What exactly was he going to talk about? He knows nothing.
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
What exactly was he going to talk about? He knows nothing.
He lies and lies and lies but no one says it to his face in public that he is a liar. He should be confronted on every lie until he accidentally tells the truth. Such a cnut, i would be embarrassed to be associated professionally or personally to such a person. Deplorable.
11 - Get massive amounts of credit for it from his cult and Fox and friends
12 - Cult and Fox and friends repeat step 5-8 ad naseum
The incredibly sad thing about all that is that not only is it true, it's also working incredibly well for him.
Typically news/media types acknowledged politicians would sometimes lie and distort the truth, and - some of them - to appear unbiased would respond by simply reporting on what was said as opposed to the actual truth. Trump distorts this to a degree that's far greater than ever before, and media institutions haven't quite managed to come to grips with that yet. Even those who're critical of him that he dislikes could give him a far more difficult time if they wished.
i was only using the words of Deshowitz, but your own first paragraph pretty much says the same thing (wars, economic crisis ...) pretty extreme circumstances.
Most of the negativity so far on the nominee is just scare tactics. Sounds good, probably gets the base out, but does not seem to reflect the nominees position on most of the topics being discussed. You just have to listen to his last nominee interviews with Schumer and co to hear what his position is.
As for being a defence strategy for Trump if he gets indicted that is one hell of a long shot. It assumes that the supreme court will go along partizan lines and he is the swing vote. If that is the case, the fact the SC is partizan shows it is fecked up.
I'm not sure he realizes that those comments won't work in the UK like they do in the States.
Well, maybe in Newcastle.
Why would you think that? That’s exactly the way you guys were made to leave the EU. It works everywhere. Even in Germany those statements work.
Times like this the 24-hour news cycle becomes nauseating. Following his helicopters every move fs.
The happy couple:
The stresses of recent rumours obviously having an impact on David and Victoria by the looks of it there.
1. No, my first paragraph gives his justification for arguing that a president shouldn't be subjet to suits - not that a president under those pressures shouldn't be, but that a president is/could be facing crises and thus shouldn't be wasting his time. That becomes clear from the rest of his direct words.
2. There is no indication that he'll overturn Citizens United, Janus, or other labour and environmental cases, or that he won't further weaken Roe v Wade, Massachusetts v EPA, etc, given that he is vetted by the Federalist Society.
3. The question of whether the SC is partisan was resolved forever by Bush v Gore. Anyway, I don't think any case against Trump will go that far.
Pretty sure Ireland isn't leaving the EU.
It was more-so the language in the statement itself, "hot spot", how un-British can you get.
Witness the deep state in action. Touching happens all the time at the gentlemen's ballet. This is targeted to discredit her claims against the adulterer in chief.
I always used to wonder how con artists found people gullible enough to think they could buy the Brooklyn bridge, now I've realized they had a better than 50% chance just talking up any stranger.
Watching this hearing with Agent Strozk and many other public hearings confirms my belief that Republicans are fecking idiots and not intelligent enough to govern. Goodlatte is a fecking idiot. He doesnt even know the rules of the hearing. Asking an active FBI agent to publicly comment on an active investigation is a disgrace.
Apparently Trump is under the impression that Jens Stoltenberg, the Secretary General of NATO, likes him. I wonder if he realizes Jens Stoltenberg was Prime Minister of Norway for a total of 9 years, representing the social democratic Labour party. And that his government included the Socialist Left party.
Hell, not even the conservatives in Norway like Trump. The only people who like Trump are on the far right wing of Norwegian politics, and not even all of them like him. I'm sure he has a big fan in Skien Prison, though.
Hell, not even the conservatives in Norway like Trump. The only people who like Trump are on the far right wing of Norwegian politics, and not even all of them like him. I'm sure he has a big fan in Skien Prison, though.
I don’t think he gives a single feck about what people in the UK think.
I think it's safe to say he doesn't give a flying feck about what the people of his own country think either, tbf.
We will have to disagree on the first part. I do not see any evidence he is saying a president is above the law which is being implied by your interpretation. I see it as his comments are made in the context of the first part of your text.
As for the bolded part, there is far too much focus on this. All parties will have a body that suggests candidates, nothing new here. Lobbying is par for the course. Do you not think this happened with Garland. I think the thing in the nominees favor is that a number of highly regarded liberal leaning lawyers have also given him the green light. He has been very clear on Roe v Wade, it is precedent and he follows precedent. As I have argued many times, if people want the law changed, whether it be abortion, immigration, unions and so on, bash the politicians, not the judges. I personally have more confidence in a judge who will not be influenced by personal views. You only have to see what has happened to NY and CA jurisdiction, with the number of turn overs, to see how they are more politically focused and will not follow the law as written.
Ah, sorry. I just keep assuming everyone on here is either English or an insufferable German prick like me.
1. This is the 1st part:
Let's take "the threat of terrorist attacks". When does the "threat" not exist? Hence, when does the president not have the "weighty responsibilit(y)"? Hence, how can he deal with the "burdens of ordinary citizenship" while dealing with these threats, everyday?
And, as I said, the US has been at war for the last 17 years.
2. Yes, I'm sure Garland met whatever Obama's bottom lines were. That's why Mitch McConnell was right to do what he did- his appointment would have changed the partisan balance of the court away from Mitch McConnell's side. Similarly, Kavanaugh's appointment will solidify the partisan balance of the court to his side, and he will thus be right in doing whatever it takes to push him through (and vice verse for the Dems).
Hence, the fact that the Federalists approve of him tell me all I need to know about him - he will vote to weaken labour, environmental regulations, etc. He could well be a poetic genius while doing that and it matters not a bit - the pollution will be the same whether his judgement is a crayon scribble telling liberal to suck on this or an eloquent defence of property rights and small government. The liberals scholars advocating for him are using his knowledge as their justification - I'm sure he knows the constitution and laws.
3. Some examples of the court changing laws: all the 1930s decisions that ripped apart the New Deal, Citizens United v FEC effectively killed existing campaign finance law, Roe v Wade killed multiple statewide abortion laws. Finally, there is evidence showing that popular opinion does not result in a change in laws: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
So, the SC is effectively in the business of substantially changing laws, and has the power to do so unlike most citizens.
Finally, your last sentence assumes that the overturning of NY/CA judgements is because of some divine, "true" interpretation by higher courts rather than a reverse of partisan bias from blue states to the red SC. As I said, Bush v Gore makes me confident that the SC is a partisan political institution. "The law as it is written" is interpreted by one's own biases, and since these questions are political, it's the political biases that become apparent in judgements. The 5-4 judgements on cases like voting rights, labour law, environmental protection, corporate power, gun rights, and gay rights, proves that there is no such thing as a final, objectively true, interpretation.
I want a round of applause to break out at the end of this video, but I'm guessing there wasn't.
There's other video that had the applause and the bonus of watching Gowdy's stupid face through it all
Gowdy looks so inbred.
He looks like a 17 year old Sloth from The Goonies at his first court apperance for meth possession.
Anyone else watching the live coverage from Blenheim Palace?
This military ceremony is too much.
This military ceremony is too much.
He’s a POS.
Its hard to imagine a different life trajectory having born with that face.
I had dealings with him personally before he was a congressman. Believe me, he hit that trajectory a long time ago.
Really? Do tell!
He prosecuted my uncle for an accidental homicide, a hunting accident, involving my uncle, my dad, and their best friend.
He put my dad through about 10 rounds of intense questioning about that night, forcing him to repeatedly relive the fact that he was performing CPR on his best friend as he died in his arms, and it was his brother who’d accidentally shot him.
This was after my uncle had taken full responsibility and asked to plead guilty to a manslaughter charge.
He kept pushing a narrative that they’d possibly murdered their best friend.
My dad couldn’t sleep the whole night for months.
Jesus
He's turning the UN into a protection racket.
He would’ve made a perfect hillbilly villain for a show like Justified.
He’s actually the son of a doctor and is married to the Miss South Carolina runner up.
Damn man, what an utter cnut Gowdy is
That sucks. Seems he also followed a similar approach with his Benghazi grandstanding.
- Status