• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Trump Presidency IX: Nein, Nein!

Status
Not open for further replies.
dudalb said:
I am betting behind closed doors it a different story....
Trump's advisors can talk him into behaving halfway rationally temporariy, but it never lasts very long. I am betting within two weeks Trump will turn on Manafort in Public.
Click to expand...

I'm going with some version of, "Manafort's plea shows tjere was no collusion"
 
Paul2 said:
To the extent that liberals DO want immigration laws enforced, my point doesn't hold. To the extent that they DON'T want immigration laws enforced at all, my point holds.

There may also be similar considerations for that vast area in-between, given that nearly any law is not enforced, nor not enforced, 100%. To the extent that liberals DO want immigration laws enforced to a good extent, my point doesn't hold. To the extent that they DON'T want immigration laws enforced hardly at all (if those qualifications in italics are roughly equal), my point holds.
Click to expand...

There really aren't hardly any liberals who want open borders, or borders so un-policed that they might as well be declared officially open. The only leftwingers I know of who advocate that are fringy left-anarchist types.

"#abolishICE" is NOT about open borders. It's about abolishing the whole Patriot Act, actually, and returning to the immigration enforcement we had before 9/11 (when we actually had far fewer undocumented immigrants), maintaining closed borders, and moving back to something akin to amnesty for people who've been here for a long time, with stuff like the DREAM Act.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump tweets

"“They say all these people died in the storm in Puerto Rico, yet 70% of the power was out before the storm. So when did people start dying? At what point do you recognize that what they are doing is a political agenda couched in the nice language of journalism?”
@GeraldoRivera"
Click to expand...
"Who knows where that buck stops?"
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump tweets

"“They say all these people died in the storm in Puerto Rico, yet 70% of the power was out before the storm. So when did people start dying? At what point do you recognize that what they are doing is a political agenda couched in the nice language of journalism?”
@GeraldoRivera"
Click to expand...

That'll be checkable. And most likely Pants-on-Fire, according to the Fake News.
Why Geraldo?
 
Trump Tweets

"The story of Puerto Rico is the rebuilding that has occurred. The President has done an extraordinary job of cleanup, rebuilding electrical stuff and everything else.”
@EdRollins
“The people of Puerto Rico have one of the most corrupt governments in our country.”
@LouDobbs"
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

"The story of Puerto Rico is the rebuilding that has occurred. The President has done an extraordinary job of cleanup, rebuilding electrical stuff and everything else.”
@EdRollins
“The people of Puerto Rico have one of the most corrupt governments in our country.”
@LouDobbs"
Click to expand...
I am not a member of Twitter, and am exposed to the Trumpsters' tweets (still think they should be called " twits" FWIW) through secondary sources, like this forum. Nonetheless, it seems to me he is twitting less of his own thoughts, and more of other people's. People who are better at expressing a cogent thought than he is.
Thoughts?
 
Belz... said:
This brings up an interesting point, however.

If you can ignore laws you consider unjust, can you blame your opponents for ignoring laws _they_ consider unjust?
Click to expand...

It depends. Case by case basis.
 
Distracted1 said:
I am not a member of Twitter, and am exposed to the Trumpsters' tweets (still think they should be called " twits" FWIW) through secondary sources, like this forum. Nonetheless, it seems to me he is twitting less of his own thoughts, and more of other people's. People who are better at expressing a cogent thought than he is.
Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I'd say his ratio is about 50/50 him vs other people.
 
Distracted1 said:
I am not a member of Twitter, and am exposed to the Trumpsters' tweets (still think they should be called " twits" FWIW) through secondary sources, like this forum. Nonetheless, it seems to me he is twitting less of his own thoughts, and more of other people's. People who are better at expressing a cogent thought than he is.
Thoughts?
Click to expand...
You don't have to register with twitter to read it. Just Google Donald Trump twitter and click. Not that I recommend that.
About half of his tweets seem to be by some staff member, and it's pretty obvious which as they are at least semi coherent.
 
dudalb said:
Somewhat off topic but....
God,the studio that made "First Man" the biopic about Neal Armstrong, is buying a lot of time on CNN.....seems last night there was an ad for it every break.
Click to expand...


You mean the film conservatives are boycotting because they don't include planting the flag?
 
Distracted1 said:
I am not a member of Twitter, and am exposed to the Trumpsters' tweets (still think they should be called " twits" FWIW) through secondary sources, like this forum. Nonetheless, it seems to me he is twitting less of his own thoughts, and more of other people's. People who are better at expressing a cogent thought than he is.
Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think it's a counter to everyone making fun of his "many people are saying" comments. Now he cites people to give himself more street cred. Of course, he probably phoned them up and got them to say those things in the first place. I can imagine Dobbs, Hannity, Fox Y Amigos, etc... actually taking script requests from him.

I've also never checked back to the sources. Is he even getting them right?
 
Belz... said:
Which sounds like another way to ignore the grievances of the opponent and ignore the law whenever it's convenient.
Click to expand...
Here in the UK the Suffragettes had to campaign and some of them chose to break the law to promote their case for the vote for women. In the USA the Civil Rights movement was often carried out by passive resistance to discriminatory laws against the black community. I believe in both these cases breaking the law was justified. While not to be encouraged in all cases, sometimes the injustice of the law is such that unlawful behaviour is the only way to successfully challenge it.
 
Parsman said:
Here in the UK the Suffragettes had to campaign and some of them chose to break the law to promote their case for the vote for women.
Click to expand...
Nit-pick : The suffragettes were actually those suffragists who chose to break the law. The other, mainstream suffragists (who actually got the job done) stuck to legal means.
 
kellyb said:
Not really.
Click to expand...

Oh, I assure you, it does sound like that.

Think about it. You find a law unjust. You ignore it and eventually get your representatives in government to change it. Then your opponents find that unjust, ignore it and eventually ge their representatives... you get the idea.
 
Belz... said:
Oh, I assure you, it does sound like that.

Think about it. You find a law unjust. You ignore it and eventually get your representatives in government to change it. Then your opponents find that unjust, ignore it and eventually ge their representatives... you get the idea.
Click to expand...

Civil disobedience and ignoring laws you just don't like are different things.

People ignore the law about fully stopping at stop signs sometimes because they think it's silly. That's nothing at all like Ghandi's active non-cooperation with injustice.

There is no "one size fits all" moral analysis for the breaking of laws.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom