Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House The Trump Presidency

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 2287 of 4573 (837453)
08-01-2018 5:36 PM


Invisible planes and ID requirements for buying milk
In case you weren't already worried about the mental capacity of the person leading the US . . .
Apparently, Trump thinks the F-35 fighter jet is literally invisible.
Trump seems to think F-35 is literally invisible in flight | Ars Technica
Trump also thinks that you need an ID to buy groceries:
Trump claims you need ID to buy groceries. You do not. | CNN Politics

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(4)
Message 2304 of 4573 (837474)
08-02-2018 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 2291 by marc9000
08-01-2018 9:14 PM


Re: .50 Cal Jesus Kills for your Sins
marc9000 writes:
In short, I hope every leftist keeps claiming that there is no desire for illegals to vote, and that the mainstream media isn't biased. And we'll see how the elections go this November.
The purpose of voter ID laws is not to keep illegals from voting, but to keep American citizens from voting. Specifically, to keep minority citizens from voting.
I am also on record as saying some of the media is very biased. Fox News is a perfect example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2291 by marc9000, posted 08-01-2018 9:14 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2353 by marc9000, posted 08-05-2018 4:53 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 2311 of 4573 (837488)
08-03-2018 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 2310 by Percy
08-03-2018 3:21 PM


Re: Honest reporting from Fox News! Who woulda thought!
Percy writes:
Everyone's heard of Trump lap dog Sean Hannity, but probably few of Shep Smith, who has a 3 PM news show on Fox. In this video Smith debunks one Hannity claim after another.
I still can't figure out how Shep has survived at Fox News. A gay guy keeps his job while actually reporting facts now and then, and also calls people out when they pull conspiracy theories out of their ass. I guess they have to keep one semi-respectable journalist to at least keep up the appearance that they care about reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2310 by Percy, posted 08-03-2018 3:21 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2312 by NoNukes, posted 08-03-2018 4:35 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(4)
Message 2369 of 4573 (837618)
08-06-2018 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 2314 by Hyroglyphx
08-03-2018 5:20 PM


Re: .50 Cal Jesus Kills for your Sins
Hyroglyphx writes:
Agreed. It's not the illegal immigrants that's the problem, it's the people [let's be honest, Democrats] who use it as a tactic to gain more votes than is allowable.
"The Brennan Center’s seminal report on this issue, The Truth About Voter Fraud, found that most reported incidents of voter fraud are actually traceable to other sources, such as clerical errors or bad data matching practices. The report reviewed elections that had been meticulously studied for voter fraud, and found incident rates between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent. Given this tiny incident rate for voter impersonation fraud, it is more likely, the report noted, that an American will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls."
Debunking the Voter Fraud Myth | Brennan Center for Justice
How is that a problem?
Yeah, we've heard that nonsense before... that it affects poor people, that it affects blacks, it affects immigrants, etc... There is nothing factual about that at all.
The US Supreme Court concluded just the opposite of what you did:
"In May of last year the Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s ruling that struck down the North Carolina’s voter ID law as an unconstitutional effort to target African-Americans with almost surgical precision."
https://www.newsobserver.com/.../op-ed/article214681510.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2314 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-03-2018 5:20 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 2399 of 4573 (838067)
08-13-2018 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 2398 by PaulK
08-13-2018 1:05 PM


Re: Dave Frum on Dinesh D’Souza and the decline of conservatism
PaulK writes:
And I think Frum may even be understating the problems.
The Republican Party has become little more than a group people who want to troll Democrats. They may as well rename it the Limbaugh Party.
Saw this cartoon and had to add it in an edit:
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2398 by PaulK, posted 08-13-2018 1:05 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 2409 of 4573 (838184)
08-15-2018 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 2408 by Chiroptera
08-15-2018 9:31 AM


Re: The Omarosa Thing
Chiroptera writes:
So Trump has himself made and made use of secret recordings of conversations and phone calls.
That reminds me of another US President:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2408 by Chiroptera, posted 08-15-2018 9:31 AM Chiroptera has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 2411 of 4573 (838186)
08-15-2018 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 2410 by NoNukes
08-15-2018 1:09 PM


Re: The Omarosa Thing
NoNukes writes:
Conway spoke about them a few days ago and made the outlandish claim that every employer requires similar agreements.
To be honest, I don't see anything wrong with those NDA's. When you are working in public relations it makes sense that part of your job requirement is to not disparage your client. If one of Obama's aides had been saying disparaging things about Obama, or leaking stories which made Obama look bad, it wouldn't have surprised me if they were fired. When you sign up for a political job you are signing up for a public relations job, by default.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2410 by NoNukes, posted 08-15-2018 1:09 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2412 by PaulK, posted 08-15-2018 1:19 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 2415 by NoNukes, posted 08-15-2018 1:58 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 2416 of 4573 (838193)
08-15-2018 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 2415 by NoNukes
08-15-2018 1:58 PM


Re: The Omarosa Thing
NoNukes writes:
You are describing the state of things while you are on the job. Yes, you would be fired for disparaging your boss at that point. But these agreements purport to do much more than that, and extend, apparently forever.
I think those types of NDA's are legal in the private sector, but definitely not enforceable in the public sector (i.e. government workers). Omarosa worked for the US government during that time, so there is no way that is binding past her employment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2415 by NoNukes, posted 08-15-2018 1:58 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2417 by NoNukes, posted 08-15-2018 5:42 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 2418 of 4573 (838195)
08-15-2018 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 2417 by NoNukes
08-15-2018 5:42 PM


