• 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.
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

"Just watched Sunday Morning Futures with @MariaBartiromo on @FoxNews. This show is MANDATORY watching if you want to understand the massive governmental corruption and the Russian Hoax. It will be rebroadcast this evening at 6:00 P.M. on @FoxBusiness. A must see!"
Click to expand...

WTF! The dolt's crowing about "massive governmental corruption"; gotta see it 'splained by Fox, folks! He's the *head* of the same freakin' government, and sees no irony in prattling on like this. He really is divorced from reality. But then, when his own personal survival is on the line, this malignant narcissist would denigrate everything to his own aggrandizement.
 
Lurch said:
WTF! The dolt's crowing about "massive governmental corruption"; gotta see it 'splained by Fox, folks! He's the *head* of the same freakin' government, and sees no irony in prattling on like this. He really is divorced from reality. But then, when his own personal survival is on the line, this malignant narcissist would denigrate everything to his own aggrandizement.
Click to expand...

He does seem to be in favor of massive government corruption. Whenever he tweets or speaks about it he criticizes the actions of those who are exposing it. Reality is something that Trump is not acquainted with.
 
Horatius said:
Interesting. I'm reading Woodward's book, and there's a part where someone uses Elkhart County as a good example of why the tariffs will kill jobs. And here it is.

And of course, Trump and his cronies didn't listen.
Click to expand...

Indiana currently has a close race for Senate between Donnelly and Braun. It's currently held by Donnelly, the Dem. Indiana usually votes overwhelmingly Republican. Curiously, Braun's ads tie himself closely to Trump.
 
LSSBB said:
Indiana currently has a close race for Senate between Donnelly and Braun. It's currently held by Donnelly, the Dem. Indiana usually votes overwhelmingly Republican. Curiously, Braun's ads tie himself closely to Trump.
Click to expand...

I'm really tired of these guys (Braun and Donnelly) pissing around accusing the other one of sending jobs to Mexico.

Although Donnelly has the ad of Trump praising him (for right to try legislation, I think).

Braun ads spend a lot of time talking about Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.

I wish Donnelly would own his vote against the tax cut, and justify it on the grounds of the deficit. He could come in with something like, "My opponents have criticized me for my opposition to the tax cut. Yeah, we all like to have our taxes cut, and I promised Indiana that I would support smart tax cuts. However, the Trump tax cut was not smart or responsible, and at the time, it was projected to add significantly to the deficit. In fact, the predictions were wrong, in that the deficit is even worse than expected. History has shown that my vote was right. We need responsible tax policy that favors middle class Hoosiers, and not just the President's super-rich friends."

That will go farther than attacking Braun's businesses.
 
pgwenthold said:
I'm really tired of these guys (Braun and Donnelly) pissing around accusing the other one of sending jobs to Mexico.

Although Donnelly has the ad of Trump praising him (for right to try legislation, I think).

Braun ads spend a lot of time talking about Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.

I wish Donnelly would own his vote against the tax cut, and justify it on the grounds of the deficit. He could come in with something like, "My opponents have criticized me for my opposition to the tax cut. Yeah, we all like to have our taxes cut, and I promised Indiana that I would support smart tax cuts. However, the Trump tax cut was not smart or responsible, and at the time, it was projected to add significantly to the deficit. In fact, the predictions were wrong, in that the deficit is even worse than expected. History has shown that my vote was right. We need responsible tax policy that favors middle class Hoosiers, and not just the President's super-rich friends."

That will go farther than attacking Braun's businesses.
Click to expand...

I see the ads a lot, getting tired of them myself. Although I am in the Chicago market, the ads play a lot on the Chicago stations to reach Northwest Indiana voters.
 
Belz... said:
Hum. I suppose that's one way to look at it. After all, the word "moral" is pretty vague, in a way.
Click to expand...
It's off topic so this will be my last post. Every law is not a moral issue.

Take for example a law against animal cruelty. That's a moral law. But how about the city ordinance that says only willows can be planted in front yards. That's not a moral issue, it's the biddy's on the city council issue, they have the authority to choose the aesthetics they like. You just can't say majority preferences are moral preferences. Jews in Hitler's Germany would beg to differ.

[/enough without a new thread]
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
It's off topic so this will be my last post. Every law is not a moral issue.

Take for example a law against animal cruelty. That's a moral law. But how about the city ordinance that says only willows can be planted in front yards. That's not a moral issue, it's the biddy's on the city council issue, they have the authority to choose the aesthetics they like. You just can't say majority preferences are moral preferences. Jews in Hitler's Germany would beg to differ.

[/enough without a new thread]
Click to expand...

They have the authority because we grant them the authority as part of our system of governance, based on the constitution in the US on down to the city councils, and the magna carta before that.

Law was very much supposed to be from God himself, even according to Jefferson.

To quote Philip Bobbitt,the operating assumption behind the liberal Western tradition is:

that all peoples’ natures were held equally subject to divine judgment, redemption, and salvation, a concept that would be nonsensical if every person were not endowed with the freedom of conscience, on the basis of which he or she is to be judged. One might say “all men are created equal because they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” The equality enshrined in the Declaration of Independence — a document that provides the basis for the U.S. Constitution — is said to be “self-evident,”22 the Creator of mankind having determined that it is to be so.
Click to expand...

From that core claim about objective morality, the entirety of the rest of US law finds its legitimacy. Or not, as the case may be. I would probably be a contentious objector to the "only willows can be planted in front yards" local law.
 
More Cohn stories about Trump:

Trump was skeptical. Instead, he just wanted the federal government to borrow tons of money for infrastructure projects. He was especially obsessed with overhauling his hometown airport LaGuardia, which he calls "Third World."

The President horrified some Republicans in an October 2017 meeting with members of Congress at the White House when he told the Democrats that he liked their plan of massive public investment in infrastructure, according to a source in the room.

"We've just gotta spend money on this," Trump said, according to the source.

"He wants to govern like Robert Moses, but Republicans won't let him," the source added, referring to the titanic public official known as the "master builder" of mid-20th century New York City.

In a separate conversation, Cohn tried to win Trump over with a real estate analogy, according to two sources familiar with their conversation. "Think about when you're putting up a building, you put down $50 million of your own money to leverage several hundred million," Cohn told Trump.

The president scoffed. He told Cohn that when he was building, he'd never be so stupid as to put down his own money. He'd borrow the first installment from one bank and borrow the rest from another bank.

Cohn told associates afterwards that he'd never have supported such an idea when he worked at Goldman Sachs. "I'm a 30% equity guy," Cohn told associates after the conversation. "He [Trump] is 100% leverage."
Click to expand...

Linky.
 
Belz... said:
Hum. I suppose that's one way to look at it. After all, the word "moral" is pretty vague, in a way.
Click to expand...
I was walking down the pavement of a narrow one-way street in town the other day, double yellow lines both sides, when I came to a car parked on it. By parking on the pavement he'd left just enough space for another car to squeeze by. There was nothing coming so I started to walk around the car, and just before I got to the driver's door he opened it. Another fraction of a second and he would have knocked me flying. I don't know whether I would describe this driver's behaviour as immoral, but I can tell you I'm still fuming about it. There was a car park about 100m away, btw.

ETA: just realised I'm contributing to an off topic argument. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
kellyb said:
They have the authority because we grant them the authority as part of our system of governance, based on the constitution in the US on down to the city councils, and the magna carta before that. [snip- trying to put an end to this]
Click to expand...
So it was moral to cede authority to Hitler? :rolleyes:

Getting back to the thread, how is it moral what Trump and Sessions and Pruitt are doing?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
It's off topic so this will be my last post. Every law is not a moral issue.

Take for example a law against animal cruelty. That's a moral law. But how about the city ordinance that says only willows can be planted in front yards. That's not a moral issue, it's the biddy's on the city council issue, they have the authority to choose the aesthetics they like. You just can't say majority preferences are moral preferences. Jews in Hitler's Germany would beg to differ.

[/enough without a new thread]
Click to expand...

Well thanks for making sure your opinion is the only one allowed on this side issue. :rolleyes:
 
Pixel42 said:
I was walking down the pavement of a narrow one-way street in town the other day, double yellow lines both sides, when I came to a car parked on it. By parking on the pavement he'd left just enough space for another car to squeeze by. There was nothing coming so I started to walk around the car, and just before I got to the driver's door he opened it. Another fraction of a second and he would have knocked me flying. I don't know whether I would describe this driver's behaviour as immoral, but I can tell you I'm still fuming about it. There was a car park about 100m away, btw.

ETA: just realised I'm contributing to an off topic argument. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Well, if he put you in harm's way, isn't that immoral? I'd say you could at least make a good case for that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom