Trump's Presidency: Is this the next domino to fall?

6,601 posts in this topic

7 minutes ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

Who said anything about legal or illegal here? From the perspective of Trump's supporters, crossing a border uninvited in a moral offense against them, a source of paralyzing fear; that's all that matters.

 

This line of discussion is unproductive. Americans cannot move forward on the concerns of the people who are morally and ethically the worst of us. We move forward by mobilizing the best of us.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, AlexTr said:

 

This line of discussion is unproductive. Americans cannot move forward on the concerns of the people who are morally and ethically the worst of us. We move forward by mobilizing the best of us.

 

Mobilizing is very good, the question is, whether the mobilization focuses on the underlying conflicts or on the symptoms of the conflict. One of the problems I have with the approach that many American liberals have taken is conflation of cause and effect and an excessive focus on superficial procedural conflict rather than the emotional and political/ideological underpinnings of the conflict.  Just like the refugee crisis in Europe, the US southern border is the type of conflict in which the reality of the situation defies any attempt at procedural fix or appeal to legal interpretation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Eupathic Impulse The mobilization focuses on getting the Fanta Menace out of the White House, your opinion of American civic culture aside. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

 One of the problems I have with the approach that many American liberals have taken is conflation of cause and effect and an excessive focus on superficial procedural conflict rather than the emotional and political/ideological underpinnings of the conflict.

 

There is indeed a lot of superficial chit chatting and point scoring going on. It is difficult to discern from either side an inclination to examine matters in a critical and emotionally insightful manner. A manner in which compromises need to be made and points conceded.

 

At what point did people stop listening to each other and start talking over each other instead? Do they not realise they have become the very thing the claim to despise?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're actually implying that both sides are bad? What an original concept! So insightful,

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AlexTr said:

@Eupathic Impulse The mobilization focuses on getting the Fanta Menace out of the White House, your opinion of American civic culture aside. 

1 hour ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

Mobilizing is very good, the question is, whether the mobilization focuses on the underlying conflicts or on the symptoms of the conflict. One of the problems I have with the approach that many American liberals have taken is conflation of cause and effect and an excessive focus on superficial procedural conflict rather than the emotional and political/ideological underpinnings of the conflict.  Just like the refugee crisis in Europe, the US southern border is the type of conflict in which the reality of the situation defies any attempt at procedural fix or appeal to legal interpretation.

Why isn´t anybody talking about the societies these poor refugees come from? It surely can´t only be about Trump? Who is causing this misery in El Salvador, Nicaragua and the rest of them in Central America? They have their own Trumps. And their own latifundarios and street gangs etc. It is not ONLY about the US.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, El Jeffo said:

So you're actually implying that both sides are bad?

 

Who is implying what exactly to whom? Which sides? You have lost me here.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, El Jeffo said:

So you're actually implying that both sides are bad?

 

You are not talking about refugees I guess?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, El Jeffo said:

So you're actually implying that both sides are bad? What an original concept! So insightful,

 

I thought s/he was implying that people should be morally required to negotiate with those that view them as non-human or as deserving of fewer rights. I thought it was just a really moronic thing to say.

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, john g. said:

Why isn´t anybody talking about the societies these poor refugees come from? It surely can´t only be about Trump? Who is causing this misery in El Salvador, Nicaragua and the rest of them in Central America? They have their own Trumps. And their own latifundarios and street gangs etc. It is not ONLY about the US.

 

You should open a thread for that and then read news coming out of the US. Tons of people are talking about it, but not on the "How do we get rid of this orange idiot" thread.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

Donald Trump has repeatedly struggled to explain why the number of jobs created during his presidency compared unfavourably with the new employment figures under Barack Obama.

Presented with a chart which depicted the unemployment rate from the peak of the recession, the president was asked to account for slower rate of job creation since he entered the White House.

In the interview on NBC’s Meet the Press – after Mr Trump had claimed his economy was “great” – Chuck Todd said: “Your economy is great. I’m not saying it’s not great.

“But this recovery started and in the 28 months that you’ve been president and the last 28 months of Obama’s presidency, he averaged more new jobs than your first 28.”....

 

 

the rest

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

Attorney George Conway lashed Republicans in a scathing op-ed published Saturday, warning them to hold Donald Trump to the same standards they applied to Bill Clinton and take a new rape accusation against the president seriously.

Conway, husband of White House senior adviser Kellyanne Conway, pointed to Republican furor after retired Arkansas nursing home operator Juanita Broaddrick accused Clinton of rape, which he denied. Trump, who has been accused of sexual misconduct by 23 women, seated Broaddrick in a front row during one of his 2016 campaign debates with Hillary Clinton.

The new accusation against Trump of rape in a Bergdorf dressing room was detailed in a New York magazine piece by renowned advice columnist E. Jean Carroll. That accusation “rests upon a significantly stronger foundation than Broaddrick’s,” Conway argues in his piece in The Washington Post

While Carroll went public with her accusation, Broaddrick denied for years — including under oath — reports that she had been sexually assaulted by Clinton, Conway notes.

Carroll’s account is also “supported by the sheer number of claims that have now surfaced against Trump ... [including] unwelcome or forcible sexual conduct or assault against them. These claims — all denied by the president — far outnumber the publicized sexual misconduct incidents that involved Clinton, which mostly concerned rumors or allegations of consensual affairs,” he writes. (Conway represented Paula Jones, who accused Clinton of sexual harassment.)

Conway says Carroll’s account of the alleged sexual assault is also supported by Trump’s “depraved” 2005 remarks on an “Access Hollywood” tape that surfaced during his 2016 campaign in which he boasts about how he treats women: “When you’re a star ... you can do anything ... grab them by the pussy.” He also preened that he “just starts kissing women ... I don’t even wait.” 

Conway writes: “Whatever else he may have done, Clinton never made a video like that. What Trump described on the video is exactly what Carroll says he did to her.”

Trump has insisted he has “never met this person in my life” — which Conway slammed as another “utterly brazen, easily disprovable Trumpian lie.” Carroll included a photo with her article of Trump with ex-wife Ivana apparently speaking to Carroll at a gala. 

Conway concluded: “Republicans or conservatives who promoted Broaddrick’s charges would be hypocritical if they fail to champion Carroll and condemn Trump.”

 

 

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fromm said:

You are a racist.

Who is a racist?

Leon G.?

EI?

Alex Tr?

Kommentarlos?

El Jeffo?

john g.?

Wulfrun?

fraufruit?

French bean?

 

All of us..I tell ye!!

:lol:

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, john g. said:

Who is a racist?

Leon G.?

EI?

Alex Tr?

Kommentarlos?

El Jeffo?

john g.?

Wulfrun?

fraufruit?

French bean?

 

All of us..I tell ye!!

:lol:

 

 

You left me off that list, is it coz I is black.  Dat's racist bro!  Big up Da Merthyr Massive innit. :ph34r:

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy to add you to the list, hoops!

:D

It´s all around us, innit?

I hope Fromm will respond soon!

Come on, Fromm! Who are you complaining about?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The love child of Skeletor and Barbie doesn't understand that she has violated the Hatch Act, a duly enacted law of the US. The ridiculous cow wants people to believe that people are mad because they are jealous.

Seriously.

 

Quote

The House Oversight and Reform Committee will vote this week on a subpoena to compel Conway to testify on the Office of Special Counsel's finding that she violated the law barring officials from weighing in on elections in their government capacity.

"You know what they’re mad about?" Conway said during an appearance on "Fox & Friends" on Monday. "They want to put a big roll of masking tape over my mouth because I helped as the campaign manager for the successful part of the campaign."

"I helped by being on television, by being on radio, I helped and they want to silence me now," she continued. "This is my First Amendment right, they want to chill free speech because they don’t know how to beat [Trump] at the ballot box."

Conway argued the law is unclear whether it applies to an assistant to the president; that she hasn't violated the statute; that Democrats are attempting to silence her right to free speech; and that a watchdog group responsible for numerous Hatch Act complaints is a "left-wing propaganda machine."

 

Crypt-keeper Barbie's husband can't get her out of this one.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2019, 9:42:33, Kommentarlos said:

 

There is indeed a lot of superficial chit chatting and point scoring going on. It is difficult to discern from either side an inclination to examine matters in a critical and emotionally insightful manner. A manner in which compromises need to be made and points conceded.

 

"Critical and emotionally insightful" commentary is well and good, but some compromises are demanded in bad faith. Emotionally insightful commentary may also imply rage and blame, at those who are blameworthy.

 

On 6/23/2019, 9:42:33, Kommentarlos said:

 

At what point did people stop listening to each other and start talking over each other instead? Do they not realise they have become the very thing the claim to despise?

 

Among the things I despise is the refusal to admit to the moral consequences of what appear superficially to be "common sense" and "pragmatic" positions. I know that building a better world will require overturning a lot of what exists presently, so I hope I am never one of those who deal in false equivalence.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now