decision was evidence President Obama was only selectively enforcing the laws passed by Congress.^[2] Democratic Senator Tom Harkin was skeptical on this subject, asking "this was the law. How can they change the law?"^[12][17]

 

 

 

It was in the same link. Not sure how you missed it.

 

Just now, lannarebirth said:

 

No, but the others in the link were. How'd they escape mention in your quoted text?

 

here's one:

 

 

 

It was in the same link. Not sure how you missed it.

 

First of all, here's what you wrote:

 

"Even the guy who introduced the Act to allow for it thought it was illegal.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority_for_Mandate_Delay_Act"

You mentioned absolutely nothing else about anything in that article. It is obvious that I absolutely undermined whatever basis you thought you had for citing the guy who introduced that act.

10 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

First of all, here's what you wrote:

 

"Even the guy who introduced the Act to allow for it thought it was illegal.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority_for_Mandate_Delay_Act"

You mentioned absolutely nothing else about anything in that article. It is obvious that I absolutely undermined whatever basis you thought you had for citing the guy who introduced that act.

So why'd you erase it from the quote you're responding to?  You're still sore about the Keynes thing huh?

Anywho, I think I've wasted enough time with you today. 

Edited March 5, 20188 yr by lannarebirth

7 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

So why'd you erase it from the quote you're responding to?  You're still mad about the Keynes thing huh?

Anywho, I think I've wasted enough time with you today. 

Because I cut and pasted it instead of copying and pasting it. How petty can you be? Apparently, extremely. It would be one thing if I misrepresented what you said, but since it's quoted in its entirety, clearly you're just using this as a nonsensical excuse to leave the discussion.

17 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Because I cut and pasted it instead of copying and pasting it. How petty can you be? Apparently, extremely. It would be one thing if I misrepresented what you said, but since it's quoted in its entirety, clearly you're just using this as a nonsensical excuse to leave the discussion.

 

It's not a discussion, it never is. You never have anything to say yourself, only something to say about what others have to say. What's more, you're usually wrong because you resort to internet searches to throw some shit at the wall and see if it sticks, rather than having any personal knowledge of events you're talking about.  Hey, anybody can cherrypick shit off Google. I could be talking to a bot for all I know. Your addition to my ignore list is long overdue. You make number 5.

4 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

It's not a discussion, it never is. You never have anything to say yourself, only something to say about what others have to say. What's more, you're usually wrong because you resort to internet searches to throw some shit at the wall and see if it sticks, rather than having any personal knowledge of events you're talking about.  Hey, anybody can cherrypick shit off Google. I could be talking to a bot for all I know. Your addition to my ignore list is long overdue. You make number 5.

Unlike you, I don't put anyone on my ignore list. I'm not afraid of being questioned. Occasionally someone even shows me that I'm wrong. And you know what happens then? I admit it and usually thank them for the correction. Attitudes like yours are one of the reasons that fake news sources flourish.

On 05/03/2018 at 12:06 PM, ilostmypassword said:

Unlike you, I don't put anyone on my ignore list. I'm not afraid of being questioned. Occasionally someone even shows me that I'm wrong. And you know what happens then? I admit it and usually thank them for the correction. Attitudes like yours are one of the reasons that fake news sources flourish.

What a wonderful, refreshing attitude to life ilostmypassword! Thank you for sharing and isn't it sad when people can't listen to other people's views with empathy and objectivity. 

On 3/4/2018 at 10:16 AM, worgeordie said:

I think Trump would love to be a Dictator too.

regards Worgeordie

Indeed. I have been saying that for a long time. Also the Putin is fat man's boss. I have been accused on TV as not being in touch with reality. lol lol We'll see.

 

The current/temporary WH resident is only interested in acquiring more and more wealth. He cares not a/b America or Americans. He has absolutely no redeeming qualities. He is a disgrace to America and decency. 

On 3/4/2018 at 7:03 PM, Slip said:

What is the opposite of an exponential curve?  Under the idiot cheeto the U.S. is in freefall.  This is affecting all of us.  It's time he was arrested if that is what it takes.  Grow some balls America!!

This Fake and his corrupt congress has been undermining U.S. institutions since day 1. If "reds" are not voted out in Nov. America is doomed to being a banana republic. Fat ass would love nothing more than be in office for life.... just think how rich he would become; just like his boss in Russia.