Re: The Omarosa Thing
NoNukes writes:
I don't think there is any distinction. An NDA would not prevent you from speaking about something illegal or from responding to a court order in any circumstance, but in circumstances where they are enforceable in the private sector, they are likely enforceable (using monetary penalties) in the public sector.
But NDAs that prevent you from speaking out well after employment are not common employment practice in the public sector. I agree that they are more common in some particular business sectors than others.
From my brief reading on the matter, there seems to be different rules for "trade secrets" and "normal confidential information". It can be legal to enforce a lifetime non-disclosure agreement on something like the formula for Coca-Cola, but you can't enforce an NDA lasting a lifetime on something like the CEO of Coca-Cola cheating on his wife. However, there can be a time limted NDA on normal confidential information, if I am reading things correctly.
There are also many cases backing the 1st amendment rights of former government employees which means former government employees can share normal confidential information. Obviously, this doesn't apply to classified information which would be equivalent to trade secrets in the private sector.
S
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2417 by NoNukes, posted 08-15-2018 5:42 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2420 by NoNukes, posted 08-15-2018 8:05 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 2493 of 4573 (839919)
09-18-2018 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 2488 by Phat
09-17-2018 2:12 PM


Re: Reflection
Phat writes:
He likely sees his heirs and the strongest of the blue collar base making it while the weaker liberals and socialists fall away. His American Dream is basically survival of the fittest.
I think you forget that parasitism is a viable evolutionary strategy. Trump more than likely sees blue collar workers as people he can steal resources from in order to gain what he wants. It becomes even more obvious after the election when massive tax cuts favor the wealthy but not the blue collar worker. Trump also wants to trash any protections that may be given to blue collar workers where health care is concerned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2488 by Phat, posted 09-17-2018 2:12 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(6)
Message 2535 of 4573 (841364)
10-11-2018 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 2530 by marc9000
10-09-2018 8:48 PM


Re: The Kavanaugh Nomination
marc9000 writes:
The camera was on him, it wasn't possible to see the expressions, or clearly hear, what these leaders reactions were. But Trump paused, and jokingly said "that's not the reaction I expected", or something similar, and a little ripple of laughter sounded throughout the room. Rational people like myself knew that they were amused by his off-the-cuff clowning around, knowing that he wasn't just robotically reading something, and that they were laughing WITH him, not AT him.
You need to watch it again. Trump made some outrageous claim, like "Our administration has done more than any previous administration" and the foreign leaders immediately started laughing. Trump wasn't clowning around, he was being serious. They laughed at him. After they laughed at him he then said "That's not the response I was expecting". Watch it.
Now, a few weeks later, we have a 53 year old dignified, well qualified man nominated for a very high position, that, with only a few exceptions, has in the past gone through an orderly, respected process to be confirmed to that position. But this time, the opposing political party dug up 36 year old dirt, unproven allegations, from when he was a school child, and this actually saw the light of day, including weeks of wasted time and money, from the U.S., a major player in world affairs, a country over $20 trillion in debt. with troops stationed around the world. And sets everything aside to squabble like school children over the actions of school children. To repeat what you said;
Two words for you. Merrick Garland.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2530 by marc9000, posted 10-09-2018 8:48 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2536 by dwise1, posted 10-11-2018 6:21 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 2538 by marc9000, posted 10-14-2018 4:19 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(4)
Message 2542 of 4573 (841584)
10-15-2018 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 2538 by marc9000
10-14-2018 4:19 PM


Re: The Kavanaugh Nomination
marc9000 writes:
It's been fairly customary in the past, for a new Supreme Court Justice to have views similar to the Justice he or she is replacing.
That's complete BS. This has never, ever been a tradition. The tradition is that the President appoints judges that have similar views to the President. Do you really think Trump would appoint a liberal if RBG retires? Do you think a Republican Senate would turn down a conservative to replace RBG? Seriously?
It's is hypocrisy in the extreme to chide Democrats because they asked for an investigation when Republicans refused to let Obama appoint Merrick Garland for absolutely no valid reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2538 by marc9000, posted 10-14-2018 4:19 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2546 by marc9000, posted 10-17-2018 8:20 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 2543 of 4573 (841585)
10-15-2018 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 2539 by marc9000
10-14-2018 4:23 PM


Re: The Kavanaugh Nomination
marc9000 writes:
Because McConnell knows that Democrats long ago quit nominating Justices that actually interpret the Constitution, they prefer those who consider the Constitution to have very broad principles and concepts, subject to the whims of today's Democrat party. (whoops, I mean today's Democratic party.)
Care to give an example?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2539 by marc9000, posted 10-14-2018 4:23 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2547 by marc9000, posted 10-17-2018 8:23 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 2549 of 4573 (841673)
10-18-2018 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 2548 by marc9000
10-17-2018 8:28 PM


Re: The Kavanaugh Nomination
marc9000 writes:
Seriously? Chiroptera sees differences in Kennedy's Supreme Court decisions versus Kavanaugh's Supreme Court decisions when Kavanaugh hasn't even been there long enough to make a Supreme Court decision yet? And they're both WHITE too!
What differences have you seen between Merrick Garland's Supreme Court decisions and Antonin Scalia's decisions? Remember, you are the one who said it was inappropriate to replace Scalia with Garland, so let's see those Garland SCOTUS decisions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2548 by marc9000, posted 10-17-2018 8:28 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2553 by marc9000, posted 10-18-2018 8:44 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 2550 of 4573 (841674)
10-18-2018 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 2547 by marc9000
10-17-2018 8:23 PM


Re: The Kavanaugh Nomination
marc9000 writes:
How about 4, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan.
I was asking for decisions based on "consider the Constitution to have very broad principles and concepts, subject to the whims of today's Democrat party". Can you name any such decisions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2547 by marc9000, posted 10-17-2018 8:23 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2551 by Percy, posted 10-18-2018 6:40 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 2554 by marc9000, posted 10-18-2018 8:49 PM Taq has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024