Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Hail To The Chief (Read Mod Warning In OP)

1…7677798182…193

Comments

  • #2342
    HellSquirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,078 ✭✭✭HellSquirrel


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Do they though? Two people who happen to be liberal in outlook generally are being pretty horrible towards a ten year old boy and they should be ashamed of it. I don't know what Maher's beef is, although his humour can be quite cruel (to both sides, mind you, but I find his humour a bit too far at times), but O'Donnell has a long-standing feud with Trump. That's a personal spite, not not a political jab. There's no indication that "progressives" believe it.
    gk5000 wrote: »
    Ah - the old 97%.
    Anyone who agrees with 97% is irrelevant from a science perspective. Science is about proof - absolute - no maybe. Any climatologist who believes in this 97% does not appreciate the scientific method, so is (scientifically) not worth listening to.
    Actually, since the time that statistic was accurate, it's gone up to more like 99.9%. A very few isolated voices, and that they're not being taken seriously on it is that far more evidence leans against their theories than supports theirs. The squabbling is mostly by people that don't actually study it.
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Yeah, apparently she is (despite holding pretty liberal views, I don't know her. Know the name, but that's about it). But that doesn't mean she can't have a spite against someone who has a spite against her. And while that would be fine, whatever, attacking the sprog is cruel. The people that attack the president's children in articles and the like are being assholes, and there's some with every presidency.

    Galway_Old_Man wrote: »
    According to the "right-on" individuals at Saturday Night Live, yes. When people share "oh so hilarious" Alec Baldwin as Trump vids, let's remind them of the hatred and bullying that the show endorses. Of a child ffs.
    Never seen the attacks on Barron. I've seen some of the Trump clips and yeah, they can be pretty funny. What were SNL saying about the child?


  • #2343
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,047 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The Backwards Man wrote: »
    It's nice to see a change in rhetoric from the Trumpeters anyway, 'But but but Hilary' has now become 'But but but Obama'.

    Who knows, at this rate, we might get some actual views on Trump's policies from them before the next election :)

    FFS. We're not allowed to talk about ex-Presidents now either?

    It's perfectly fine to compare progress and perception and it adds some worth to the conversation instead of mindless Trump-bashing. Sorry if it hurts your feelings.


  • #2344
    Sam Kade
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,309 ✭✭✭✭Sam Kade


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Yep, they were fools to believe the 97% of climatologists who agree mankind is having a significant effect on climate change.

    But hey, keep on deluding yourself, maybe Exxon could run a raffle for you and your fellow believers in a few decades to join the billionaires onboard Elysium, away from the turmoil climate change will cause.
    Haven't you heard the 97% is fabricated.


  • #2345
    HellSquirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,078 ✭✭✭HellSquirrel


    Deleted User wrote: »
    No. You're lying.
    ...

    Since I've spelt it out for you, I'd appreciate you admitting you're a liar. Or ignore it, same thing.

    No, s/he's not.

    What happens is that the ambassadors that are political appointees tender their resignations at a changeover of president. It's a traditional formality. Some of them may be kept on, some of them may be replaced. Where the unusual aspect hits here is that rather than letting them do that, Trump's transition administration took the step of insisting that they're all out on Inaugeration Day - when he doesn't have replacements for any but..I think one? Israel? It has prevented them from the other traditional allowance; to be able to apply to stay on for a grace period so they can look for new housing/travel back to the US, for their kids to finish a school year, etcetera. So it's put quite a bit of pressure on these people and, as of today (or yesterday really), thanks to that particular order, the US has no political ambassadors to any other countries (bar Israel), as I understand it.

    That ambassadors can be replaced at any time (and that FSOs don't follow this pattern) doesn't disprove the basic point.

    Complaints that s/he's lying are incorrect and a tad hysterical.


  • #2346
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,419 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    The flying mouse wrote:
    I hope the Dubs win a third all Ireland in a row this year. I be happy with that.

    If trump finds out that GAA is played in the US he well demand that the final be brought back to the USA.


  • Advertisement
  • #2347
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,047 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    HellSquirrel wrote: »
    No, s/he's not.

    What happens is that the ambassadors that are political appointees tender their resignations at a changeover of president. It's a traditional formality. Some of them may be kept on, some of them may be replaced. Where the unusual aspect hits here is that rather than letting them do that, Trump's transition administration took the step of insisting that they're all out on Inaugeration Day - when he doesn't have replacements for any but..I think one? Israel? It has prevented them from the other traditional allowance; to be able to apply to stay on for a grace period so they can look for new housing/travel back to the US, for their kids to finish a school year, etcetera. So it's put quite a bit of pressure on these people and, as of today (or yesterday really), thanks to that particular order, the US has no political ambassadors to any other countries (bar Israel), as I understand it.

    That ambassadors can be replaced at any time (and that FSOs don't follow this pattern) doesn't disprove the basic point.

    Complaints that s/he's lying are incorrect and a tad hysterical.

    I'm not sure why exactly you're specifying "political" ambassador. The US has over 120 career ambassadors around the world.. The world doesn't care about whether or not they're career or political.

    The fact is that that news article and your post make it seem like Israel is the only country in the world with any US diplomats.. That's my gripe here. It's misreporting the truth to make Trump look like an idiot. The sub-heading should be "The US still has 2/3s of its Ambassadors in place."


    And sorry for being hysterical. I thought it was expected in here.


  • #2348
    HellSquirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,078 ✭✭✭HellSquirrel


    Sam Kade wrote: »
    Haven't you heard the 97% is fabricated.

    Only out of date, the percentage has gone up since then as time passed and more papers have been published.

    But go on, the climate change conspiracies are usually pretty nuts. Who fabricated the 97% and how did they do so? What were the methods of coming up with the number? Do you even know how the consensus number is reached, as a matter of interest? It's pretty straightforward and eminently repeatable experiment. If you have access to a university online library, you can mooore or less repeat the count even yourself. (Unis don't necessarily subscribe to all the journals, so you might not be able to get access to some.)

    Not that you would. If you're the sort that just claims that it's a lie because you don't like the answer and can't bear science, then I highly doubt you have the intellectual curiosity to risk proving yourself incorrect.


  • #2349
    HellSquirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,078 ✭✭✭HellSquirrel


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'm not sure why exactly you're specifying "political" ambassador. The US has over 120 career ambassadors around the world.. The world doesn't care about whether or not they're career or political.

    .

    Ah, I assumed so because the word "ambassador" was being used and that's what the other chap was talking about when you started calling him a liar. So I assumed you were talking about politically appointed ambassadors, who are the direct names you hear when the term "ambassador to X" is heard. The FSOs are the staff of the embassies and other US foreign communications staff. They're accomplished and able in themselves, but the actual ambassadorships are, afaik, political appointments. Which is what was being spoken about.

    That first chap you mentioned, Koenig, for example. He was a career foreign service officer and, if a changeover of power had happened while he was on foreign service as Deputy Chief of Mission at the US embassy in Berlin, he would have trundled onwards. But once he was appointed by the president as Ambassador to Cyprus, he would be expected to tender his resignation at the changeover of power (although his term ended before that happened in this case).

    ...Come to look at them again, that entire list does appear to be a netful of red herrings. Nothing in it disproves what anyone's telling you.

    Hm, hold the phone, that phrasing of "no political appointments in Central Asia" does lend some support to what you're saying. So some can be picked and placed by Congress, but - generally the popular/important roles - are appointed and subject to the comments above. I'd be interested to know how and why one is and one isn't.

    Okay, I apologise for saying you were absolutely wrong (although you're still wrong on calling the other guy a liar). 125 roles are still filled, as they are career. Why those roles are career, I don't know. The Vacant positions are;

    Afghanistan
    Argentina
    ASEAN
    Australia
    Austria
    Bahamas
    Belarus
    Belgium
    Belize
    Bolivia
    Canada
    China
    Costa Rica
    Cuba
    Czech Republic
    Denmark
    Dominican Republic
    Eritrea
    European Union
    Finland
    France & Monaco
    Germany
    Holy See
    Hungary
    ICAO
    Iceland
    India
    Ireland
    Israel
    Italy & San Marino
    Japan
    Luxembourg
    Morocco
    NATO
    Netherlands
    New Zealand & Samoa
    Norway
    OAS
    OECD
    OSCE
    Portugal
    Saudi Arabia
    Singapore
    South Africa
    South Korea
    Spain & Andorra
    Sudan
    Sweden
    Switzerland & Liechtenstein
    Syria
    Tanzania
    Trinidad and Tobago
    United Kingdom
    United Nations
    UN / Economic & Social Council
    UN / Geneva
    UN / Human Rights Council
    UN / Management & Reform
    UN / Political Affairs
    UN / Rome
    UN / Vienna
    UNESCO
    Venezuela


    So nowhere important then! :pac:


  • #2350
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,047 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    HellSquirrel wrote: »
    Ah,............ So nowhere important then! :pac:


    I'm seriously impressed by the edits you've made here. Good research :)


  • #2351
    Galway_Old_Man
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 249 ✭✭Galway_Old_Man


    Some craic catching up on the riots over morning coffee. Placards saying "Another world is possible", "Love not Hate" while protestors smash up property, light fires and attack Trump supporters and the police ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


  • Advertisement
  • #2352
    Igotadose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,713 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    What a real president looks like: https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/5p3s1t/what_a_real_president_looks_like/


  • #2353
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,047 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Galway_Old_Man wrote: »
    Some craic catching up on the riots over morning coffee. Placards saying "Another world is possible", "Love not Hate" while protestors smash up property, light fires and attack Trump supporters and the police ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    They remind me of Garth Marenghi in this classic..

    https://youtu.be/0IkGDptX6YI?t=14m20s and https://youtu.be/0IkGDptX6YI?t=10m47s


  • #2354
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Galway_Old_Man wrote: »
    Some craic catching up on the riots over morning coffee. Placards saying "Another world is possible", "Love not Hate" while protestors smash up property, light fires and attack Trump supporters and the police ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    Again I don't agree with the use of violence, but if those Trump supporters were happy for Trump to incite violence, they don't have a single leg to stand on when it comes to violence being incited back.


  • #2355
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,047 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Again I don't agree with the use of violence, but if those Trump supporters were happy for Trump to incite violence, they don't have a single leg to stand on when it comes to violence being incited back.

    I didn't realise it was only Trump supporters who care about people smashing up property, lighting fires and police getting attacked.


  • #2356
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 19,923 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Again I don't agree with them, but if those Trump supporters were happy for Trump to incite violence, they don't have a single leg to stand on when it comes to violence being incited back.

    By the same parameters if the anti Trump people use inciting violence as a reason for not liking him and then going and doing it themselves it makes them look like hypocrites.

    The militant "liberal" has been a big surprise for me in recent months in America.


  • #2357
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Liam O wrote: »
    By the same parameters if the anti Trump people use inciting violence as a reason for not liking him and then going and doing it themselves it makes them look like hypocrites.

    The militant "liberal" has been a big surprise for me in recent months in America.
    Of those using, condoning, or refusing the condemn the violence sure. There don't seem to be many of them on here from what I've seen on here, but I do recall there being plenty happily willing to overlook, ignore, or even approve of it (presumably 'for the lulz') when it was Trump's supporters using violence as he goaded them on and claimed he would pay their legal fees etc a few months back.


  • #2358
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I didn't realise it was only Trump supporters who care about people smashing up property, lighting fires and police getting attacked.
    You'll really need to do better with your straw men in future.

    Anyone who condemned the violence that Trump was encouraging is fine to complain about this, regardless of what side they are on. Anyone who acted as an apologist for it or tried to pretend it wasn't a thing, is not fine to do so. They can complain all they want, but they have no credibility.


  • #2359
    Igotadose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,713 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    This morning's entertainment, lowlights from the Betsy DeVos confirmation hearings.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc2n9uacQq4

    Sen Warren used Trump "University" as a whipping post, tying Betsy DeVos to it. Tim Kaine is dangerous to debate, in his friendly non-strident manner he's really making her look bad. Sanders asking her how much she's donated to the Republican party, she doesn't know how much donated, maybe $200million, doesn't know. Sanders questions sounded like his campaign, which is kind of inept. He pushes the buttons though.

    Sad. She'll be confirmed anyway.

    Of course, if a more reasonable-seeming Republican had been confirmed and made such a bad nomination, this would've happened - I don't blame the Democratic behavior on Trump, I blame it on DeVos being an awful nominee. Heck, GWB nominated that idjit Harriet Myers (or at least, tossed that name out) for the SCOTUS and that was ripped to shreds, too.


  • #2360
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,047 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Billy86 wrote: »
    You'll really need to do better with your straw men in future.

    Anyone who condemned the violence that Trump was encouraging is fine to complain about this, regardless of what side they are on. Anyone who acted as an apologist for it or tried to pretend it wasn't a thing, is not fine to do so. They can complain all they want, but they have no credibility.

    But you're not condemning the violence.. You're actually fine with the use of violence against 46.7% of Americans, apart from those who have condemned the violence that Trump was encouraging.

    What percentage of all Americans do you reckon have come out and condemned that?


  • #2361
    super_furry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,363 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    Not all the violence needs to be condemned. Anyone smashing up shops and attacking police is obviously a gobsh1te, but those lads that punched that Neo-Nazi scum Richard Spencer should have a pint bought for them.


  • Advertisement
  • #2362
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Deleted User wrote: »
    But you're not condemning the violence.. You're actually fine with the use of violence against 46.7% of Americans, apart from those who have condemned the violence that Trump was encouraging.

    What percentage of all Americans do you reckon have come out and condemned that?
    Actually I have been condemning the violence. Repeatedly. Including in posts you have quoted. And I never said I'm fine with it, I made a point of saying I wasn't fine with it over and over, but that those who appeared to have no issue with Trump fans causing violence as he goaded them on didn't have a leg to stand on when it came to playing the victim card over violence against them. It's a situation they played a role in creating.

    So like I said, if you're going to use straw man arguments you really should be doing a better job of it. Here yo go.
    Billy86 wrote: »
    I don't agree with their actions
    Billy86 wrote: »
    I don't condone violence and think it is very much the wrong thing to do in this instance,
    Billy86 wrote: »
    Again I don't agree with the use of violence.

    Weren't you accusing other posters of being liars only in the last few pages of this thread? So to quote you yourself, Since I've spelt it out for you, I'd appreciate you admitting you're a liar. Or ignore it, same thing.


  • #2363
    Arcade_Tryer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭Arcade_Tryer


    Regarding that guy being punched while giving an interview; I've been labelled a "Nazi" and a "Nazi defender" by both a 'journalist' and another well known Irish commentator on Twitter for merely saying that "violent reaction to free expression is not a good thing." I kid you not.

    It truly is astounding how blind self professed liberals and defenders of civil rights and freedoms and so on can be to their own authoritarian instincts and behaviour.

    It is at times like these when we realise that we have far more in common with each other than we'd care to realise or admit; whether it be Republicans&Democrats, Trump supporters and Non Trump Supporters, and even Nazis and Non Nazis as exemplified by the celebratory reaction to, and moral justification, of a guy being punched for expressing his right to free expression.


  • #2364
    super_furry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,363 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    That dude being punched actively advocates ethnic cleansing. He wants to remove all non-white people from the US, I don't really believe that thinking he deserves a dig equates to what he's up to.


  • #2365
    Arcade_Tryer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭Arcade_Tryer


    super_furry wrote: »
    That dude being punched actively advocates ethnic cleansing. He wants to remove all non-white people from the US, I don't really believe that thinking he deserves a dig equates to what he's up to.
    Think it? Fine. Punching him for expressing an opinion? No. A crime is a crime. People are protected by the 1st amendment in the US, practically the last piece of legislation which truly separates the US from the rest of the world in terms of the freedom it guarantees to its citizens and the protection it offers the Republic.

