Samaris wrote: » I was just wondering how often he'd been shouted down in Ireland by hard-left Marxist Antifa members!
Hande hoche! wrote: » Although it seems to be a bit more based in reality than some of his previous forays.
markodaly wrote: » Chomsky would have some interesting ideas but he is too idealogical and is as much as a hypocrite as Trump in many regards. The whole thing about CNN and Fox and most media of that nature (I would lump in large online organisations like vox, buzzfeed, huffreport, breitbart) is that they generally do not say the explicit words "Trump is a Nazi" or "Obama is an Islamist" but subtly apply in other ways that they are. For example, they may do a piece on American Nazi's in the 1930's, mention that Trump's Dad was arrested at one, tie it today about Trumps anti-migration laws and the rise of the alt-right and neo Nazi's. Its a not so subtle way to say, Trump is a Nazi. Fox were doing the same thing when Obama was in the WH. Swap in Islamist, Socialist or Communist for Nazi and follow the same method, where you get the impression that Obama is one of those pejoratives.
markodaly wrote: » For example, they may do a piece on American Nazi's in the 1930's, mention that Trump's Dad was arrested at one, tie it today about Trumps anti-migration laws and the rise of the alt-right and neo Nazi's. Its a not so subtle way to say, Trump is a Nazi. Fox were doing the same thing when Obama was in the WH. Swap in Islamist, Socialist or Communist for Nazi and follow the same method, where you get the impression that Obama is one of those pejoratives.
Water John wrote: » You know it's getting near when, the last line of defence, an all out attack on Mueller is unleashed.https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/10/robert-mueller-trump-special-counsel-russia It's also a very poor line of defence. It means you have nothing credible to fall back on. Mueller has the Goods on Trump, I would say, certainly his family.
markodaly wrote: » Chomsky would have some interesting ideas but he is too idealogical and is as much as a hypocrite as Trump in many regards. The whole thing about CNN and Fox and most media of that nature (I would lump in large online organisations like vox, buzzfeed, huffreport, breitbart) is that they generally do not say the explicit words "Trump is a Nazi" or "Obama is an Islamist" but subtly apply in other ways that they are.For example, they may do a piece on American Nazi's in the 1930's, mention that Trump's Dad was arrested at one, tie it today about Trumps anti-migration laws and the rise of the alt-right and neo Nazi's. Its a not so subtle way to say, Trump is a Nazi. Fox were doing the same thing when Obama was in the WH. Swap in Islamist, Socialist or Communist for Nazi and follow the same method, where you get the impression that Obama is one of those pejoratives.
Water John wrote: » Fascinating article in WP. DT is now averaging 9 lies per day. This is a study by some one who has specialised in, liars. What makes DT most unusual is that 50% of his lies are calculated to be, cruel and disparaging of others. This trait is hardly measurable or worth measuring in other liars. He is a freak, even among liars. Sorry can't do the link. Written by Belle DePaulo.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » I wonder would Trump throw his son under the bus? Probably.
Trent Houseboat wrote: » Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to the United Nations, has said that the women who accused Trump of sexual assault should be heard. I think another twitter meltdown is imminent, just as soon as Fox and Friends report on it.
Igotadose wrote: Hmm... perhaps an indication that the noose is tightening around Trump, when one of his operatives turns on him? Though what she said was, women should be heard. Definitely wasn't specific about Trump accusers, so she gave a political answer. My guess is if orange fingers aren't on twitter this a.m., we won't hear anything about it.
CBS face the Nation wrote: JOHN DICKERSON: Of course I'm wrong, you were the governor, first governor of South Carolina. Given that consciousness, how do you think people should assess the accusers of the president? NIKKI HALEY: Well, I mean, you know, the same thing, is women who accuse anyone should be heard. They should be heard and they should be dealt with. And I think we heard from them prior to the election. And I think any woman who has felt violated or felt mistreated in any way, they have every right to speak up. JOHN DICKERSON: And does the election mean that's a settled issue? NIKKI HALEY: You know, that's for the people to decide. I know that he was elected. But, you know, women should always feel comfortable coming forward. And we should all be willing to listen to them.
Trent Houseboat wrote: » Link You have to give her credit in this time of weasel words.
Leroy42 wrote: Not sure I am missing something but what exactly has she done to deserve credit?
Trent Houseboat wrote: » Saying the right thing when it might not be politically expedient. You don't have to like her as an ambassador to recognise that.
Odhinn wrote: » Going on memory, it was a Klan rally. This is of some significance when taking into consideration the father and son's record of discrimination in housing.
Leroy42 wrote: Why have you brought up whether I like her or not, I never mentioned it. How is she saying the right thing? They must be heard is all she has said, whilst at the same time saying they were heard and the voters decided against them. She now works for a man that calls them all liars. Think back to what she actually said. It is no different to anything SHS has said up to this point.
Trent Houseboat wrote: » I don't remember Huckabee Sanders praising the strength and courage of Trump's accusers. BTW I don't think Trump's election means that people don't believe that he's a serial sexual assaulter. I think people willing to vote for an assaulter if it means lower taxes/triggering it to the libs/Red Starbusks cups/doing what you're told by the rightwing media. Voters didn't decide against these women, voters didn't care enough about them to vote against their abuser.
Gbear wrote: » I think there's a bit of a disingenuousness about this line of argument. How much of a monster would a Democrat have to be for you to vote for a Republican instead of them? Closer to home, I struggle to imagine a scenario where I wouldn't vote for a candidate for MP if they were willing and able to significantly reduce the chance of Brexit happening. They could have eaten babies' faces for all I care, so long as they stop an inter-generational catastrophe from happening. Voting for an elected representative should only take their character into account insofar as it impacts on their capacity to deliver on their mandate. The solution to this isn't to cut your nose off to spite your face and vote for someone whose world view and policies you are totally at odds with. Rather, this sort of thing is a function of two party politics and we see it in the UK and the US. In Ireland, if I'd always voted FG but then their new TD candidate didn't believe in the Holocaust or thought the gays should be stoned, I'd have a spectrum of other options to choose from that would represent at least some semblance of what I'd be looking for and it's unlikely there'd be too many deal-breakers in their manifesto if I was happy with FG. Trump is himself a product of this issue. I'm pretty sure that if you split the republican party into 3 or 4 - the far right Theocrats, the semi-secular neo-nazi element, the big business shills and some sort of broadly conservative center-right party that the Republicans pay lip service to being reprentative of, all of them wouldn't endorse Trump.
