• 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.

Trump's Second Term

steenkh said:
Why is it not a new rule to determine who can participate in which categories, and who can’t?
Click to expand...
Why would it be? Telling you what rules I'll pay for isn't the same as telling you what rules you have to make. Withdrawing the carrot isn't the same as swinging the stick. Anyway, it's a good policy, and I'm pleased with the outcome.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Trump: "I'm gonna tell Elon very soon, like maybe in 24 hours, to go check the Department of Education. He's gonna find the same thing. Then I'm gonna go to the military. Let's check the military. We're gonna find billions, hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud and abuse."
Click to expand...
For "fraud and abuse" he means "spending", because after so many years spending money on frivolous court cases and dodgy business practices, Trump can't conceive spending money can be a good thing.
 
Planigale said:
Introducing a new theme. A priority for Trump must be to appoint more members of the supreme court. The oldest is Clarence Thomas (R) age 76, followed by Samuel Alito (R) 74, Sonia Sotomayor (D) 70, John Roberts (R - swing) 70. My guess is there will be encouragement on Thomas and Alito to retire within this term so they can be replaced by ideologically sound lawyers. Sotomayer can probably sit out this term and potentially the next before she has to consider retiring. Roberts may need to retire in the next presidential term, but probably doesn't need to retire this term unless health problems arise.
Click to expand...
I can see judge Pubic Hair and Alito retiring to ensure Stubby McBonespurs can nominate more pro-republican judges. Sotomayor certainly won't retire when Trump is the one who picks her successor.

I guess the question is, what would Roberts do. As a republican, you might think he would want to let another republican president pick his successor. But, he seems to have at least some dim awareness of the problems the supreme court is having with regards to its reputation, and he might consider that yet another Trump pick would cause even more damage.
 
theprestige said:
What lies? Are you disputing the reports of where USAID money went? Or are we just arguing about whether it was good spending?
Click to expand...

You claimed the USAID had no oversight or accountability. Are you backing away from that claim now? Because it sure seems like it.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Trump during his Super Bowl interview:

Trump: "I'm gonna tell Elon very soon, like maybe in 24 hours, to go check the Department of Education. He's gonna find the same thing. Then I'm gonna go to the military. Let's check the military. We're gonna find billions, hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud and abuse."

"I think Canada would be much better off being a 51st state because we lose $200 billion a year with Canada, and I'm not gonna let that happen."

BAIER: When do you think families would be able to feel prices going down?

TRUMP: I think we're gonna become a rich-- look, we're not that rich right now. We owe $36 trillion. That's because we let all these nations take advantage of us.
Click to expand...
We're in deep poop.JPG
 
theprestige said:
Why would it be? Telling you what rules I'll pay for isn't the same as telling you what rules you have to make. Withdrawing the carrot isn't the same as swinging the stick. Anyway, it's a good policy, and I'm pleased with the outcome.
Click to expand...
I am sure that you are pleased with the result, but that is not the point. The point is that Trump has gone into a detail that is best left to those it concerns. Are US athletes now staying away from international competitions where they will meet athletes that would not be allowed to compete in the U.S.? Or are you now extending the rules you pay for to organisations that you don’t own?
 
steenkh said:
I am sure that you are pleased with the result, but that is not the point. The point is that Trump has gone into a detail that is best left to those it concerns. Are US athletes now staying away from international competitions where they will meet athletes that would not be allowed to compete in the U.S.? Or are you now extending the rules you pay for to organisations that you don’t own?
Click to expand...
Trump already said he's going to talk to the Olympic committee about them implementing the same ban as his EO.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Trump already said he's going to talk to the Olympic committee about them implementing the same ban as his EO.
Click to expand...
Exactly. He is meddling in something that should be no concern of his.

I honestly think that there is a problem with transgender athletes, but that is only a part of the bigger problem of what to do about athletes that have abnormal levels of hormones, or indeterminate biological gender. But that should be left to the competent organisations, and not politics.
 
steenkh said:
I am sure that you are pleased with the result, but that is not the point. The point is that Trump has gone into a detail that is best left to those it concerns. Are US athletes now staying away from international competitions where they will meet athletes that would not be allowed to compete in the U.S.? Or are you now extending the rules you pay for to organisations that you don’t own?
Click to expand...
What US athletes? US collegiate sports are US only. After those students graduate, they're free to compete in any national and international leagues they want, with whatever rules they think best suit their values.

I don't understand your question. Are you concerned that the top female athletes in the US, after deservedly dominating their NCAA categories, will decline to join professional or international women's sports leagues that require them to compete against males?
 
theprestige said:
Are they, though? Name three specific evil expenditures you were relieved to learn are fake news.
Click to expand...
The claims that they were 1.) funding the New York Times and 2.) Pro Publica, and 3.) the claims that USAID was funding bioweapon research in China.

Although that was less a case of “relieved to learn are fake news” and more a case of “obvious nonsense spread by malicious actors”.

Oh, and 4.) 50 million dollars to Hamas for condoms. Has that been substantiated?
 
angrysoba said:
The claims that they were 1.) funding the New York Times and 2.) Pro Publica, and 3.) the claims that USAID was funding bioweapon research in China.

Although that was less a case of “relieved to learn are fake news” and more a case of “obvious nonsense spread by malicious actors”.

Oh, and 4.) 50 million dollars to Hamas for condoms. Has that been substantiated?
Click to expand...
Your appeal to incredulity is noted.

How many of these allegations would need to be proven true, for you to change your mind?

Anyway, at least we agree that these are things the US government shouldn't be funding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom