What amazes me still is the amount of male politicians in the EU and US who are very anti immigration actually have wives from other countries. Nearly as bad as that Katie Hopkins creature. She did one decent documentary tho I give her credit for that.
A lot of conservatives don't make the distinction between "good" immigration and "bad" immigration. Maybe most don't.
When the dear leader is giving his campaign rallies or another speech, he never says we need more immigration, does he? He never would say we need more skilled immigrants because our school systems (which he wants to cut) are falling behind to a lot of foreign countries. Nope, across the board it's immigrants bad, they're taking ur jobs, rapists, crime committers!
Also plenty of said people publicly decrying illegal immigration are benefitting indirectly or even directly through hired illegal immigrants.
I memorized Trump's vile bile he spewed out the day he announced his campaign. I will never forget it. "WHEN MEXICO SENDS ITS PEOPLE blah blah rapists. And some, I assume, are good people". Emphasis is mine. That is not "When illegals come in from Mexico". That is not even "When some people come from Mexico, they're criminals bringing more crime". That is him accusing Mexico, the government and the country of, of "dumping" their unwanted people in the U.S. Which he explicitly said, calling the U.S. a dumping ground for other nations' problems in the same speech.
Personally though, I'm enraged most by the last sentence. HE ISN'T SURE THERE'S ANY GOOD PEOPLE.
I love the political spin entirely self-contained in this article. 1. Breitbart's "fact" to check: Fact-Check: Donald Trump Did Not Call All Mexicans ‘Rapists’ and ‘Criminals’ 2. The origin of the issue: Virginia Senator Tim Kaine claimed that “As a candidate, [Donald Trump] started his campaign where he called Mexicans rapists and criminals.” 3. Breitbart's conclusion: Fact Check: FALSE. These words have never been uttered by either the Republican presidential nominee or vice presidential nominee.
Sure, he never said the word "ALL", but first and perhaps most importantly, NEITHER DID TIM KAINE. I checked the debate transcript just to be sure of his quote. So the fact check is already wrong because it's presenting the "fact" wrong. Second, in the context of the entire speech it is clear Trump is speaking of all or virtually all immigrants. Which is in further agreement with more of his speeches and positions with regard to immigration and trade in general.
When you say "some of them, I assume, are good people" you are using language to imply that the MAJORITY of them aren't. And again, as I've said before, the people who support Donald Trump cannot tell who is a illegal immigrant and who isn't by sight. So they have suspicion about EVERY person of Hispanic descent, even if they are a 100% legal citizen. More importantly, law enforcement can't tell either. So to round up illegal immigrants, it is inevitable they will also harass legal residents of the Hispanic community.
Don't ever forget the two main things Trump used to curry favor with Republican primary voters: #1 was a wholly racist conspiracy theory against the first African-American President that he pushed for half a decade with NO evidence, and #2 was tarring the Hispanic community of the United States as criminals and rapists. Anything else the man does for the rest of his life couldn't possibly make up for these heinous actions. And, for good measure, he's a serial sexual assaulter.
Speaking of sexual assault, it's looking like Bill O'Reilly is the next domino to fall over at the FOX News propoganda network, it's now being reported FOX has settled no less than FIVE sexual harassment cases involving him. Once again, someone who has any sense of what a monumental scumbag Bill O'Reilly is would not be shocked by this. But that's the world these guys like Trump, Ailes and O'Reilly live in. A Mad Men 1950s where women they work with and are surrounded with are sexual toys to be used how they see fit.
I normally wouldn't care except he's such a hypocrite for all the grief he gave to Obama who didn't golf nearly as much (first golf after 65 days) nor did he travel every weekend to a property he owns while making money by sticking taxpayers with the bill not to mention the additional security costs.
Trump is due to meet with the Egyptian President Al-Sidi.
This is one of the more significant events as it will be a fair repudiation of Obama/Hillary-era intervention that many Egyptians despised as they see Obama/America as meddling and installing the Muslim Brotherhood, to which the Egyptians themselves got Al-Sidi to oust.
Obama has never met with Al-Sidi after he became President, evidently they don't really like each other.
The popular uprising against the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt represents one of the most hopeful and promising developments in the Middle East since the Arab Spring began. When millions of Egyptians take to the streets to make clear that they do not want to trade a secular dictatorship for an Islamist dictatorship, that should be a positive development for America.
During the Egyptian revolution two years ago, the Obama administration alienated Egyptians by standing with Hosni Mubarak until it was clear that he was finished. Vice President Biden declared Mubarak was not a dictator. U.S. envoy Frank Wisner declared that Mubarak “must stay in office” to oversee democratic changes. Hillary Clinton endorsed a “transition process” that would have allowed Mubarak to remain in power for many months. Soon, The Post reported, protesters in Tahrir Square were “openly denouncing the United States for supporting President Hosni Mubarak.” Demonstrators carried signs that declared “Shame on you Obama!” and showed Mubarak depicted as President Obama in Obama’s iconic “hope” image — with a caption that read “No You Can’t.”
When Mubarak finally fell and Mohamed Morsi came into power, the Obama administration seamlessly got out of bed with one Egyptian pharaoh and into bed with another. Obama looked the other way as Morsi sidelined the judiciary, amassed authoritarian powers, sidled up to Iran and Hamas, prayed publicly for the destruction of the Jews and enforced Islamist dictats.
Egyptians did not look the other way, however. They wanted their elected leaders to focus on improving the country’s crumbling economy and creating jobs — not imposing Islamic law. As a result, the American Enterprise Institute’s Michael Rubin points out, Morsi “achieved in just one year what it took his predecessor, Hosni Mubarak, three decades to do: completely antagonize Egyptian society.” One recent poll showed that 73 percent of Egyptians believe Morsi did not make a single good decision in office — not one.
But when Egyptians finally rose up to demand Morsi’s ouster — protesting in even greater numbers than they did against Mubarak — U.S. ambassador Anne Patterson gave a public speech on June 18 opposing “street action” and worked to persuade various groups to stay out of the demonstrations. Once again, Egyptians believed that America was standing with their strongman. Once again, Tahrir Square was awash in anti-U.S. signs: “Obama and Patterson support terrorism” read one. Another said: “Wake Up America, Obama Backs Up a Fascist Regime in Egypt.” Another showed Patterson shaking hands with the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood with the caption: “We know what you did last summer.” In other words, Obama blew it a second time. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-obama-blew-it-in-egypt--again/2013/07/08/c0a394e8-e7c5-11e2-a301-ea5a8116d211_story.html
Yet another country that America meddled in with the only result being alot of dead people.
And again, as I've said before, the people who support Donald Trump cannot tell who is a illegal immigrant and who isn't by sight. So they have suspicion about EVERY person of Hispanic descent, even if they are a 100% legal citizen.
I completely disagree due to the increasing amount of Hispanics voting for Trump #hispanicsforTrump. Many legal Hispanics are sick and tired of their illegal brethren ruining the image of their race.
If you want to make such an overarching, anecdotally-subjective argument it would be much more plausible to say Trump supporters are instead suspicious of every Muslim regardless of if they are a terrorist or not.
And, for good measure, he's a serial sexual assaulter
...and what's the point of a court system if you consider people automatically guilty regardless of verdicts saying otherwise?
To my knowledge all the major sexual assault cases were thrown out of court (so not guilty). All the minor ones didn't even make it to court verdict and were settled for a paltry sum (so still not guilty).
Trump is due to meet with the Egyptian President Al-Sisi.
;-)
The Obama attitude towards Abdel Fattah el-Sisi is both amazing and outrageous.
On the one hand you have the former president, Mohammed Morsi, supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas terror organization is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Mohammed Morsi allowed open borders with Gaza, which freely allowed them to smuggle Rockets and Ammunition into Gaza through shipments from Iran->Sudan->Egypt), that has passed a new constitution which would give more power to the Sunni Islamist group, the Muslim Brotherhood.
On the other hand, you have el-Sisi, a Secular leader, which now fights ISIS branch in Sinai peninsula (their former name was "Ansar Beit el Makdis"), backed by Hamas from Gaza (surprise surprise).
Since el-Sisi took power, he banned the Muslim Brotherhood (which in turn made terrorist attacks against Egypt ), basically saving Egypt from becoming an Islamic Theocracy. He is fighting fundamental Islam groups in Sinai. Keeping the secular character of Egypt.
In turn, el-Sisi got cold shoulder from Obama, just because he was not democratically elected (In a country which is not built on democratic values anyway), but by a coup.
Due to that, el-SIsi got closer to Russia, and purchased recently 46 Mig-35 fighter-jets. For general knowledge, up until then the Egyptian army was built from American weaponry, such as M1A1 Abrams and F-16s.
Superb foreign policy and understanding of the middle east.
Yup. I don't blame them, I am a lawful evil person myself for an easy settlement dollar I would say Trump groped me
False sexual assault allegations are becoming ridiculous now days. I will defend almost ANY person accused of sexual assault with insufficient evidence. The worst example was Micheal Jackson, still accused to this day of sexual assault on children even though he was found innocent on all counts (with CCTV proof of the parents coercing their child into a false-assault narrative).
The Obama attitude towards Abdel Fattah el-Sisi is both amazing and outrageous.
Yep, Obama Administration helped the Muslim Brotherhood into power, pissed off the entire Egyptian people (Literally almost 80% wanted them out by surveys) and El-Sisi had to step in and remove the Muslim Brotherhood.
He now enjoys something like 78% support from Egyptians.
And despite the absolute mess and humanitarian crisis that the Obama administration helped cause, they did not even offer to meet with El-Sisi, give any real aid, and basically treat him as a pariah.
But hey Obama won the Nobel peace Prize so i guess that out-weigh's all that.
Yup. I don't blame them, I am a lawful evil person myself for an easy settlement dollar I would say Trump groped me
False sexual assault allegations are becoming ridiculous now days. I will defend almost ANY person accused of sexual assault with insufficient evidence. The worst example was Micheal Jackson, still accused to this day of sexual assault on children even though he was found innocent on all counts (with CCTV proof of the parents coercing their child into a false-assault narrative).
Show me one single solitary penny any of those 12 people got. And again, this ignores the fact that Trump himself described his modus operandi in regards to how he likes to go about it ON TAPE. One of these women was nearly as old now as Trump, because it goes back that far. What women who has already reached retirement age starts making up 30 year old stories about sexual assault??
BUT.....we live in America, and we operate under the Bill Cosby rule, where unless 30+ women accuse you of the exact same behavior, it doesn't stick. 12?? Pffft, that's nothing.
These women didn't know each other, did not coordinate or talk beforehand, and received no money. The chances all 12 of them are lying is nearly zero.
Gorsuch is due to be cleared by the Judiciary Committee this week, sending the vote to the floor of the Senate. Although many Democrats are vowing to vote against his confirmation (despite having voted to confirm him when he was appointed to his current bench), it is likely that Republicans will simply invoke "the nuclear option", a rule change which will force a cloture vote and thus allow confirmation by a simply majority. This precedent was already set back in November of 2013 when Democrats invoked the nuclear option to get many Obama appointees confirmed to their positions (even though such rule-changes have occurred in times past, the phrase "nuclear option" wasn't coined until 2003). As far as I can tell, though, such rule changes have never been used for a Supreme Court nominee so this will be a first, presuming it comes to that--some Democrats are likely to vote to confirm Gorsuch and it takes only 60 votes for normal confirmation.
If the GOP does change the rules to confirm Gorsuch it will bite them in the ass when they are thrown out of office in 2018 or 2020. Trump is an anchor on their popularity and they will be losing bigly while he's the face of their party and candidates can be tied to him. So yeah go for it.
Gorsuch is due to be cleared by the Judiciary Committee this week, sending the vote to the floor of the Senate. Although many Democrats are vowing to vote against his confirmation (despite having voted to confirm him when he was appointed to his current bench), it is likely that Republicans will simply invoke "the nuclear option", a rule change which will force a cloture vote and thus allow confirmation by a simply majority. This precedent was already set back in November of 2013 when Democrats invoked the nuclear option to get many Obama appointees confirmed to their positions (even though such rule-changes have occurred in times past, the phrase "nuclear option" wasn't coined until 2003). As far as I can tell, though, such rule changes have never been used for a Supreme Court nominee so this will be a first, presuming it comes to that--some Democrats are likely to vote to confirm Gorsuch and it takes only 60 votes for normal confirmation.
As I'll say everytime this pick comes up, I don't care if Trump had nominated the most liberal judge in the country. This is a stolen pick, and fire should be met with fire no matter what the eventual outcome is. This was, is, and forever will be Obama's pick. Any Democrat who votes for any Justice the entire Trump term not named Merrick Garland should be primaried. The Republicans committed an act of constitutional sabatoge to get this pick, and anything less than complete opposition from the Dems is nothing but capitulating weakness.
Also, the filibuster has become so widespread and the actions needed to take one so lax that people now THINK it requires 60 votes to pass something in the Senate. It doesn't. But staging a filibuster no longer requires the physical work of having to stand and wage one, so they are simply invoked automatically in many cases. In this case we are talking about pure laziness. The only time they ever get done the real way is for showmanship.
And despite the absolute mess and humanitarian crisis that the Obama administration helped cause, they did not even offer to meet with El-Sisi, give any real aid, and basically treat him as a pariah.
1. Obama didn't instigate the coup that put Sisi in power, nor did Obama put Morsi in power. The administration didn't like Morsi and they didn't like Sisi. One was an illiberal secular power and the other was an illiberal Islamic power. Neither of them was committed to liberal democracy. Neither of them was ever on our side. The military didn't just crack down on the Muslim Brotherhood; they started persecuting journalists as well.
People who persecute journalists are not the good guys.
2. Sisi took power in a military coup. It has been America's standard policy for decades to not recognize the legitimacy of military leaders who violently overthrow democratically elected governments. Obama was not supposed to give his blessing to the fall of democracy in Egypt. Morsi was an illiberal leader, but he came to power through a free election. It is American policy to recognize the legitimacy of democratic governments, not those who destroy them.
3. Nobody in the United States foresaw Sisi's rise. At the time, we didn't even know that Morsi was going to fall. For all we know, the coup in Egypt was just as doomed as the coup in Turkey.
Obama did not extend his support for the military government, but neither did he castigate it. The Obama administration refused to even call it what is was--a military coup. There are two alternatives to this policy:
1. Support Morsi. This would accomplish nothing; Morsi was already gone.
2. Praise the military overthrow of a democratically elected government, against American values.
Also, the filibuster has become so widespread and the actions needed to take one so lax that people now THINK it requires 60 votes to pass something in the Senate. It doesn't. But staging a filibuster no longer requires the physical work of having to stand and wage one, so they are simply invoked automatically in many cases. In this case we are talking about pure laziness. The only time they ever get done the real way is for showmanship.
Besides Trump should not get a supreme court pick while he's under investigation by the FBI during the last year of his term.
As for Mubarak, what was our alternative to "looking the other way?" Overthrowing him? Criticizing him, as if that would accomplish anything? Instead, America decided to stay out of it and let Egyptians decide the fate of their country.
Bear in mind that the alternative to non-intervention is intervention.
As I'll say everytime this pick comes up, I don't care if Trump had nominated the most liberal judge in the country. This is a stolen pick, and fire should be met with fire no matter what the eventual outcome is. This was, is, and forever will be Obama's pick. Any Democrat who votes for any Justice the entire Trump term not named Merrick Garland should be primaried. The Republicans committed an act of constitutional sabatoge to get this pick, and anything less than complete opposition from the Dems is nothing but capitulating weakness.
I have never disagreed with this sentiment--the Republicans in the Senate should have held confirmation hearings then a yea-or-nay vote on the floor rather than taking their marbles and going home (figuratively speaking) like cowards.
Besides Trump should not get a supreme court pick while he's under investigation by the FBI during the last year of his term.
Unfortunately, FBI investigations have no bearing on his job duties. Also, thinking that this is his last year in office is definitely wishful thinking--even if it looks like the FBI might have a solid case against Trump himself (which is actually doubtful) you *know* that the DoJ will step in and kill it. For the sake of discussion let us suppose that an extreme set of circumstances occur which result in Trump's resignation (he will never be impeached, not with this Congress). The first thing Pence would do upon being sworn in is exactly what Ford did--pardon his former boss.
In the interest of historical accuracy for drawing parallels, though, note that the actual Watergate scandal began in June 1973--the break-in had occurred a year before in June 1972--and mostly prevented Nixon from being able to do much of anything as President until he finally resigned in August 1974. If similar circumstances happen here then Trump really won't be able to do much more than damage control until the 2020 election cycle hits its full steam.
@semiticgod If the Obama administration is so principled that they shouldn't recognize a military coup to save a country from an Islamic takeover, then the Obama administration wouldn't have sided with Mubarak (John Kelly's 'he isnt a dictator') and they wouldn't have sided with the Muslim brotherhood a known Terrorist Organization and given them aid.
As to recognizing or not recognizing El-Sidi because of a military coup or democrat election, err he was re-elected so there isn't an excuse after that.
Also ironic that the Obama Administrations actions would qualify for 'election interfering', you know, the same thing that's blamed on the Russians.
I'm sure all the arms and money given to the Muslim Brotherhood by the Obama administration was put to use, against innocent civilians.
President Obama and his administration continue to support the global Islamist militant group known the Muslim Brotherhood. A White House strategy document regards the group as a moderate alternative to more violent Islamist groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State. The policy of backing the Muslim Brotherhood is outlined in a secret directive called Presidential Study Directive-11, or PSD-11. The directive was produced in 2011 and outlines administration support for political reform in the Middle East and North Africa, according to officials familiar with the classified study.
Gorsuch is due to be cleared by the Judiciary Committee this week, sending the vote to the floor of the Senate. Although many Democrats are vowing to vote against his confirmation (despite having voted to confirm him when he was appointed to his current bench), it is likely that Republicans will simply invoke "the nuclear option", a rule change which will force a cloture vote and thus allow confirmation by a simply majority. This precedent was already set back in November of 2013 when Democrats invoked the nuclear option to get many Obama appointees confirmed to their positions (even though such rule-changes have occurred in times past, the phrase "nuclear option" wasn't coined until 2003). As far as I can tell, though, such rule changes have never been used for a Supreme Court nominee so this will be a first, presuming it comes to that--some Democrats are likely to vote to confirm Gorsuch and it takes only 60 votes for normal confirmation.
It would be nice if people evaluated whether they should support a Judge based on their merit rather then ones own political affiliation.
Gorsuch doesn't seem like a despicable human being, but I wouldn't fault the Democrats for voting against him, even if it was a strictly symbolic measure. The seat should have been filled last year, when Scalia actually died.
The GOP was very explicit on the subject. Not only would they refuse to approve any judge nominated by Obama; they would also oppose any judge nominated by Clinton, for 4 years or even 8, if she won. In their minds, Democrats have no right to nominate Supreme Court justices. Not if they win. Not if they lose. Not if it's Obama. Not if it's Clinton.
Not ever.
This is what is meant by a "stolen seat." Obama nominated a qualified and centrist judge. The GOP blocked all progress on the issue for nearly a year. Only when their guy was in charge did they decide that it was okay to follow Constitutional and historical precedent.
This is why we have this problem in the first place.
I totally agree that both sides have played politics rather then voting based on the suitability of a Judge which has caused problem.
I don't care if a Judge is endorsed by a democrat or republic or Libertarian or pagan political party, If the person is well suited for the job then that should be whats important.
is there any strict qualifications for the position anyway? such as the judge needs a high amount of validated judgement in their career to be considered even remotely qualified.
I totally agree that both sides have played politics rather then voting based on the suitability of a Judge which has caused problem.
I don't care if a Judge is endorsed by a democrat or republic or Libertarian or pagan political party, If the person is well suited for the job then that should be whats important.
is there any strict qualifications for the position anyway? such as the judge needs a high amount of validated judgement in their career to be considered even remotely qualified.
That would seem to be a good check at least.
No, both sides are NOT at fault here. What Republicans did is unprecedented in the history of the Republic. Orrin Hatch specifically said "if Obama wants support for his nominee, he would nominate someone like Merrick Garland, but he won't do that." Well, he did do that. Much to the chagrin of his base. And it didn't matter. Because it boils down to the fact there was no way the Republicans were going to let the black guy get a 3rd Supreme Court pick. And if it came down to it, the woman wouldn't even have one. Their standard is clearly that Democrats not longer get Supreme Court picks BY DEFAULT. Not applying the same standard to Trump is political malpractice.
Show me one single solitary penny any of those 12 people got. And again, this ignores the fact that Trump himself described his modus operandi in regards to how he likes to go about it ON TAPE.
That he likes to "grab 'em by the pussy"? Last time I checked sleazy locker room talk wasn't illegal (nor is it even uncommon...).
One of these women was nearly as old now as Trump, because it goes back that far. What women who has already reached retirement age starts making up 30 year old stories about sexual assault?? BUT.....we live in America, and we operate under the Bill Cosby rule, where unless 30+ women accuse you of the exact same behavior, it doesn't stick. 12?? Pffft, that's nothing.
That is not how evidence works in a democracy. It is quality not quantity, 1 solid testimony counts far more than +30 dodgy ones asking for $$$. The fact some of the accusers are grannies doesn't make any difference either.
These women didn't know each other, did not coordinate or talk beforehand, and received no money. The chances all 12 of them are lying is nearly zero.
Again that's not how evidence/proof works in both science or the courtroom. If this was then life would suck as a male, get 12 female haters and game over go to prison
@Teo_live: The problem was not Trump's "locker room talk." It was him admitting to committing a crime.
Trump wasn't saying that he liked to "grab them by the pussy." He said that he had done it. Without consent.
Yes, it is in fact illegal to do that.
It is literally and legally sexual assault.
Yeah, but according to whose definition?
After all, some people define sexual assault as just about anyt
According to the Department of Justice. "Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape."
Comments
I memorized Trump's vile bile he spewed out the day he announced his campaign. I will never forget it. "WHEN MEXICO SENDS ITS PEOPLE blah blah rapists. And some, I assume, are good people". Emphasis is mine. That is not "When illegals come in from Mexico". That is not even "When some people come from Mexico, they're criminals bringing more crime". That is him accusing Mexico, the government and the country of, of "dumping" their unwanted people in the U.S. Which he explicitly said, calling the U.S. a dumping ground for other nations' problems in the same speech.
Personally though, I'm enraged most by the last sentence. HE ISN'T SURE THERE'S ANY GOOD PEOPLE.
http://www.breitbart.com/live/vice-presidential-debate-fact-check-livewire/fact-check-donald-trump-not-call-mexicans-rapists-criminals/
I love the political spin entirely self-contained in this article.
1. Breitbart's "fact" to check: Fact-Check: Donald Trump Did Not Call All Mexicans ‘Rapists’ and ‘Criminals’
2. The origin of the issue: Virginia Senator Tim Kaine claimed that “As a candidate, [Donald Trump] started his campaign where he called Mexicans rapists and criminals.”
3. Breitbart's conclusion: Fact Check: FALSE. These words have never been uttered by either the Republican presidential nominee or vice presidential nominee.
Sure, he never said the word "ALL", but first and perhaps most importantly, NEITHER DID TIM KAINE. I checked the debate transcript just to be sure of his quote. So the fact check is already wrong because it's presenting the "fact" wrong. Second, in the context of the entire speech it is clear Trump is speaking of all or virtually all immigrants. Which is in further agreement with more of his speeches and positions with regard to immigration and trade in general.
Don't ever forget the two main things Trump used to curry favor with Republican primary voters: #1 was a wholly racist conspiracy theory against the first African-American President that he pushed for half a decade with NO evidence, and #2 was tarring the Hispanic community of the United States as criminals and rapists. Anything else the man does for the rest of his life couldn't possibly make up for these heinous actions. And, for good measure, he's a serial sexual assaulter.
Speaking of sexual assault, it's looking like Bill O'Reilly is the next domino to fall over at the FOX News propoganda network, it's now being reported FOX has settled no less than FIVE sexual harassment cases involving him. Once again, someone who has any sense of what a monumental scumbag Bill O'Reilly is would not be shocked by this. But that's the world these guys like Trump, Ailes and O'Reilly live in. A Mad Men 1950s where women they work with and are surrounded with are sexual toys to be used how they see fit.
I normally wouldn't care except he's such a hypocrite for all the grief he gave to Obama who didn't golf nearly as much (first golf after 65 days) nor did he travel every weekend to a property he owns while making money by sticking taxpayers with the bill not to mention the additional security costs.
To whit:
January 6, 2015
December 16, 2014
October 24, 2014
October 21, 2014
October 14, 2014
October 14, 2014
September 26, 2014
September 11, 2014
September 9, 2014
September 8, 2014
August 20, 2014
July 11, 2014
November 18, 2013
September 8, 2013
This one is especially ironic:
March 22, 2014
This is one of the more significant events as it will be a fair repudiation of Obama/Hillary-era intervention that many Egyptians despised as they see Obama/America as meddling and installing the Muslim Brotherhood, to which the Egyptians themselves got Al-Sidi to oust.
Obama has never met with Al-Sidi after he became President, evidently they don't really like each other.
The popular uprising against the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt represents one of the most hopeful and promising developments in the Middle East since the Arab Spring began. When millions of Egyptians take to the streets to make clear that they do not want to trade a secular dictatorship for an Islamist dictatorship, that should be a positive development for America.
During the Egyptian revolution two years ago, the Obama administration alienated Egyptians by standing with Hosni Mubarak until it was clear that he was finished. Vice President Biden declared Mubarak was not a dictator. U.S. envoy Frank Wisner declared that Mubarak “must stay in office” to oversee democratic changes. Hillary Clinton endorsed a “transition process” that would have allowed Mubarak to remain in power for many months. Soon, The Post reported, protesters in Tahrir Square were “openly denouncing the United States for supporting President Hosni Mubarak.” Demonstrators carried signs that declared “Shame on you Obama!” and showed Mubarak depicted as President Obama in Obama’s iconic “hope” image — with a caption that read “No You Can’t.”
When Mubarak finally fell and Mohamed Morsi came into power, the Obama administration seamlessly got out of bed with one Egyptian pharaoh and into bed with another. Obama looked the other way as Morsi sidelined the judiciary, amassed authoritarian powers, sidled up to Iran and Hamas, prayed publicly for the destruction of the Jews and enforced Islamist dictats.
Egyptians did not look the other way, however. They wanted their elected leaders to focus on improving the country’s crumbling economy and creating jobs — not imposing Islamic law. As a result, the American Enterprise Institute’s Michael Rubin points out, Morsi “achieved in just one year what it took his predecessor, Hosni Mubarak, three decades to do: completely antagonize Egyptian society.” One recent poll showed that 73 percent of Egyptians believe Morsi did not make a single good decision in office — not one.
But when Egyptians finally rose up to demand Morsi’s ouster — protesting in even greater numbers than they did against Mubarak — U.S. ambassador Anne Patterson gave a public speech on June 18 opposing “street action” and worked to persuade various groups to stay out of the demonstrations. Once again, Egyptians believed that America was standing with their strongman. Once again, Tahrir Square was awash in anti-U.S. signs: “Obama and Patterson support terrorism” read one. Another said: “Wake Up America, Obama Backs Up a Fascist Regime in Egypt.” Another showed Patterson shaking hands with the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood with the caption: “We know what you did last summer.” In other words, Obama blew it a second time.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-obama-blew-it-in-egypt--again/2013/07/08/c0a394e8-e7c5-11e2-a301-ea5a8116d211_story.html
Yet another country that America meddled in with the only result being alot of dead people.
If you want to make such an overarching, anecdotally-subjective argument it would be much more plausible to say Trump supporters are instead suspicious of every Muslim regardless of if they are a terrorist or not. ...and what's the point of a court system if you consider people automatically guilty regardless of verdicts saying otherwise?
To my knowledge all the major sexual assault cases were thrown out of court (so not guilty).
All the minor ones didn't even make it to court verdict and were settled for a paltry sum (so still not guilty).
The Obama attitude towards Abdel Fattah el-Sisi is both amazing and outrageous.
On the one hand you have the former president, Mohammed Morsi, supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas terror organization is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Mohammed Morsi allowed open borders with Gaza, which freely allowed them to smuggle Rockets and Ammunition into Gaza through shipments from Iran->Sudan->Egypt), that has passed a new constitution which would give more power to the Sunni Islamist group, the Muslim Brotherhood.
On the other hand, you have el-Sisi, a Secular leader, which now fights ISIS branch in Sinai peninsula (their former name was "Ansar Beit el Makdis"), backed by Hamas from Gaza (surprise surprise).
Since el-Sisi took power, he banned the Muslim Brotherhood (which in turn made terrorist attacks against Egypt ), basically saving Egypt from becoming an Islamic Theocracy. He is fighting fundamental Islam groups in Sinai. Keeping the secular character of Egypt.
In turn, el-Sisi got cold shoulder from Obama, just because he was not democratically elected (In a country which is not built on democratic values anyway), but by a coup.
Due to that, el-SIsi got closer to Russia, and purchased recently 46 Mig-35 fighter-jets. For general knowledge, up until then the Egyptian army was built from American weaponry, such as M1A1 Abrams and F-16s.
Superb foreign policy and understanding of the middle east.
I don't blame them, I am a lawful evil person myself for an easy settlement dollar I would say Trump groped me
False sexual assault allegations are becoming ridiculous now days. I will defend almost ANY person accused of sexual assault with insufficient evidence. The worst example was Micheal Jackson, still accused to this day of sexual assault on children even though he was found innocent on all counts (with CCTV proof of the parents coercing their child into a false-assault narrative).
He now enjoys something like 78% support from Egyptians.
And despite the absolute mess and humanitarian crisis that the Obama administration helped cause, they did not even offer to meet with El-Sisi, give any real aid, and basically treat him as a pariah.
But hey Obama won the Nobel peace Prize so i guess that out-weigh's all that.
BUT.....we live in America, and we operate under the Bill Cosby rule, where unless 30+ women accuse you of the exact same behavior, it doesn't stick. 12?? Pffft, that's nothing.
These women didn't know each other, did not coordinate or talk beforehand, and received no money. The chances all 12 of them are lying is nearly zero.
Pro life. Sigh.....another grey area...I wouldn't even consider trying to tackle on any day.
People who persecute journalists are not the good guys.
2. Sisi took power in a military coup. It has been America's standard policy for decades to not recognize the legitimacy of military leaders who violently overthrow democratically elected governments. Obama was not supposed to give his blessing to the fall of democracy in Egypt. Morsi was an illiberal leader, but he came to power through a free election. It is American policy to recognize the legitimacy of democratic governments, not those who destroy them.
3. Nobody in the United States foresaw Sisi's rise. At the time, we didn't even know that Morsi was going to fall. For all we know, the coup in Egypt was just as doomed as the coup in Turkey.
Obama did not extend his support for the military government, but neither did he castigate it. The Obama administration refused to even call it what is was--a military coup. There are two alternatives to this policy:
1. Support Morsi. This would accomplish nothing; Morsi was already gone.
2. Praise the military overthrow of a democratically elected government, against American values.
Mubarak was a foe of democracy.
Morsi was a foe of democracy.
Sisi is a foe of democracy.
There are no good guys here.
Bear in mind that the alternative to non-intervention is intervention.
In the interest of historical accuracy for drawing parallels, though, note that the actual Watergate scandal began in June 1973--the break-in had occurred a year before in June 1972--and mostly prevented Nixon from being able to do much of anything as President until he finally resigned in August 1974. If similar circumstances happen here then Trump really won't be able to do much more than damage control until the 2020 election cycle hits its full steam.
If the Obama administration is so principled that they shouldn't recognize a military coup to save a country from an Islamic takeover, then the Obama administration wouldn't have sided with Mubarak (John Kelly's 'he isnt a dictator') and they wouldn't have sided with the Muslim brotherhood a known Terrorist Organization and given them aid.
As to recognizing or not recognizing El-Sidi because of a military coup or democrat election, err he was re-elected so there isn't an excuse after that.
Also ironic that the Obama Administrations actions would qualify for 'election interfering', you know, the same thing that's blamed on the Russians.
I'm sure all the arms and money given to the Muslim Brotherhood by the Obama administration was put to use, against innocent civilians.
President Obama and his administration continue to support the global Islamist militant group known the Muslim Brotherhood. A White House strategy document regards the group as a moderate alternative to more violent Islamist groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State.
The policy of backing the Muslim Brotherhood is outlined in a secret directive called Presidential Study Directive-11, or PSD-11. The directive was produced in 2011 and outlines administration support for political reform in the Middle East and North Africa, according to officials familiar with the classified study.
Egyptian press reports after the ouster of Mr. Morsi have revealed extensive cooperation between the CIA and the Muslim Brotherhood during Mr. Morsi’s presidency.
-http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/3/inside-the-ring-muslim-brotherhood-has-obamas-secr/
CIA involvement and global strategies to support Terrorist Organizations, how wonderful.
The GOP was very explicit on the subject. Not only would they refuse to approve any judge nominated by Obama; they would also oppose any judge nominated by Clinton, for 4 years or even 8, if she won. In their minds, Democrats have no right to nominate Supreme Court justices. Not if they win. Not if they lose. Not if it's Obama. Not if it's Clinton.
Not ever.
This is what is meant by a "stolen seat." Obama nominated a qualified and centrist judge. The GOP blocked all progress on the issue for nearly a year. Only when their guy was in charge did they decide that it was okay to follow Constitutional and historical precedent.
This is why we have this problem in the first place. If people did, then Garland would be in the Supreme Court.
I don't care if a Judge is endorsed by a democrat or republic or Libertarian or pagan political party, If the person is well suited for the job then that should be whats important.
is there any strict qualifications for the position anyway? such as the judge needs a high amount of validated judgement in their career to be considered even remotely qualified.
That would seem to be a good check at least.
It is quality not quantity, 1 solid testimony counts far more than +30 dodgy ones asking for $$$. The fact some of the accusers are grannies doesn't make any difference either. Again that's not how evidence/proof works in both science or the courtroom. If this was then life would suck as a male, get 12 female haters and game over go to prison
Trump wasn't saying that he liked to "grab them by the pussy." He said that he had done it. Without consent.
Yes, it is in fact illegal to do that.
It is literally and legally sexual assault.
Yeah, but according to whose definition?
After all, some people define sexual assault as just about anyt
According to the Department of Justice.
"Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape."
If somebody grabbed your daughter by the pussy and bragged about it, on tape, when he thought no one was listening, how would you react?