    Either everyone is protected by the laws of a country. Or nobody is.

    There was a false equivalency in the Presidential election concerning Clinton emails and Trump's litany of controversies, perpetuated by conservative supporters and many media.

    There is also a false equivalency here in liberals supporting a guy being punched for expressing his opinion, because they disagree with it.

    If anything, as my previous post alluded to, there is far more common to us than what separates us when it comes right down to it. Both Liberals and Conservatives can be just as dumb and stupid as each other, and both can have just as much disregard for each other's rights as the other. The entire election, along with this subsequent story, simply illustrates that.


  • #2366
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #2367
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,047 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Actually I have been condemning the violence. Repeatedly. Including in posts you have quoted. And I never said I'm fine with it, I made a point of saying I wasn't fine with it over and over, but that those who appeared to have no issue with Trump fans causing violence as he goaded them on didn't have a leg to stand on when it came to playing the victim card over violence against them. It's a situation they played a role in creating.

    So like I said, if you're going to use straw man arguments you really should be doing a better job of it. Here yo go.

    Weren't you accusing other posters of being liars only in the last few pages of this thread? So to quote you yourself, Since I've spelt it out for you, I'd appreciate you admitting you're a liar. Or ignore it, same thing.

    I said you're fine with it.. And it's clear you are.

    Repeatedly saying "I don't support violence BUT they have nothing to complain about" does not mean you're against it. It's like people who start a sentence with "I'm not racist BUT ____" or "I'm sorry BUT ____"

    If you say they don't have a leg to stand on, you're saying it's fine.

    Billy86 wrote: »
    How quickly you must have forgotten...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzYv5foyAS8

    While I don't condone violence and think it is very much the wrong thing to do in this instance, Trump and every last one of his supporters who refused to condemn this at the time when pressed on it (which on boards if I recall was basically all of them) have zero grounds for complaint.
    Billy86 wrote: »
    Again I don't agree with the use of violence, but if those Trump supporters were happy for Trump to incite violence, they don't have a single leg to stand on when it comes to violence being incited back.
    Billy86 wrote: »
    You'll really need to do better with your straw men in future.

    Anyone who condemned the violence that Trump was encouraging is fine to complain about this, regardless of what side they are on. Anyone who acted as an apologist for it or tried to pretend it wasn't a thing, is not fine to do so. They can complain all they want, but they have no credibility.


    In these posts, all I see is "If you condemned Trump's call for violence, you have a right to complain. If not, you don't have a right to complain about being attacked."
    If they have nothing to complain about in your opinion, it means you think it's fine. You don't get a free pass just because you start the sentence trying to cover yourself.


  • #2368
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,419 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    Permabear wrote:
    This post had been deleted.

    not that there was any punching at any of trumps rallys...


  • #2369
    super_furry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,363 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    I don't believe in tolerance for Nazis. When a group of people's stated aim is to ethnically cleanse and remove entire races of people from a country, I don't think that should be tolerated.

    Time was, punching Nazis had widespread support.


  • #2370
    dav3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,671 ✭✭✭dav3


    super_furry wrote: »

    Time was, punching Nazis had widespread support.

    It still does.


  • Advertisement
  • #2371
    Arcade_Tryer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭Arcade_Tryer


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    It's frightening. Though not surprising. People are fickle, and taking the moral high ground is much harder when you're losing. It's really why Clinton is a credit to herself and her party considering all that she was subjected to and still is, and yet she is widely criticised on both sides of the aisle.
    jimmycrackcorm wrote: »
    not that there was any punching at any of trumps rallys...
    When they go low, we go lower? The mainstream support this incident has garnered is very unsettling. As mentioned already, I've been labelled a 'Nazi' twice on twitter today for highlighting the danger of violent response to exerting one's right to free expression. If Trump's victory caused Orwell to turn in his grave, this kind of **** from self professed 'liberals' is akin to them pissing on his grave.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement