Now that Preet Bharara, the US Attorney from NY who was also let go by Trump, has come forward with a similar tale to Comey's, I want to discuss the idea of so-called "payback" supposedly invalidating the testimony and statements of these people. With an glimpse from my own life.
When I was fired from my last job, out of the blue on a Friday afternoon, with no warning, and no explanation, I was probably more mad than I had ever been in my life, to the point where I was shaking with anger most of that weekend. My boss, much like Trump, was a horrible person who had not earned nor deserved the position he was in. Everyone has known these people. Where this ties in, is that, for at least a week, I was seriously contemplating placing a call to OSHA and reporting safety violations at the business, because I knew if they stopped in, they would witness multiple infractions regarding safety harnesses at nearly any time of the day. In my head, I wanted to shut down that business for a few days, or at least cost them some money. The only thing that stopped me in the end was knowing that the couple decent people who worked there could have conceivably lost a few days pay because of it.
Point being, revenge or getting even would have absolutely been the MOTIVATION if I had made that call, but it wouldn't have made those safety violations any less true. I guarantee they still occur to this day. I don't doubt Preet Bharara and James Comey want to exact revenge and make Trump pay. But that doesn't mean anything they are saying isn't true.
@smeagolheart Oh lawd, nooooo, not Pelosi, I ain't got a cellar full of rum ya know. Something strange going on with her every time I hear and see her talk. But in general, too much grandstanding. As far as that goes, McCain is lookin a bit, well, wore out.
As an aside: Some of these folks on 'THe Hill' are gettin on up there, and that can be ok for experience, or it can be a little worrisome. I guess as long as anyone can keep gettin voted in, what can ya do. Seems like there aught to be a point though, not sure. Personally I'd like to see term limits, longer than the pres maybe but still a limit I am thinking, or at least a break period between a certain span of time.
@jjstraka34 hehheh, good ol OSHA, I'm hearin on that. That's a tough call when considering the decent folks in an org. I remember when I was a contractor, whenever they were comin to town the buildin inspectors would call the most compliant of the contractors to let them know as a courtesy. I always was appreciative. Those guys and the police ALWAYS got invited to the company BBQ. Yep, it helps to be nice, but then there's times when it's time not to be nice.
On another note I saw Bernie and Pres Carter speaking together this weekend on CSPAN at the Carter center. Was kinda interesting. Carter was not the best pres of course but he has gained at least a lil bit of insight into things now , esp. regarding the connection between peace, human rights and security, that I enjoyed listening to.
The oath to the queen has even caused controversy in Canada where anyone who wants to become a citizen must make an allegiance to the Queen. In 2015, it went all the way to the supreme court.
The queen is still our head of state, and pleading allegiance to her is pleading allegiance to the way the country is governed.
Just google (on phone, cant provide links) "canada Supreme court queen oath" to get others views on why they dont want to take an oath such as this.
I, for instance, wouldn't take such an oath since the existence of a queen is a hideous mockery of all pretensions to living in the 21st century and every cent spent on her and her odious brood spits in the face of anyone who's ever had to work for a living.
But luckily, I was born there, so the fact I wouldn't take the time and effort to piss on a member of the royal family who was on fire does not in any way make me less Canadian.
Which is why demanding anyone else has to take an oath of loyalty to the powerless figurehead monarch of another country in order to become Canadian is absurd. Canadians don't have to be loyal to the Queen - so why ask new ones to? It'd make more sense to get them to pledge allegiance to Tim Hortons.
But would you piss on your neighbour if they where on fire? The idea of monarchy is it is a symbol, not a person, (like the flag in countries that don't have a monarch). It represents your country, and hence the people who live in it, and hence your neighbours.
The first step to being willing to chop your neighbour to bits with a machete, is to not be willing to piss on them - to consider them "not one of us".
Patriotism is not always negative - it's one of the things that can stop someone turning into a terrorist.
@smeagolheart Oh lawd, nooooo, not Pelosi, I ain't got a cellar full of rum ya know. Something strange going on with her every time I hear and see her talk. But in general, too much grandstanding.
I wouldn't be thrilled with a President Pelosi, however, she could hold down the fort until there's another election.
She wouldn't actively be an embarrassment. Our government would work better because she'd fill the positions that Trump is purposefully leaving open. Trump's insidious plan to ruin the "administrative state" as described by Steve Bannon is done by not nominating anyone for positions so our government. Then if something happens, he can play to the Republican talking point of "hey the government is bad!" and he turns around and blames Democrats for not approving his non-existent appointments. Win-win for Trump and lose-lose for people who like a functioning Government.
Pelosi'd not take multimillion dollar golf trips to her own resorts, profiteering from the government. So she'd be an improvement. She wouldn't try and take us backwards on human rights and freedoms.
She'd fill the cabinet with less swamp and less egregious tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. Trump's just insane on those areas, doesn't even pretend - just look at his budget. He also made a big deal about making rules for lobbyists but he made it so he could writes waivers and overcome those rules really easily. His ethics rules are meaningless since they are so easily waivered, it is much easier now actually than it was under Obama to put the swamp in washingon and he's been doing just that. The Trump administration is full of individuals who had been retained by for-profit clients, and then took up matters that benefits those former clients.
As far as that goes, McCain is lookin a bit, well, wore out. As an aside: Some of these folks on 'THe Hill' are gettin on up there, and that can be ok for experience, or it can be a little worrisome. I guess as long as anyone can keep gettin voted in, what can ya do. Seems like there aught to be a point though, not sure. Personally I'd like to see term limits, longer than the pres maybe but still a limit I am thinking, or at least a break period between a certain span of time.
There should be an upper age limit for Senators and Supreme Court Justices. When they made the Supreme Court appointment last "for life" back in the day, if you lived to 40 you were doing good. It just doesn't make sense today to have 80-90 yr old people on the Supreme Court or in the Senate - as shown by Senator McCain's display the other day.
On another note I saw Bernie and Pres Carter speaking together this weekend on CSPAN at the Carter center. Was kinda interesting. Carter was not the best pres of course but he has gained at least a lil bit of insight into things now , esp. regarding the connection between peace, human rights and security, that I enjoyed listening to.
I think Carter gets a bit of a bad rap that he might not deserve. Either way, he has worked his butt off for human rights and peace since leaving office so that's commendable.
Puerto Ricans approved of a measure to lobby for Statehood with an astonishing 97% "yes" vote...but...only 23% of eligible voters cast a vote. Rosello is going to go ahead and send a team to Congress but, truthfully, I don't see Congress putting the plan for conversion to a State in place. As I have noted, too many people in Congress either don't care or stand to make money by keeping the status quo in place.
A report and a story in The Guardian said Trump’s U.K. trip had been put “on hold” after he told British Prime Minister Theresa May he was worried about being met with mass street protests.
Aww poor worried guy. He just wants to screw us over and be liked.
Not true. What happened to credible journalism?
If it's anti Trump, the media will run it, verify and look for facts later.
In other news, the New York Times has sponsored a play featuring a Trump assassination and have come out to give vocal support of it. I think that says it all, really. We're living in a time where once credible publications look like foriegn propaganda outlets- almost comically hollow and transparant from an outside perspective.
How do you know it isn't true? Because proven liar Trump says so, or because the lying Tory party says so? Personally, judged solely on record, I'm more inclined to believe the Manchester Guardian.
It's also highly probable, viewed objectively.
Fact 1: The British people hate Trump, and would turn out in force to protest against him.
Fact 2: The British Government is far to weak at this point to do anything to shield him.
Fact 3: Trump can't bare to be confronted with the idea that anyone doesn't like him, never mind tens of thousands.
@smeagolheart "There should be an upper age limit for Senators and Supreme Court Justices. When they made the Supreme Court appointment last "for life" back in the day, if you lived to 40 you were doing good. It just doesn't make sense today to have 80-90 yr old people on the Supreme Court or in the Senate - as shown by Senator McCain's display the other day. "
Not quite true. Life expectancy values take birth fatality rates into account. While the infant mortality rates were distressingly high, if you made it past childhood it wasn't unreasonable to reach an elderly age.
@smeagolheart "There should be an upper age limit for Senators and Supreme Court Justices. When they made the Supreme Court appointment last "for life" back in the day, if you lived to 40 you were doing good. It just doesn't make sense today to have 80-90 yr old people on the Supreme Court or in the Senate - as shown by Senator McCain's display the other day. "
Not quite true. Life expectancy values take birth fatality rates into account. While the infant mortality rates were distressingly high, if you made it past childhood it wasn't unreasonable to reach an elderly age.
Either way, once your 80 people should not be making complex legal decisions anymore that affect society. By that age you've earned retirement and your brain just is not as sharp as it used to be, don't you think?
@smeagolheart "There should be an upper age limit for Senators and Supreme Court Justices. When they made the Supreme Court appointment last "for life" back in the day, if you lived to 40 you were doing good. It just doesn't make sense today to have 80-90 yr old people on the Supreme Court or in the Senate - as shown by Senator McCain's display the other day. "
Not quite true. Life expectancy values take birth fatality rates into account. While the infant mortality rates were distressingly high, if you made it past childhood it wasn't unreasonable to reach an elderly age.
Either way, once your 80 people should not be making complex legal decisions anymore that affect society. By that age you've earned retirement and your brain just is not as sharp as it used to be, don't you think?
The effects of aging vary very much between individuals. I know 80 and 90 year olds who are still razor sharp, and 60 year olds who are past it. I would suggest a competence test would be more appropriate than a fixed age cut off.
@smeagolheart "There should be an upper age limit for Senators and Supreme Court Justices. When they made the Supreme Court appointment last "for life" back in the day, if you lived to 40 you were doing good. It just doesn't make sense today to have 80-90 yr old people on the Supreme Court or in the Senate - as shown by Senator McCain's display the other day. "
Not quite true. Life expectancy values take birth fatality rates into account. While the infant mortality rates were distressingly high, if you made it past childhood it wasn't unreasonable to reach an elderly age.
Either way, once your 80 people should not be making complex legal decisions anymore that affect society. By that age you've earned retirement and your brain just is not as sharp as it used to be, don't you think?
The effects of aging vary very much between individuals. I know 80 and 90 year olds who are still razor sharp, and 60 year olds who are past it. I would suggest a competence test would be more appropriate than a fixed age cut off.
An age limit would prevent shenanigans. We wouldn't want the test too easy, nor too easy to cheat. I could imagine some crying bloody murder and doing anything to keep their justice on the bench. And you'd be adding bureaucracy, who's going to administer the test and update it or who's to say this person or that is qualified? An age limit may be fairer.
If someday we're all living to 200 then amend the age limit then. For today, I'd say 75, then it's time to move on.
A report and a story in The Guardian said Trump’s U.K. trip had been put “on hold” after he told British Prime Minister Theresa May he was worried about being met with mass street protests.
Aww poor worried guy. He just wants to screw us over and be liked.
Not true. What happened to credible journalism?
If it's anti Trump, the media will run it, verify and look for facts later.
In other news, the New York Times has sponsored a play featuring a Trump assassination and have come out to give vocal support of it. I think that says it all, really. We're living in a time where once credible publications look like foriegn propaganda outlets- almost comically hollow and transparant from an outside perspective.
This nonsense about the play is total crap. Have you ever READ Julius Caesar?? The entire play is about how assassination is the path to ruin. There is almost no way anyone can view Brutus and Cassius in a positive light. The entire thing is warning AGAINST assassiantion. So, even with a Trump stand-in as Caesar, the entire context of the play (which any high school literature class will cover) would make it impossible for it to be glorified.
It's Shakespeare, who, along with Homer, is the foundation of modern stroytelling. Caesar dies in Julius Caesar because THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS. What the whole freak-out over this tells me is that alot of people in this country needed to pay more attention in Sophmore or Junior English class.
How do you know it isn't true? Because proven liar Trump says so, or because the lying Tory party says so? Personally, judged solely on record, I'm more inclined to believe the Manchester Guardian.
It's also highly probable, viewed objectively.
Fact 1: The British people hate Trump, and would turn out in force to protest against him.
Fact 2: The British Government is far to weak at this point to do anything to shield him.
Fact 3: Trump can't bare to be confronted with the idea that anyone doesn't like him, never mind tens of thousands.
See, it's actually the other way around. The question that should be asked is "how do we know that it *is* true? The burden of proof is on the claimant, and in this case, The Guardian is making the claim about Trump and the UK.
So what is their basis for this claim? An anonymous source, so we can't verify that. No records, so we can't verify using that either. The content involved is hearsay as is. Every party involved denies it. It will be known to the public when it happens or if it doesn't, so why would they lie. That you think Trump or the Tories are compulsive liars isn't an argument, frankly. And if you are prepared to believe what The Guardian says just because it looks bad on your enemies, well.
I'm not surprised the Obama play went unnoticed. It wasn't funded by big name donors and wasn't given media attention the way NYT and CNN celebrated it. Now that investors are fleeing due to the Trump assasination it's only right to me.
It's really kinda funny how they shot themselves in the foot here. If they could have just contained their glee in seeing Trump killed, if they could have just kept silent, nobody would have even known. But as we saw with Kathy Griffin, the emotional element to destroy Trump is too strong for such measured restraint.
It makes it all the more funny because CNN ruthlessly attacked some rodeo clown for an Obama mask and got him fired. Absolutely no intellectual consistency, never has been.
I don't THINK Trump is a liar. I KNOW Trump is a liar. And you don't need any journalism to know that, you just have to read Trump's own Twitter feed. Two mutually contradictory statements = at least one lie.
Also out of Trump's own mouth: "Something is true because I believe it to be true". Ergo, he does not require objective proof.
As for the Tory party, I can't prove they lied, but then they aren't low grade morons who contradict themselves at every opportunity.
How do you know it isn't true? Because proven liar Trump says so, or because the lying Tory party says so? Personally, judged solely on record, I'm more inclined to believe the Manchester Guardian.
It's also highly probable, viewed objectively.
Fact 1: The British people hate Trump, and would turn out in force to protest against him.
Fact 2: The British Government is far to weak at this point to do anything to shield him.
Fact 3: Trump can't bare to be confronted with the idea that anyone doesn't like him, never mind tens of thousands.
See, it's actually the other way around. The question that should be asked is "how do we know that it *is* true? The burden of proof is on the claimant, and in this case, The Guardian is making the claim about Trump and the UK.
So what is their basis for this claim? An anonymous source, so we can't verify that. No records, so we can't verify using that either. The content involved is hearsay as is. Every party involved denies it. It will be known to the public when it happens or if it doesn't, so why would they lie. That you think Trump or the Tories are compulsive liars isn't an argument, frankly. And if you are prepared to believe what The Guardian says just because it looks bad on your enemies, well.
I'm not surprised the Obama play went unnoticed. It wasn't funded by big name donors and wasn't given media attention the way NYT and CNN celebrated it. Now that investors are fleeing due to the Trump assasination it's only right to me.
It's really kinda funny how they shot themselves in the foot here. If they could have just contained their glee in seeing Trump killed, if they could have just kept silent, nobody would have even known. But as we saw with Kathy Griffin, the emotional element to destroy Trump is too strong for such measured restraint.
It makes it all the more funny because CNN ruthlessly attacked some rodeo clown for an Obama mask and got him fired. Absolutely no intellectual consistency, never has been.
Powerful leaders have been compared to Julius Caesar for, literally, centuries. In the plot of Julius Caesar, Caesar is assassinated. ERGO, if a modern leader is a stand-in for Caesar in a modern adaptation, he will be killed, not because of any political agenda, but because THAT IS THE DAMN PLOT of Julius Caesar. Any other outcome would be like having Romeo and Juliet live and go on to have 5 children. I mean, christ, you wanna talk about safe-spaces, now a politician can't handle being compared to the most famous political drama in history??
So Trump just had a cabinet meeting. This dog and pony show featured this quote from Trump: "Never has there been a president....with few exceptions...who's passed more legislation, who's done more things than I have."
Reminder that he has not passed a single piece of legislation.
After praising himself for doing the best job in the history of Presidents, he went around the table and asked each of his employee cabinet members to describe how much they love him.
Each cabinet members tasked with serving and running various aspects of the United States Of America took turns trying to out do each other in their enthusiastic praise of Donald J. Trump's greatness.
An example from White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus about Trump: "We thank you for the opportunity and blessing to serve your agenda."
Working for Trump is "the greatest privilege of my life." Vice President Pence
"An honor to be here," Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who recently offered his resignation amid strains over the Russia investigation.
"My hat is off to you," said Energy Secretary Rick Perry, referring to the president's decision to abandon a global climate change agreement.
I believe the message Trump intended to send out was hey you look at all these important people, I own them, they will do what I want not what's best for the country. Message received.
******* And Republican Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder called for those responsible to be held accountable.
"I condemn the actions disrespectful to POTUS" -- president of the United States -- "the other night," he said in a post to his official Twitter account. "We are better than this."
U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill echoed Kinder. "The state fair is funded by taxpayer dollars, and is supposed to be a place where we can all bring our families and celebrate the state that we love," she said. "But the young Missourians who witnessed this stunt learned exactly the wrong lesson about political discourse, that somehow it's ever acceptable to, in a public event, disrespect, taunt, and joke about harming the president of our great nation." *******
So...it is unacceptable to have put an Obama mask on a rodeo clown but acceptable to present a Trump-like character in the guise of Caesar? I can easily accept this just as long as when a Democrat is the the Oval Office we can replace Caesar with a stand-in of that person, as well. Speaking of CNN, they can't figure out which side of the issue they are on. They fire Kathy Griffin but CNN host Fareed Zakaria thinks the play is "a masterpiece". Truthfully, it is still Julius Caesar and is thus a good play, no matter how the director is presenting it or giving the audience some new take on it. You have all read it--you know what happens to all the conspirators in the end.
This, then, forces us to ask the broader question: when is depicting something containing a political figure art (or speech, if you prefer), when is it satire, and when does it cross the line? The earlier rodeo clown was never actually hurt, only lampooned as most rodeo clowns are. What about political cartoonists when they draw a figure in a very unflattering manner? We have an archery target set up in the back yard. What if I print a picture of Trump and tape it to the target? No one can see into our backyard unless they are in one neighbor's back yard and stand next to the fence so no one would know if I did this. What if I also taped a picture of Hillary alongside Trump so I may target them both? Is that going too far or is it just political speech? A picture is not the same as a person, after all.
We really need to figure out the answers to these questions before the situation gets worse than it already is.
*************
Mike Quigly (D - IL) is going to introduce legislation titled The COVFEFE (Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically for Engagement, which is actually quite clever) Act into Congress, which will broaden the scope of the Presidential Records Act of 1978 to include any and all social media outlets. If the legislation passes, then any Presidential tweets become a matter of permanent public record and cannot be recalled or deleted. Now that I think about it this may be why Trump uses Twitter so much.
On a related topic, I read recently that all documents which will be at Obama's Presidential Library will be digital only with hard copies stored elsewhere. This is a very bad idea--the hard copies need to be at the Library and available to the public. If not, then how do you *know* that the text of some speech hasn't been edited?
*************
edit to add: ninjaed. @smeagolheart I would strike out the word "weirdest" and substitute "creepiest" or even the colloquial "most Twilight-Zone-ish". That wasn't a Cabinet meeting, by the way. It was a message and it was directed at everyone who isn't a sycophant in Washington, D. C.
I don't THINK Trump is a liar. I KNOW Trump is a liar. And you don't need any journalism to know that, you just have to read Trump's own Twitter feed. Two mutually contradictory statements = at least one lie.
Also out of Trump's own mouth: "Something is true because I believe it to be true". Ergo, he does not require objective proof.
As for the Tory party, I can't prove they lied, but then they aren't low grade morons who contradict themselves at every opportunity.
I am 100% positive on the fact that you could prove a Trump lie just as easily as it takes for me to say that I remember when Obama pretended to be anti gay marriage or any number of Clinton statements Bill or Hil.
But does that make Anti Trump or Anti Obama or Anti Clinton claims true by default because they lie? Not even a little bit. Dishonesty should be expected from both media and politicians and they should both be treated with skepticism especially when independent verification doesn't exist.
Portraying the president getting harmed and treating it as a positive thing? Um... gross, but maybe constitutional?
Expressing a personal desire to hurt the president? Yeah, a talk with the Secret Service would be in order.
The Julius Caesar play doesn't fall into ANY of those categories, not even the first one. Again, if you're putting on a modern adaption of Julius Caesar, and there is a stand-in for Caesar (and truth be told, it's only someone who is supposed to be similar to Trump), then that person is going to get killed because that is how Julius Caesar is written. This would be like someone getting pissed because they killed off Leo and Claire Danes in the Baz Luhrmann modern adaption of Romeo and Juliet in the '90s, as if there could be any other ending. There was a History Channel multi-part adaption of the The Bible on a few years back, and the part of Satan (circa meeting with Jesus in the desert) was played by an actor with an uncanny similarity to Barack Obama. No one gave a shit, mostly because it was a mini-series on the History Channel and no one watched it. Furthermore:
It's not unusual for productions of very old plays to use modern dress and current political references. A 2012 New York production of Julius Caesar by The Acting Company was set "at our precise historical moment, in Obama's Washington, D.C. The capital is rocked by 'Occupy Rome' protests," wrote Noah Hillman in The American Conservative, noting that this Caesar was "a tall, charismatic African-American politician; he doesn't look or sound much like Obama (he more closely recalls Michael Jordan), but the audience is unquestionably going to read him as an Obama stand-in nonetheless."
"Julius Caesar can be read as a warning parable to those who try to fight for democracy by undemocratic means. To fight the tyrant does not mean imitating him."
This is utterly absurd, and the only thing it tells me is that America needs to open a goddamn book once in awhile and actually try understand what the words written on the page mean in context. Julius Caesar DOES NOT promote or glorify the assassination of Caesar. Was I the only one awake in English Lit??
This is utterly absurd, and the only thing it tells me is that America needs to open a goddamn book once in awhile and actually try understand what the words written on the page mean in context. Julius Caesar DOES NOT promote or glorify the assassination of Caesar. Was I the only one awake in English Lit??
Trumpers did not attend your high flauting liberal English Lit classes! But seriously, any distinctions like that are bound to be lost on Trumpists.
Here's something to brighten everyone's day. Here's the tweet of the video that Chuck Schumer made of a re-enactment of Trump's cabinet meeting.
But would you piss on your neighbour if they where on fire? The idea of monarchy is it is a symbol, not a person, (like the flag in countries that don't have a monarch). It represents your country, and hence the people who live in it, and hence your neighbours.
The first step to being willing to chop your neighbour to bits with a machete, is to not be willing to piss on them - to consider them "not one of us".
TBH, I was exaggerating. If the Queen was on fire I'd try to help because she's a fellow human being and I have no animus towards her as such. My animus is for the institution she represents, and the principles her existence exemplifies.
Flags and national anthems are meaningless symbols that people take far too seriously. People get all up in arms over changing a line in Canada's national anthem to include 50% of the country, ignoring the fact that a) that line was not in the original version of the anthem, it was changed before, and b) the last time the national anthem was changed was a few decades ago, to be less boring.
However, for all that, at least Canada's flag and anthem are actually Canadian in some meaningful way. The British Monarchy isn't. And, of course, the continued existence of any monarchy is an abomination to anyone who genuinely believes that all people are born equal.
Patriotism is not always negative - it's one of the things that can stop someone turning into a terrorist.
It's also one of the things that can turn people into one. Most white nationalist terrorists are motivated at least partially by it, for starters.
In any case, "patriotism" has nothing to do with swearing allegiance to the monarch of another country. Isn't wanting to be a full, voting member of Canadian society a far more meaningful demonstration of patriotic spirit than a loyalty oath to someone who doesn't even live there?
However, for all that, at least Canada's flag and anthem are actually Canadian in some meaningful way. The British Monarchy isn't.
@Ayiekie I assume you mean by this that if you go back far enough you'll find the royal family was not British in origin (though even the House of Hanover, starting in 1714, was chosen as they had the closest male, non-Catholic, relative to the previous monarch). However, that's a pretty meaningless argument anyway - if you applied the same logic to Canada, then no-one is Canadian in origin ...
The British monarchy is seen as quintessentially British by many people across the world. I might not agree with that, but it's certainly meaningful.
In any case, "patriotism" has nothing to do with swearing allegiance to the monarch of another country. Isn't wanting to be a full, voting member of Canadian society a far more meaningful demonstration of patriotic spirit than a loyalty oath to someone who doesn't even live there?
Surely the point is that you're not swearing allegiance to the monarch of another country, but the monarch of your country. Canada is free to choose an alternative arrangement for appointing a head of state, but until/unless they do so the oath is being made to Canadian institutions, not to British ones.
I don't THINK Trump is a liar. I KNOW Trump is a liar. And you don't need any journalism to know that, you just have to read Trump's own Twitter feed. Two mutually contradictory statements = at least one lie.
Also out of Trump's own mouth: "Something is true because I believe it to be true". Ergo, he does not require objective proof.
As for the Tory party, I can't prove they lied, but then they aren't low grade morons who contradict themselves at every opportunity.
I am 100% positive on the fact that you could prove a Trump lie just as easily as it takes for me to say that I remember when Obama pretended to be anti gay marriage or any number of Clinton statements Bill or Hil.
But does that make Anti Trump or Anti Obama or Anti Clinton claims true by default because they lie? Not even a little bit. Dishonesty should be expected from both media and politicians and they should both be treated with skepticism especially when independent verification doesn't exist.
I never said what was true and what was not. I said who I BELIEVE.
You are free to believe whichever pathological liar you like.
"Who is the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?"
But would you piss on your neighbour if they where on fire? The idea of monarchy is it is a symbol, not a person, (like the flag in countries that don't have a monarch). It represents your country, and hence the people who live in it, and hence your neighbours.
The first step to being willing to chop your neighbour to bits with a machete, is to not be willing to piss on them - to consider them "not one of us".
TBH, I was exaggerating. If the Queen was on fire I'd try to help because she's a fellow human being and I have no animus towards her as such. My animus is for the institution she represents, and the principles her existence exemplifies.
Flags and national anthems are meaningless symbols that people take far too seriously. People get all up in arms over changing a line in Canada's national anthem to include 50% of the country, ignoring the fact that a) that line was not in the original version of the anthem, it was changed before, and b) the last time the national anthem was changed was a few decades ago, to be less boring.
However, for all that, at least Canada's flag and anthem are actually Canadian in some meaningful way. The British Monarchy isn't. And, of course, the continued existence of any monarchy is an abomination to anyone who genuinely believes that all people are born equal.
Patriotism is not always negative - it's one of the things that can stop someone turning into a terrorist.
It's also one of the things that can turn people into one. Most white nationalist terrorists are motivated at least partially by it, for starters.
In any case, "patriotism" has nothing to do with swearing allegiance to the monarch of another country. Isn't wanting to be a full, voting member of Canadian society a far more meaningful demonstration of patriotic spirit than a loyalty oath to someone who doesn't even live there?
1) Symbols are never meaningless. Check the definition.
2) monarchy isn't a person, its an institution. If you don't have a monarch, you run the risk of a simple minded person thinking that they are the institution. See: Trump.
3) people are quite obviously not born equal. Some are both with money and some are not. Some people are born stupid, and some slightly less stupid. Some people are born selfish, some are born less selfish.
4) Sure patriotism, like religion, can lead to terrorism. But in both cases it arises out of a misiterpretation, that loving one thing means hating everything else. But it can also lead to a desire to put things right. If you care about your country you aren't blind to its faults, you are driven to correct them. If you don't care about your country, then it won't bother you when it's leaders are an embarrasment.
5) It's cheeper for Canada to borrow someone else's symbols. But there is no one preventing Canadians from creating thier own.
In the midst of all the uproar over coal jobs (which are both dangerous to the workers and horrible for the environment), I saw an interesting stat. Coal employs roughly 76,000 people in this country. Arby's, one fast food chain, employs 80,000. But then I went further, and decided to look up another industry that is actually in worse shape than coal, because it doesn't exist anymore. Video rentals. And it turns out, at their peak, Blockbuster employed 60,000 people, in 2004. Roughly analagous to coal, and likely even far more if you add in Hollywood Video etc etc. This industry is GONE, yet I hear no one talking about how we need to "save" the video rental industry from Redbox and Netflix. So what, exactly, is so special about this relatively small number of workers who are also in an antiquated and dying industry??
In the midst of all the uproar over coal jobs (which are both dangerous to the workers and horrible for the environment), I saw an interesting stat. Coal employs roughly 76,000 people in this country. Arby's, one fast food chain, employs 80,000. But then I went further, and decided to look up another industry that is actually in worse shape than coal, because it doesn't exist anymore. Video rentals. And it turns out, at their peak, Blockbuster employed 60,000 people, in 2004. Roughly analagous to coal, and likely even far more if you add in Hollywood Video etc etc. This industry is GONE, yet I hear no one talking about how we need to "save" the video rental industry from Redbox and Netflix. So what, exactly, is so special about this relatively small number of workers who are also in an antiquated and dying industry??
Nothing. There is nothing special there. Their function could easily be replaced by natural gas and renewable eneergy. The only thing about Coal Minters is our Dear Leader President remembers the good old days when coal miners looked like this: So he wants to bring that back because that's something he remembers.
He liked the old days when Oil Barons and Steel Tycoons had monopolies on people's lives and wants to bring that time back because that, to him as a Billionaire*, was when America Was Great.
The gold old days were when the Rich owned the Poor.
Comments
When I was fired from my last job, out of the blue on a Friday afternoon, with no warning, and no explanation, I was probably more mad than I had ever been in my life, to the point where I was shaking with anger most of that weekend. My boss, much like Trump, was a horrible person who had not earned nor deserved the position he was in. Everyone has known these people. Where this ties in, is that, for at least a week, I was seriously contemplating placing a call to OSHA and reporting safety violations at the business, because I knew if they stopped in, they would witness multiple infractions regarding safety harnesses at nearly any time of the day. In my head, I wanted to shut down that business for a few days, or at least cost them some money. The only thing that stopped me in the end was knowing that the couple decent people who worked there could have conceivably lost a few days pay because of it.
Point being, revenge or getting even would have absolutely been the MOTIVATION if I had made that call, but it wouldn't have made those safety violations any less true. I guarantee they still occur to this day. I don't doubt Preet Bharara and James Comey want to exact revenge and make Trump pay. But that doesn't mean anything they are saying isn't true.
As far as that goes, McCain is lookin a bit, well, wore out.
As an aside:
Some of these folks on 'THe Hill' are gettin on up there, and that can be ok for experience, or it can be a little worrisome. I guess as long as anyone can keep gettin voted in, what can ya do. Seems like there aught to be a point though, not sure. Personally I'd like to see term limits, longer than the pres maybe but still a limit I am thinking, or at least a break period between a certain span of time.
@jjstraka34 hehheh, good ol OSHA, I'm hearin on that. That's a tough call when considering the decent folks in an org. I remember when I was a contractor, whenever they were comin to town the buildin inspectors would call the most compliant of the contractors to let them know as a courtesy. I always was appreciative. Those guys and the police ALWAYS got invited to the company BBQ. Yep, it helps to be nice, but then there's times when it's time not to be nice.
On another note I saw Bernie and Pres Carter speaking together this weekend on CSPAN at the Carter center. Was kinda interesting. Carter was not the best pres of course but he has gained at least a lil bit of insight into things now , esp. regarding the connection between peace, human rights and security, that I enjoyed listening to.
But luckily, I was born there, so the fact I wouldn't take the time and effort to piss on a member of the royal family who was on fire does not in any way make me less Canadian.
Which is why demanding anyone else has to take an oath of loyalty to the powerless figurehead monarch of another country in order to become Canadian is absurd. Canadians don't have to be loyal to the Queen - so why ask new ones to? It'd make more sense to get them to pledge allegiance to Tim Hortons.
The first step to being willing to chop your neighbour to bits with a machete, is to not be willing to piss on them - to consider them "not one of us".
Patriotism is not always negative - it's one of the things that can stop someone turning into a terrorist.
She wouldn't actively be an embarrassment. Our government would work better because she'd fill the positions that Trump is purposefully leaving open. Trump's insidious plan to ruin the "administrative state" as described by Steve Bannon is done by not nominating anyone for positions so our government. Then if something happens, he can play to the Republican talking point of "hey the government is bad!" and he turns around and blames Democrats for not approving his non-existent appointments. Win-win for Trump and lose-lose for people who like a functioning Government.
Pelosi'd not take multimillion dollar golf trips to her own resorts, profiteering from the government. So she'd be an improvement. She wouldn't try and take us backwards on human rights and freedoms.
She'd fill the cabinet with less swamp and less egregious tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. Trump's just insane on those areas, doesn't even pretend - just look at his budget. He also made a big deal about making rules for lobbyists but he made it so he could writes waivers and overcome those rules really easily. His ethics rules are meaningless since they are so easily waivered, it is much easier now actually than it was under Obama to put the swamp in washingon and he's been doing just that. The Trump administration is full of individuals who had been retained by for-profit clients, and then took up matters that benefits those former clients. There should be an upper age limit for Senators and Supreme Court Justices. When they made the Supreme Court appointment last "for life" back in the day, if you lived to 40 you were doing good. It just doesn't make sense today to have 80-90 yr old people on the Supreme Court or in the Senate - as shown by Senator McCain's display the other day. I think Carter gets a bit of a bad rap that he might not deserve. Either way, he has worked his butt off for human rights and peace since leaving office so that's commendable.
If it's anti Trump, the media will run it, verify and look for facts later.
In other news, the New York Times has sponsored a play featuring a Trump assassination and have come out to give vocal support of it. I think that says it all, really. We're living in a time where once credible publications look like foriegn propaganda outlets- almost comically hollow and transparant from an outside perspective.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1920OC
It's also highly probable, viewed objectively.
Fact 1: The British people hate Trump, and would turn out in force to protest against him.
Fact 2: The British Government is far to weak at this point to do anything to shield him.
Fact 3: Trump can't bare to be confronted with the idea that anyone doesn't like him, never mind tens of thousands.
Not quite true. Life expectancy values take birth fatality rates into account. While the infant mortality rates were distressingly high, if you made it past childhood it wasn't unreasonable to reach an elderly age.
By that age you've earned retirement and your brain just is not as sharp as it used to be, don't you think?
If someday we're all living to 200 then amend the age limit then. For today, I'd say 75, then it's time to move on.
It's Shakespeare, who, along with Homer, is the foundation of modern stroytelling. Caesar dies in Julius Caesar because THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS. What the whole freak-out over this tells me is that alot of people in this country needed to pay more attention in Sophmore or Junior English class.
the claimant, and in this case, The Guardian is making the claim about Trump and the UK.
So what is their basis for this claim? An anonymous source, so we can't verify that. No records, so we can't verify using that either. The content involved is hearsay as is. Every party involved denies it. It will be known to the public when it happens or if it doesn't, so why would they lie. That you think Trump or the Tories are compulsive liars isn't an argument, frankly. And if you are prepared to believe what The Guardian says just because it looks bad on your enemies, well.
I'm not surprised the Obama play went unnoticed. It wasn't funded by big name donors and wasn't given media attention the way NYT and CNN celebrated it. Now that investors are fleeing due to the Trump assasination it's only right to me.
It's really kinda funny how they shot themselves in the foot here. If they could have just contained their glee in seeing Trump killed, if they could have just kept silent, nobody would have even known. But as we saw with Kathy Griffin, the emotional element to destroy Trump is too strong for such measured restraint.
It makes it all the more funny because CNN ruthlessly attacked some rodeo clown for an Obama mask and got him fired. Absolutely no intellectual consistency, never has been.
Also out of Trump's own mouth: "Something is true because I believe it to be true". Ergo, he does not require objective proof.
As for the Tory party, I can't prove they lied, but then they aren't low grade morons who contradict themselves at every opportunity.
"Never has there been a president....with few exceptions...who's passed more legislation, who's done more things than I have."
Reminder that he has not passed a single piece of legislation.
After praising himself for doing the best job in the history of Presidents, he went around the table and asked each of his employee cabinet members to describe how much they love him.
Each cabinet members tasked with serving and running various aspects of the United States Of America took turns trying to out do each other in their enthusiastic praise of Donald J. Trump's greatness.
An example from White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus about Trump: "We thank you for the opportunity and blessing to serve your agenda."
Working for Trump is "the greatest privilege of my life." Vice President Pence
"An honor to be here," Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who recently offered his resignation amid strains over the Russia investigation.
"My hat is off to you," said Energy Secretary Rick Perry, referring to the president's decision to abandon a global climate change agreement.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/12/politics/donald-trump-cabinet-meeting/index.html
I believe the message Trump intended to send out was hey you look at all these important people, I own them, they will do what I want not what's best for the country. Message received.
Donald Trump's cabinet heaps praise on him as he claims to be best President in modern times
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-cabinet-meeting-praise-best-president-roosevelt-a7786841.html
*******
And Republican Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder called for those responsible to be held accountable.
"I condemn the actions disrespectful to POTUS" -- president of the United States -- "the other night," he said in a post to his official Twitter account. "We are better than this."
U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill echoed Kinder. "The state fair is funded by taxpayer dollars, and is supposed to be a place where we can all bring our families and celebrate the state that we love," she said. "But the young Missourians who witnessed this stunt learned exactly the wrong lesson about political discourse, that somehow it's ever acceptable to, in a public event, disrespect, taunt, and joke about harming the president of our great nation."
*******
So...it is unacceptable to have put an Obama mask on a rodeo clown but acceptable to present a Trump-like character in the guise of Caesar? I can easily accept this just as long as when a Democrat is the the Oval Office we can replace Caesar with a stand-in of that person, as well. Speaking of CNN, they can't figure out which side of the issue they are on. They fire Kathy Griffin but CNN host Fareed Zakaria thinks the play is "a masterpiece". Truthfully, it is still Julius Caesar and is thus a good play, no matter how the director is presenting it or giving the audience some new take on it. You have all read it--you know what happens to all the conspirators in the end.
This, then, forces us to ask the broader question: when is depicting something containing a political figure art (or speech, if you prefer), when is it satire, and when does it cross the line? The earlier rodeo clown was never actually hurt, only lampooned as most rodeo clowns are. What about political cartoonists when they draw a figure in a very unflattering manner? We have an archery target set up in the back yard. What if I print a picture of Trump and tape it to the target? No one can see into our backyard unless they are in one neighbor's back yard and stand next to the fence so no one would know if I did this. What if I also taped a picture of Hillary alongside Trump so I may target them both? Is that going too far or is it just political speech? A picture is not the same as a person, after all.
We really need to figure out the answers to these questions before the situation gets worse than it already is.
*************
Mike Quigly (D - IL) is going to introduce legislation titled The COVFEFE (Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically for Engagement, which is actually quite clever) Act into Congress, which will broaden the scope of the Presidential Records Act of 1978 to include any and all social media outlets. If the legislation passes, then any Presidential tweets become a matter of permanent public record and cannot be recalled or deleted. Now that I think about it this may be why Trump uses Twitter so much.
On a related topic, I read recently that all documents which will be at Obama's Presidential Library will be digital only with hard copies stored elsewhere. This is a very bad idea--the hard copies need to be at the Library and available to the public. If not, then how do you *know* that the text of some speech hasn't been edited?
*************
edit to add: ninjaed. @smeagolheart I would strike out the word "weirdest" and substitute "creepiest" or even the colloquial "most Twilight-Zone-ish". That wasn't a Cabinet meeting, by the way. It was a message and it was directed at everyone who isn't a sycophant in Washington, D. C.
Portraying the president getting harmed and treating it as a positive thing? Um... gross, but maybe constitutional?
Expressing a personal desire to hurt the president? Yeah, a talk with the Secret Service would be in order.
But does that make Anti Trump or Anti Obama or Anti Clinton claims true by default because they lie? Not even a little bit. Dishonesty should be expected from both media and politicians and they should both be treated with skepticism especially when independent verification doesn't exist.
It's not unusual for productions of very old plays to use modern dress and current political references. A 2012 New York production of Julius Caesar by The Acting Company was set "at our precise historical moment, in Obama's Washington, D.C. The capital is rocked by 'Occupy Rome' protests," wrote Noah Hillman in The American Conservative, noting that this Caesar was "a tall, charismatic African-American politician; he doesn't look or sound much like Obama (he more closely recalls Michael Jordan), but the audience is unquestionably going to read him as an Obama stand-in nonetheless."
"Julius Caesar can be read as a warning parable to those who try to fight for democracy by undemocratic means. To fight the tyrant does not mean imitating him."
This is utterly absurd, and the only thing it tells me is that America needs to open a goddamn book once in awhile and actually try understand what the words written on the page mean in context. Julius Caesar DOES NOT promote or glorify the assassination of Caesar. Was I the only one awake in English Lit??
Here's something to brighten everyone's day. Here's the tweet of the video that Chuck Schumer made of a re-enactment of Trump's cabinet meeting.
Flags and national anthems are meaningless symbols that people take far too seriously. People get all up in arms over changing a line in Canada's national anthem to include 50% of the country, ignoring the fact that a) that line was not in the original version of the anthem, it was changed before, and b) the last time the national anthem was changed was a few decades ago, to be less boring.
However, for all that, at least Canada's flag and anthem are actually Canadian in some meaningful way. The British Monarchy isn't. And, of course, the continued existence of any monarchy is an abomination to anyone who genuinely believes that all people are born equal. It's also one of the things that can turn people into one. Most white nationalist terrorists are motivated at least partially by it, for starters.
In any case, "patriotism" has nothing to do with swearing allegiance to the monarch of another country. Isn't wanting to be a full, voting member of Canadian society a far more meaningful demonstration of patriotic spirit than a loyalty oath to someone who doesn't even live there?
The British monarchy is seen as quintessentially British by many people across the world. I might not agree with that, but it's certainly meaningful.
Surely the point is that you're not swearing allegiance to the monarch of another country, but the monarch of your country. Canada is free to choose an alternative arrangement for appointing a head of state, but until/unless they do so the oath is being made to Canadian institutions, not to British ones.
You are free to believe whichever pathological liar you like.
"Who is the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?"
2) monarchy isn't a person, its an institution. If you don't have a monarch, you run the risk of a simple minded person thinking that they are the institution. See: Trump.
3) people are quite obviously not born equal. Some are both with money and some are not. Some people are born stupid, and some slightly less stupid. Some people are born selfish, some are born less selfish.
4) Sure patriotism, like religion, can lead to terrorism. But in both cases it arises out of a misiterpretation, that loving one thing means hating everything else. But it can also lead to a desire to put things right. If you care about your country you aren't blind to its faults, you are driven to correct them. If you don't care about your country, then it won't bother you when it's leaders are an embarrasment.
5) It's cheeper for Canada to borrow someone else's symbols. But there is no one preventing Canadians from creating thier own.
So he wants to bring that back because that's something he remembers.
He liked the old days when Oil Barons and Steel Tycoons had monopolies on people's lives and wants to bring that time back because that, to him as a Billionaire*, was when America Was Great.
The gold old days were when the Rich owned the Poor.