Trump 2017: Year Zero

[implanted_microchip]

the Europe

I'm not one to bitch about internet grammar but I'd be lying if I said my eye didn't twitch at the sight of this

http://i.imgur.com/IduGXk0.gif

[Exocet]

Every British person I know despises Trump and wished for Hillary.

Your obviously in a bubble........ most people in the UK are jealous of the U.S...they want the strongman.

[Jinsai]

I don't think that Bannon is really a Leninist; he's far too Christian to be a Leninist.

Well, who knows what he actually believes... given that he said "Darkness is good. Dick Cheney, Darth Vader, Satan, that's power. It only helps us when they get it wrong... when they're blind to who we are and what we're doing."


From a British point of view Trump would have been better than dated Robot Clinton. It just a fact

That's an alternative fact (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/donald-trump-president-wins-us-elections-world-more-dangerous-place-opinion-poll-british-public-a7413756.html), so whatever (http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/europe/uk-petition-president-trump-ban-trnd/)


Man, that's the first time I've actually watched Conway and I'm struck by the fact that she doesn't even BEGIN to sound sincere

That's because she is 100%, blatantly full of shit. The press needs to stop even bothering to talk to her. I don't understand how we're living in a world where we have to interface with Trump's mouthpiece when we have documented evidence of her sincere opinions before she put on her current mask


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMvObdGZo30

[Exocet]

Why are there no protests when the Saudi Arabian King visits the UK.

but the second Trump wants to do a state visit to the UK there are 1.4 million votes against.

[GibbonBlack]

Your obviously in a bubble........ most people in the UK are jealous of the U.S...they want the strongman.


I don't. And I don't even know Slavetothewage so I can't be in that bubble.

Unless there's like a million little bubbles

[Jinsai]

Why are there no protests when the Saudi Arabian King visits the UK.

but the second Trump wants to do a state visit to the UK there are 1.4 million votes against.

Because you're wrong about how the overwhelming majority of people in the UK love him? It's ironic that you're accusing other people of existing in a bubble.

[slave2thewage]

I'm not one to bitch about internet grammar but I'd be lying if I said my eye didn't twitch at the sight of this

http://i.imgur.com/IduGXk0.gif
I had to go through his posts to get the relevant quotes. It was genuinely painful.

[Jinsai]

Spicer takes the "All lives matter" approach to the Holocaust (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316911-spicer-the-president-went-out-of-his-way-to-recognize-the-holocaust)

This is so insane. "The president went out of his way to recognize the Holocaust."

Absolutely unreal...

[slave2thewage]

Spicer takes the "All lives matter" approach to the Holocaust (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316911-spicer-the-president-went-out-of-his-way-to-recognize-the-holocaust)

This is so insane. "The president went out of his way to recognize the Holocaust."

Absolutely unreal...


And to make sure that America never forgets what so many people went through, whether they were Jews or gypsies, gays, disability.

Why does it sound like he's just shouting out buzzwords at the end? 'Disability' indeed.

[Kamelion]

Your obviously in a bubble........ most people in the UK are jealous of the U.S...they want the strongman.
Yup, that's the one. First facepalm. Thank you.

You don't speak for "most people in the UK". You can barely manage to speak for yourself. Think whatever deranged crap you like. Just don't smear your shit over the rest of us.

[Louie_Cypher]

hmm should we start banning white christians? http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/01/30/trump-silent-quebec-mosque-terrorist-white-christian-likes-facebook/
-louie

[Kodiak33]

Trump just got rid of the acting attorney general with an insanely childish press release. This week has been unbelievable.

[Bachy]

Given the social unrest, is there realistically any chance this clown gets impeached, or are we seriously stuck with this for the next four years?

[Conan The Barbarian]

Given the social unrest, is there realistically any chance this clown gets impeached, or are we seriously stuck with this for the next four years?

I'm sure we are stuck and fucked.

[Jinsai]

Trump just got rid of the acting attorney general with an insanely childish press release. This week has been unbelievable.

Unbelievable is the correct word... unprecedented, insane, childish, pithy, totalitarian bullshit. That viral article making the rounds about how this is a sort of coup is seeming more and more on the money. He's tentatively dipping his feet into unconstitutional waters to gauge the effectiveness of the resistance. It's a strategic move against our checks and balances.


Given the social unrest, is there realistically any chance this clown gets impeached, or are we seriously stuck with this for the next four years?
You're going to need the Republicans to get on board, and it's looking more and more like they're not going to.

[slave2thewage]

Given the social unrest, is there realistically any chance this clown gets impeached, or are we seriously stuck with this for the next four years?
Seems like unless the entire Republican party gets wiped out, you're stuck.

[Harry Seaward]

His Twitter feed ... Jesus, that guy is awful.

Remember when he sued a guy who called him a cocaine addict on Twitter? And then the guy died and Woods said he hoped the guy died "screaming my name," and added "Libel me, I'll sue you. If you die, I'll follow you to the bowels of Hell."

I think I read that he's continuing the $10m lawsuit against the guy's family. Don't quote me on that last part though.

[Vertigo]

Given the social unrest, is there realistically any chance this clown gets impeached, or are we seriously stuck with this for the next four years?

It'll probably take corroboration of a dossier allegation. Could happen.

[Jinsai]

so, what do you guys think of this rogue Twitter POTUS staff account? I don't know... it seems too easy to spoof this sort of thing to be real, but they're reporting that an executive order is being drafted regarding LGBT rights, especially with regards to adoption.

[allegro]

Trump just got rid of the acting attorney general with an insanely childish press release. This week has been unbelievable.

I guess he can't really fire her at this point because the Government cannot function without an Attorney General and Sessions hasn't been confirmed, yet.

See this. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-memo.html?_r=0)


Mr. Trump has the authority to fire Ms. Yates, but as the top Senate-confirmed official at the Justice Department, she is the only one authorized to sign foreign surveillance warrants, an essential function at the department.

“For as long as I am the acting attorney general, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the executive order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so,” she wrote.


Under State Department rules, it is forbidden to retaliate against any employee who follows the procedures and submits a dissent memorandum. One of the signatories, in a text message, said State Department signatories were trying to figure out what to do.


The decision by the acting attorney general is a remarkable rebuke by a government official to a sitting president that recalls the dramatic “Saturday Night Massacre” in 1973, when President Richard M. Nixon fired his attorney general and deputy attorney general for refusing to dismiss the special prosecutor in the Watergate case.

That case prompted a constitutional crisis that ended when Robert Bork, the solicitor general, acceded to Mr. Nixon’s order and fired Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor.

[Kodiak33]

allegro She has already been replaced.

[allegro]

Remember when he sued a guy who called him a cocaine addict on Twitter? And then the guy died and Woods said he hoped the guy died "screaming my name," and added "Libel me, I'll sue you. If you die, I'll follow you to the bowels of Hell."

I think I read that he's continuing the $10m lawsuit against the guy's family. Don't quote me on that last part though.

No, omg, I didn't know anything about that. Christ, Woods is a psychopath.

[allegro]

That's because she is 100%, blatantly full of shit. The press needs to stop even bothering to talk to her. I don't understand how we're living in a world where we have to interface with Trump's mouthpiece when we have documented evidence of her sincere opinions before she put on her current mask
it's true, the press keeps talking to her and they should COMPLETELY IGNORE HERE. The ONLY reason they are talking to her is ... and I really hate saying this .. because she's a blonde female and the press is milking that whole bullshit Ann Coulter chick thing.

I'm all for women being in powerful positions and being interviewed, but this chick ain't it. She's a tool. She isn't even a decision-maker, or a true press rep. JUST STOP TALKING TO HER, YOU BUNCHA FUCKING PERVERTS.

[allegro]

allegro She has already been replaced.

The Senate has to confirm anybody who signs surveillance warrants, etc., and nobody has confirmed anybody on the Trump team, yet.

I don't know that this guy has that authority. (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/30/acting-us-attorney-general-tells-doj-lawyers-not-to-defend-trumps-travel-ban.html)

Wow, Trump has ventured into epic Nixonian territory, now.

Hold on to your seats, folks, we are actually gonna witness some history with Trump. Like, "I am not a crook" history.

[Jinsai]

With who?

Someone named Dana J Boente will sit in until Sessions is confirmed

[Sutekh]

Absolute chaos. Not hitting Saudi with the ban despite their consistent funding of wahhabi groups and madrassas worldwide - coupled with trumps business interests there, shows he is not actually a right wing securocrat but just chucking red meat to the crowd whilst looking after his own pocket.

If you still believe in this guy as he NEGLECTS to get tough with them, then congrats - you have bought into a cult of personality

[allegro]

Absolute chaos. Not hitting Saudi with the ban despite their consistent funding of wahhabi groups and madrassas worldwide - coupled with trumps business interests there, shows he is not actually a right wing securocrat but just chucking red meat to the crowd whilst looking after his own pocket.

If you still believe in this guy as he NEGLECTS to get tough with them, then congrats - you have bought into a cult of personality

Obama's administration created this "list" that contains the 7 countries (updated from the Bush era), and if you read the U.S. Code and the INA that references the list (I linked on a prior page), you see that the list isn't related to IMMIGRATION, at all. It's a list that is related to commerce and trade. The list isn't a list of terrorist-funded countries, it's a rather stupid arbitrary list based on arbitrary criteria.

If he really wanted a real "terror threat" list, it would have also included fucking AFGHANISTAN and PAKISTAN.

[cynicmuse]

The lack of institutional knowledge is showing. If Trump had waited a week until Sessions had been confirmed, he wouldn't have had to fire the attorney general. If Trump had announced the EO a week before it went into effect, the different agencies and airlines would have known what to do (though this would have also given the ACLU plenty of time to line up an excellent test case). The Democrats in the Senate might have even continued to rubber stamp his cabinet.

Trump also has some bad blood with the Senate Republicans since Spicer said that they were consulted prior to Trump signing the EO. They weren't. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/democrats-will-attempt-to-rescind-trumps-travel-ban/2017/01/30/4bdf07a0-e6f4-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_democrats-950a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.48d4fbffc664)

[Presideo]

This week

Except, in the U.S., Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. He won on a technicality (our Electoral College) based on strategy, plus all the fallout from the gutting of the Voters Rights Act where black voters' votes are being suppressed. He didn't win by a populace landslide. He still doesn't represent the opinion of the majority of voters in this country.

Last week

The popular vote is a moot point

[ziltoid]

About fucking time Democrats grow a backbone:
https://twitter.com/KellyannePolls/status/826122996330987522

P.S. Is there a way to embed tweets here on ETS?

[allegro]

This week


Last week
It's a moot point relating to a general protest on the day of the inauguration, as my comment was specifically in response to your comment: "I have no problem with protesting the inauguration of a man who lost the popular vote by almost three million votes."

It's NOT a moot point when someone claims that the direction that America is moving is Trump.

[Mantra]

But if you want some WEIRD AND INTERESTING SHIT, read THIS ARTICLE (https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world?utm_term=.joxmjn1YO#.dgE7zP52q).

Yeah, you're right, very weird.

This is the first time I've actually read anything from him directly, and he's different from what I was expecting. I've read that he's kind of mean, swears constantly, plus the "leninist" thing, etc, so the whole "We're losing our Judeo-Christian values!" angle was surprising. I was imagining him being closer to that "second form" of capitalism that he was criticizing, some atheist libertarian bro who doesn't really give a shit about social conservativism except for shrewd opportunistic reasons. But in reality, he seems worried about the fact that those types of people are gaining traction on the right.

He's obviously very intellectual, well-read, knows his history well. The fact that someone who is so clearly intelligent is behind the drooling nonsense of Breitbart makes me extremely suspicious of him. I just don't see any other way to reconcile those two things. I can't imagine someone like him being stupid enough to sincerely believe in birtherism, but he definitely seems like the type who would nevertheless spread birther propaganda for his own strategic reasons. In general, it's pretty hard to gauge his level of sincerity. Even with the judeo-christian angle, which came across as fairly sincere, I can't help noting the fact that he's speaking to a conservative christian audience and is probably feeding them exactly what they want to hear.

He's basically Little Finger from Game of Thrones.

[WorzelG]

I suppose one thing I'm grateful for is that Americans seem to have ditched the term 'aliens' to describe foreigners. I hated that

[Jinsai]

This week


Last week

Come on, admit that you're forming a false equivalency here. Please?

[onthewall2983]

I suppose one thing I'm grateful for is that Americans seem to have ditched the term 'aliens' to describe foreigners. I hated that


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_61hzuGGJX0

I'm not sure "foreigners" is much better. This could be my years and years of watching pro wrestling talking, where the trope of the villain from another country still seems to have some hold in a highly PC era. It was even dehumanized to an extent when referring to "foreign objects". I doubt that phrase started with wrestling, but it's probably most associate with that.

[allegro]

As somebody whose Grandpa came to this country through Ellis Island, all this shit is so fucking stupid to me.

[Jinsai]

Fuck Boris Johnson, Trump's separated twin (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38795479)

[Mantra]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_61hzuGGJX0

First time I heard this song many years ago I was in total shock, lol. Couldn't believe it was real.

[hellospaceboy]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/white-house-five-year-old-boy-detained-dulles-international-airport-hours-sean-spicer-pose-security-a7554521.html

There is no better way to radicalize Muslims in America than to handcuff children at the airport, not as a glitch and oversight in implementing a new policy, but as the new normal.

I suspect that this was the true intent of this executive order. To radicalize and have an enemy to fight. Trump is one terrorist attack (on US soil) away from cementing his power and silencing all dissent. Remember how everyone rallied behind Bush after 9/11? And how easy it was to do crazy shit like the Patriot Act, torture, how easy it was to lead the country into a war they knew was not justified? This is a calculated move and a solution desperately looking for a problem.

But seriously, I am terrified of its effect on young American Muslims who must already feel marginalized. I hope they know that the ultimate middle finger to Trump would be to NOT radicalize and instead to take part in the civic discourse and protest and run for office and be heard.

[Louie_Cypher]

people do realize that we have no A.G. at the moment no national security council and the Dod meetings are invite only i think things are going to end badly
-louie

[Khrz]

But seriously, I am terrified of its effect on young American Muslims who must already feel marginalized. I hope they know that the ultimate middle finger to Trump would be to NOT radicalize and instead to take part in the civic discourse and protest and run for office and be heard.

You know how everyone's always asking muslims to stand up and actually express how they feel about radical terrorism ? Same here. It's YOUR job/OUR job, non-muslims, to show them that we won't stand for this, that they're our people too. Otherwise even the most gentle and patient human being will start wondering why they're even trying to play nice if they're being attacked anyway.

If you're being beaten to a pulp in a subway station and everyone else is either looking the other way or watching in horror, everyone's equally a fucking asshole, even those who disagreed with the beating. In such situation, those who don't come to your defense are part of the attackers (I'm painting a tiny picture with very broad strokes here, but you get the gist).

[onthewall2983]

Trump Will Continue LGBTQ Worker Protection Order Signed by Obama (https://gma.yahoo.com/trump-keep-intact-obama-era-order-protecting-lgbtq-123553893--abc-news-topstories.html)

[Khrz]

But that article about Balloon Coup said Trump was going to do the same thing to LGBT that he is doing to Muslims.

Well it would appear it was wrong then.

[botley]

Some more smart insight as to the 'coup' theory (https://medium.com/@jakefuentes/the-immigration-ban-is-a-headfake-and-were-falling-for-it-b8910e78f0c5#.m4ympkz71) and bit more about how to investigate and bring it to light.

WAKE UP AND GIVE A SHIT.

[Khrz]

Have the anarchists ever been on a forum lately ? Everyone keeping each other in check ? That's a laugh...

[allegro]

If you want real checks and balances, then abolish positions of power like the presidency and dissolve centralized organizations with monopolistic control over means of violence. Instead of three branches of government in the US, why not three hundred million? Each of us individually taking responsibility for holding others in check, distributedly collaborating in ever vigilance to stop the emergence of thugs/cops and warlords/politicians.

I agree that there are shaky things going on right now, but we still have the ability to control the Executive branch via legislation. Which needs/needed to be done, even during the Obama administration. I liked Obama in a lot of ways, but he also issued EOs that were in direct defiance of Congress and people's excuse "but that's the only way he can get anything done" is now being used by THIS administration. In the hands of the President YOU like but NOT in the hands of the President you don't isn't a balanced system.

The term "anarchy" means without rules and without a leader.

"Anarchism" is a separate movement (to which I've paid little attention, because I'm in Law, duh).

[Khrz]

I don't quite understand what you are asking. But anarchism doesn't mean no rules.

And forums and social medias show that even with a precise set of rules, we're not capable of keeping each other in check, either we're apathetic or we turn on each other. We regularly need an authority of sorts to play the arbiter when things go south, otherwise we go mob-stupid.

[GibbonBlack]

WAKE UP

Any time someone says that they lose me

[allegro]

Here's the thing about anything a Court does: Courts don't create laws; the Legislative branch does. Many government entities have disregarded court orders in the past.

One example: George Wallace and Brown vs. the Board of Education MORE HERE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_in_the_Schoolhouse_Door).

See this (http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/02/07/supreme-court-offers-opinion-doesnt-make-law/).

The Judicial branch INTERPRETS laws relative to the Constitution, but their decisions do not necessarily CREATE laws. The LEGISLATIVE BRANCH makes laws.

When enough defiance of court orders happen, that's usually when Congress, fearing a further weakening of the Judicial branch, steps in to make it "law" via legislation.

[Khrz]

We are clearly talking about anarchism here.

In which I don't believe due to my views on human nature, but that's all a matter of angles and perspective, good on you if you have faith in that.

[allegro]

For you too allegro. What you said is incorrect. Anarchy != chaos.
Are you really going to argue with an English major (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=anarchy) who is a member of Sigma Tau Delta (http://www.english.org/sigmatd/about/index.shtml)?

[allegro]

History of "Anarchism" = HERE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism).

[allegro]

It was a year zero reference you fuck
Ugh. Year Zero, why do we keep bringing that up? I ignored that album, too, I wouldn't know any fucking references to it. Other than "omg dystopia bad!"

People are running out to buy Orwell's "1984" right now (http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/orwells-1984-and-trumps-america). A far more important work, quotable.


An unbidden apology rises to the lips, as Orwell’s book duly climbs high in the Amazon rankings: it was far better and smarter than good times past allowed us to think. What it took, of course, to change this view was the Presidency of Donald Trump. Because the single most striking thing about his matchlessly strange first week is how primitive, atavistic, and uncomplicatedly brutal Trump’s brand of authoritarianism is turning out to be. We have to go back to “1984” because, in effect, we have to go back to 1948 to get the flavor.

[GibbonBlack]

It was a year zero reference you fuck

People tend to lose me when they talk to me like that too.

[Sarah K]

Any time someone says that they lose me

WAKE UP ffshsidoifjiosjdfioe MAKE UP
(System of a Down cover)

Sorry. I still die laughing at this like three times a year.

[Khrz]

Unrelated showerthought : This thread is a perfect reflection of the current state of the world, I can't tell sarcasm smartassery and idiocy apart anymore.

[Presideo]

It's a moot point relating to a general protest on the day of the inauguration, as my comment was specifically in response to your comment: "I have no problem with protesting the inauguration of a man who lost the popular vote by almost three million votes."

It's NOT a moot point when someone claims that the direction that America is moving is Trump.

So protesting the inauguration of a wildly unpopular President is wrong, but people assuming that America is pro-Trump is also wrong because he's a wildly unpopular President? Seems the popular vote is only moot if I want to make a point.

Also:
"Hey guys, lets not protest an unpopular President who said he'd do a whole bunch of stupid shit. Lets wait until he inevitably does the stupid shit, then we'll protest."

"Hey guys, lets not go to war against the Axis powers. Lets wait until they inevitably bomb us, then we'll go to war."

[allegro]

WAKE UP ffshsidoifjiosjdfioe MAKE UP
(System of a Down cover)

Sorry. I still die laughing at this like three times a year.

I have this song (http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/deanmartin/whentheredredrobincomesbobbobbobbinalong.html)stuc k in my head.

[allegro]

"Hey guys, lets not protest an unpopular President who said he'd do a whole bunch of stupid shit. Lets wait until he inevitably does the stupid shit, then we'll protest."
Well, YES. That's the way effective protests have always worked.

E.g. Nixon; protesters showed up en mass on the day of his inauguration ... crickets as to what happened as a result.

But, protesters CONTINUOUSLY protesting HIS REFUSING TO GET US OUT OF THE VIETNAM WAR = highly effective.

Protesting on the day of Trump's inauguration is protesting the very system that got him there. If they held up signs saying 'THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUCKS AND NEEDS TO BE REPEALED" than maybe we'd be doing something constructive.

But "WE DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIM, AND NOT NEARLY ENOUGH OF US GOT OFF OUR FUCKING ASSES IN OHIO AND PENNSYLVANIA AND MICHIGAN BUT WE'RE NOT GONNA BE SILENT AND WE'RE GONNA TRY TO CHANGE THE ELECTION VIA THIS HERE BIG PROTEST" --- not really effective.

These current protests are about something VERY SPECIFIC that he's doing.

I know it sounds really horribly daunting but protests during the Nixon era happened nearly every fucking day, about his policies, his administration, and especially Vietnam.

The only thing that protests can do after somebody is elected fairly through our system is to protest, use petitions, write letters, etc., to make ourselves heard relative to what the President and his/her cabinet is DOING. Not "just in case he/she does something." General protests tend to be conceived as whining, and don't get anywhere.

Right now, the WORLD is perceiving this new EO relative to immigration as something really really bad, and lots of protesters also sends a message that we won't tolerate this EO.

[Mantra]

I was looking at the history of executive orders with each president and was kinda surprised at some of the numbers.


William McKinley - 185
Theodore Roosevelt - 1,081
William Howard Taft - 724
Woodrow Wilson - 1,803
Warren G. Harding - 522
Calvin Coolidge - 1,203
Herbert Hoover - 968
Franklin D. Roosevelt - 3,522
Harry S. Truman - 907
Dwight D. Eisenhower - 484
John F. Kennedy - 214
Lyndon B. Johnson - 325
Richard Nixon - 346
Gerald R. Ford - 169
Jimmy Carter - 320
Ronald Reagan - 381
George H. W. Bush - 166
Bill Clinton - 308
George W. Bush - 291
Barack Obama - 276
Donald Trump - 7

-----

Given the critiques of Obama's EO usage, I assumed that he was giving out EOs like candy. But he seems fairly consistent with most other presidents, at least in terms of quantity.

I'm assuming the critiques against him are not around the actual number, but rather the manner in which he issued them?

[Jinsai]

But that article about Balloon Coup said Trump was going to do the same thing to LGBT that he is doing to Muslims.

Making a statement that they will not overturn one protection is not the same thing as passing pro-cause legislation, and it doesn't mean that they don't have something in the works. If anything, it sounds like a smokescreen. It might not be worthwhile to speculate on the rumors regarding orders on LGBT adoption rights, but the First Amendment Defense Act is almost certainly incoming.

[allegro]

I was looking at the history of executive orders with each president and was kinda surprised at some of the numbers.
I'm assuming the critiques against him are not around the actual number, but rather the manner in which he issued them?
Wow, I'm surprised by that, too. Yeah, I think you are correct about the critiques against them (manner / type).

[Mantra]

I'm very curious to know more about FDR's use of EOs. He went hog wild on that shit. Granted, he got four terms, but still.

There seem to be these generational shifts in usage, which I'm assuming can be attributed to evolving ideas about how EOs should be used. There's a pretty sharp drop off with Eisenhower, and even more with JFK. From JFK until today, it seems like everyone is staying pretty consistently within that 200-300+ range, with the exception of one-termers like Ford and Bush Sr.

To be honest, there is part of me that is a bit skeptical about whether the popular narrative around Obama's EOs is entirely accurate. I mean, Obama TAUGHT constitutional law and he seems pretty conscientious about systemic issues in politics. Not saying that I've made up my mind, but I'd like to read more about this, particularly from someone who actually knows their shit and not some fuckface on a cable news program.

[Volband]

I don't know about everyone else, but I "grouped here" because I'm a NIN fan. I came to ETS because I love NIN, the music, the art, the person behind it all, and the messages he conveys. I come to the Headlines forum because I like to gather information about my country and the world from a bunch of different sources, so why would I not include such a vast resource from a social site I visit at least once or twice on the average day, and see what people have found out about and where their sources are from and what their thoughts are on it based off their personal experiences, educations, and professions. I mean, one of the regular posters in this forum has a law degree in the US. That doesn't make their opinion fact, but it does give an insight into things that I do not myself have, and so I add that to other sources discussing the same things.
I don't give a single shit about reading thoughts of people who have a different point of view. If I only wanted to hear "you're so right" I wouldn't get online. I wouldn't go to internet forums, or any website, or even play video games online in my down time. And it isn't "validating and comforting" to me to hear people agree with me. You know what makes me feel validated? When people treat me like a fucking human being. That's fucking validating.

What it comes down to isn't your stance on a topic, but how you respond to criticism to that stance.
It's ok to have ignorance on something happening in another country. I love hearing from my friends who live in or are from other countries about US politics/societal issues and their global impact.
It's ok to have an opinion that is not in line with what others are saying. My best friend through middle school and high school, who I am still very close with more than 20 years later, is very different from me in some very important opinions, but we can still have a wonderful civil discussion where we both come out understanding more about the "other side" and then make plans to get some pizza next time she is in town. Another close friend, who went to the pro-life rally, we talked religion and politics while we picked grape leaves together over this past summer to give to our mothers who are Lebanese to make delicious food with.

Nobody is faulting you for these things.
It's your completely inane replies, one after another after another, on multiple pages.

This isn't about wanting to live in a bubble. Wanting to live in a bubble is banning entire groups of people from entering the country, even if they have already been given green cards. Wanting to welcome all for discussion and coming together is what we want. Or at least, what I want, for this country.
Anyone being on ETS or browsing certain sub-forums is self-explanatory imo, by here I meant this thread. You are right though, maybe no one came here to make an echo-chamber, it's just what it became in the end. I guess it's the nature of things?

Also, it'd be highly unfair of me to wash everyone's concerns about Trump with Jintai's maniac way of thinking. But you see, while I go completely unfazed by many things, the things that piss me off reach deep into me. I am not a calm person to begin with, so pretty much after the first few events where this guy showed he wakes up with a military knife within his teeth in his nuclear bomber, I had to chip in. This is what enhanced my view on your group of people who happens to be agreeing on basically everything, because by not regulating your own, I blamed you too in the back of my head. He is pretty much the embodiment of why you lost the election: extreme negativity, extreme arrogance, extreme conspiracy theories, zero self-awareness.

Then again, I'm not pretending that I had much belief in consolidating him, as I was growing up with someone like him. This is pretty much why I limit my political interactions to a very few times with certain friends. I lack the mental fortitude to accept or ignore the extremist people of any political side. Woe is me, right?!

Again, you're over-simplifying our concern as "she doesn't have a sincere smile in that photo, so TRUMP BEATS HIS WIFE!" There are body language experts who are genuinely concerned with how she is responding to things, and I have yet to read where someone, even after taking into consideration everything (not just a terribly shot modeling photo) who is jumping to the conclusion that Trump beats her.
Wtf, google translate is actually useful? :D

experts is among the bottom of the pit for me in politics. As I said, many of our experts reached the conclusion that our then prime minister was autistic based on the way he spoke, held his hands and such. Who cares? He was a good politician (it says nothing about his tenure as our PM), the only person whom our current PM (who is also a good politician, even if I don't sympathize with him) acknowledged as possibly the only force to be reckon with way back in the day. So, I could hardly care less for experts (wanna bet whose side these "neutral" experts were? wanna bet whose side on your "neutral experts" are?) saying that he is this or that. I either like what he is doing as PM or I don't, I couldn't care less about his possible mental deficities.

Same goes to Melanie. Who is concerned about the way she responds to things with her BODY? This sounds like a bad gossip sketch from Sex and the City. I can't resonate with people, who wants to tear down Melanie for posing in a certain way, or accuse her son of being autistic. ~2 years ago we had similar shit here, when the daughter of the PM got married. "Why did she dress so fancy?? Why is her husband so handsome?? Why does our PM gave them gifts when I still did not get the raise I wanted??" - absolute cesspool, not to mention the [I]whore and bitch counters were off the charts.

I If you actually speak/understand Hungarian, then here's my gift to you :D :


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9ikNgE7Ilk

[Jinsai]

Also, it'd be highly unfair of me to wash everyone's concerns about Trump with Jintai's maniac way of thinking.

Someday, you'll get over the fact that I decimated your indifferent bullshit. If you're going to defend Melania Trump for posing in a tacky photo spread depicting her eating jewelry like it's spaghetti, spell her name right.

But you're insinuating that I'm rattling off crazy conspiracy theories... Like what? The idea that this promise to not overturn one piece of pro-LGBT legislation is a smokescreen for incoming anti-civil rights legislation? Here's another conspiracy theory: Neil Gorsuch will be Trump's SCOTUS nomination... and to quote the guy, "American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda.... Liberals are circumventing the democratic process on issues like gay marriage, school vouchers, and assisted suicide, and this has led to compromised judiciary, which is no longer independent."

But hey, I hope I'm wrong about that "conspiracy theory."

[Swykk]

Jinsai No, he won't. He still gets sour about all of the times I've sent him scurrying in the past. He does this regularly. Pollutes a thread (Feminism is his favorite one to fuck with). Gets angry when countered and destroyed. Fucks off for a bit. Repeats process again.

I think it's weird he's so shocked and angry that fans who frequent the MB of a guy who made Year Zero might also be liberal leaning.

On topic, looks like DeVos is getting through. She'll be real good at dumbing down and draining money from public schools. So that's just lovely. My nephew will be two in June.

Nice to see Dems FINALLY speaking up about things. Some action to back that up would be better, though. Say, like...NOT confirming Sessions.

[ziltoid]

Another (major) reason why we need to get rid of the electoral college: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/under-a-new-system-clinton-could-have-won-the-popular-vote-by-5-points-and-still-lost/?ex_cid=538fb

[sweeterthan]

I definitely think there are things going on that the president doesn't want us to know but the Muslim ban is deliberate. He said he was going to do it and he did. Even if it was some sort of distraction, it's still tyranny imo. It affected a lot of people. For no fucking reason. The press secretary made it seem like it was a mild inconvenience for the people who were detained. The woman who was ask to prove that she breast feeds her detained child was humiliated and scared. Their rights were violated and Spicer condescendingly suggests that it was no big deal for anyone. It's just gross and wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jinsai]

Well, I guess my SCOTUS nomination prediction was correct.... Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck this.

[botley]

^ Oh boy, you said a mouthful (http://files.pfaw.org/uploads/2017/02/Neil-Gorsuch-Fact-Sheet-2.pdf)... what a cheery fellow, he sounds not at all nightmarish


Ugh. Year Zero, why do we keep bringing that up? I ignored that album, too, I wouldn't know any fucking references to it. Other than "omg dystopia bad!"

People are running out to buy Orwell's "1984" right now (http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/orwells-1984-and-trumps-america). A far more important work, quotable.
Yeah I know but Orwell didn't literally write the script for this administration a decade before it happened. Seriously, go read up on the ARG backstory to YZ.

[Volband]

@Jinsai (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=272) No, he won't. He still gets sour about all of the times I've sent him scurrying in the past. He does this regularly. Pollutes a thread (Feminism is his favorite one to fuck with). Gets angry when countered and destroyed. Fucks off for a bit. Repeats process again.

I think it's weird he's so shocked and angry that fans who frequent the MB of a guy who made Year Zero might also be liberal leaning.
WT was his record where he directly made a political statement, so trying to base your argument on a record that happened 10 years ago is rather loose, especially if we consider that TDS and TF were his biggest hits, which made the base of his fanbase.

I don't have to get over any decimation or destruction, I don't expect a winner to be called between two people "who are always right". You see, you should not act as if you were on the same level as Jintai. You are a mental disaster living on pills and you went out your way to nag me every corner on this board and ran away, like the coward you are. You are a nuisance, who lacks his own thoughts and only capable of bandwagoning others opinion, basically saying "hell yeah, exactly!".

Jintai represents a personality - perspective, if you like - on the politicial palette with whom I greatly oppose, and that's it. I am really happy he is willing to stand his ground and not shy away his words, even if - once again - I disagree with him. Worst case scenario I understood where he comes from; that's something, I guess.

I don't like to get into a complicated argument with him, because if I am not willing to dwell into the depths of American politics, I can only talk about the surface (ie. calling him out for seeing the worst in E V E R Y T H I N G), and not the 3rd and 5th point of this and that law made back in 2013 or something. I don't like to get into any agument with you, because you are insane, volatile and try to give every argument an emotional layer to protect yourself. My mother was (well, still is) bipolar, so I grew to just let it slide when insecurity fueled bullshit is flinged my way, but as I said, you go above and beyond to put yourself in my sight. Hope you see the difference.

Also, I don't fuck with any thread, but I can imagine your suffering when I brought up topics, which were challenging to discuss. You can't even say all the girls hated them all the time, but you are just a simpleton white-knight, you probably get offended 4 times before you even leave your house.

[onthewall2983]

Ugh. Year Zero, why do we keep bringing that up? I ignored that album, too, I wouldn't know any fucking references to it. Other than "omg dystopia bad!"

For what it's worth, I used it as a joke/play on phrases we'd know. Nothing more.

[botley]

For what it's worth, I used it as a joke/play on phrases we'd know. Nothing more.
Maybe once Gorsuch hits the Supreme Court bench, it'll soon be more apt to compare the USA to Gilead in The Handmaid's Tale.

[allegro]

Maybe once Gorsuch hits the Supreme Court bench, it'll soon be more apt to compare the USA to Gilead in The Handmaid's Tale.

Word is that he is more of a Justice Kennedy than a Scalia. He's a state's rights guy and that's not unusual on the SCOTUS, and neither is the emphasis on the judicial branch not being the branch that creates laws but interprets laws as to constitutionality per the constitution. It takes the Court away from issuing decisions based on public opinion and, instead, on stare decicis and strict constitutionality. People in law respect this stance.

If Kennedy hangs in there for 4 yrs, then the Court will still be fairly evenly split between liberals and conservatives.

"Handmaid's" was written about the Reagan-era administration and those Falwell people. Luckily, these people seem to worship capitalism more than Jesus.

Re Year Zero, that album could have applied to the Bush administration (since that zeitgeist is what informed the creation of the album) or any number of future GOP presidents since they are all equally kooky.

[allegro]

Someday, you'll get over the fact that I decimated your indifferent bullshit. If you're going to defend Melania Trump for posing in a tacky photo spread depicting her eating jewelry like it's spaghetti, spell her name right.

But you're insinuating that I'm rattling off crazy conspiracy theories... Like what? The idea that this promise to not overturn one piece of pro-LGBT legislation is a smokescreen for incoming anti-civil rights legislation? Here's another conspiracy theory: Neil Gorsuch will be Trump's SCOTUS nomination... and to quote the guy, "American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda.... Liberals are circumventing the democratic process on issues like gay marriage, school vouchers, and assisted suicide, and this has led to compromised judiciary, which is no longer independent."
Here's the thing, though: he is right.

I am a lifelong liberal, but I've also studied law and been in it for nearly 30 years, and I can still objectively say he's right. We have become such a litigious society, we DO rely too much on lawsuits and case law and not NEARLY enough on electing people we KNOW will represent our interests by passing actual LAWS that represent our interests. Laws are always better than case law for all change, especially civil rights. The Civil Rights Act was MUCH more effective in bringing real change than the court decisions that preceded it. The executive branches of government are required to enforce laws; it's much more complicated (and requires more litigation) for them to enforce case law, ESPECIALLY from a Federal decision where there may be no case law in each state to modify.

LGBT rights, women's rights, civil rights are ALWAYS best served via state laws first and then Federal laws to protect and reinforce those state laws. It makes everything more enforceable and effects real change.

Take this police brutality situation, for instance: lacking any state or Federal laws pertaining to acceptable use of force, society instead relies on SCOTUS decisions which ultimately favor police; all a cop has to do is say he/she was afraid for his/her safety and the safety of the public. Because the SCOTUS relies on prior case law and CURRENT LAW to form an opinion. It doesn't decide based on morality or facts relative to how they the affect on society, etc. because that's too subjective. Real change would be effected by real legislative changes. LAWS pertaining to acceptable use of force.

[Jinsai]

Here's the thing, though: he is right.

I am a lifelong liberal, but I've also studied law and been in it for nearly 30 years, and I can still objectively say he's right. We have become such a litigious society, we DO rely too much on case law and not NEARLY enough on electing people we KNOW will represent our interests by passing actual LAWS that represent our interests. Laws are always better than case law for all change, especially civil rights. The Civil Rights Act was MUCH more effective in bringing real change than the court decisions that preceded it. The executive branches of government are required to enforce laws; it's much more complicated (and requires more litigation) for them to enforce case law, ESPECIALLY from a Federal decision where there may be no caselaw in each state to modify.

LGBT rights, women's rights, civil rights are ALWAYS best served via state laws first and then Federal laws to protect and reinforce those state laws. It makes everything more enforceable and effects real change.

Take this police brutality situation, for instance: lacking any state or Federal laws pertaining to acceptable use of force, society instead relies on SCOTUS decisions which ultimately favor police; all a cop has to do is say he/she was afraid for his/her safety and the safety of the public. Because the SCOTUS relies on prior case law and CURRENT LAW to form an opinion. It doesn't decide based on morality or facts relative to how they the affect on society, etc. because that's too subjective. Real change would be effected by real legislative changes. LAWS pertaining to acceptable use of force.

It's more the issue of his obvious agenda on display, and his partisan bend is clear, despite bemoaning the loss of judicial impartiality. The liberal issues that he references there are things that I think matter, and he has a track record backing Christian and hard conservative stances. The gun guys will love him, but screw it. He's obviously a smart guy, and he will present his stance in a legally eloquent bundle. I don't believe he's impartial or objective.

[allegro]

I'm very curious to know more about FDR's use of EOs. He went hog wild on that shit. Granted, he got four terms, but still.

There seem to be these generational shifts in usage, which I'm assuming can be attributed to evolving ideas about how EOs should be used. There's a pretty sharp drop off with Eisenhower, and even more with JFK. From JFK until today, it seems like everyone is staying pretty consistently within that 200-300+ range, with the exception of one-termers like Ford and Bush Sr.

To be honest, there is part of me that is a bit skeptical about whether the popular narrative around Obama's EOs is entirely accurate. I mean, Obama TAUGHT constitutional law and he seems pretty conscientious about systemic issues in politics. Not saying that I've made up my mind, but I'd like to read more about this, particularly from someone who actually knows their shit and not some fuckface on a cable news program.
Obama still wasn't / isn't a strict constitutionalist. I thought for SURE, when he was elected in '08, he'd devote a ton of time and energy to righting areas of law that are totally unconstitutional, like the PATRIOT ACT. Instead, he became highly political and focused on the legacy issues he thought sure he could win in some way, either via a Democratic Congress or via EOs; and he did often stretch the typical boundaries of the Executive branch. Which set precedent for THIS current administration.

[Jinsai]

WT was his record where he directly made a political statement

God money I'll do anything for you
God money just tell me what you want me to
God money nail me against the wall
God money don't want everything he wants it all
No you can't take that away from me
Head like a hole
Black as your soul
I'd rather die than give you control

Anyway, enough talking about NIN in this non-NIN section of the board.

[allegro]

It's more the issue of his obvious agenda on display, and his partisan bend is clear, despite bemoaning the loss of judicial impartiality. The liberal issues that he references there are things that I think matter, and he has a track record backing Christian and hard conservative stances. The gun guys will love him, but screw it. He's obviously a smart guy, and he will present his stance in a legally eloquent bundle. I don't believe he's impartial or objective.
SCOTUS justices, contrary to popular belief, aren't political. They are liberal or conservative AS TO THEIR COMPARING CASES AND CASE LAW TO THE US CONSTITUTION, which is their job.

The Hobby Lobby case, which we discussed a lot here, was based on LAW that already exists: the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed by Clinton. The question became: if you provide rights to NON PROFIT organizations relative to religious convictions, does that not also apply to FOR PROFIT corporations? And the strict conservative Justices said yeah, it just enforced the current LAW. That's not religious, really. We've seen "religious" Justices uphold Roe v Wade. It is easy for liberals or conservatives to blame Justices for being biased when decisions don't go their way; HOWEVER, reading the dissenting opinion always informs as to the logical basis of the opinion.

Gun laws have always been interpreted by SCOTUS justices based on stare decicis (case law) and the modern interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. SCOTUS only creates law by issuing rulings that modify prior existing laws (modernized based on new facts and evidence) combined with prior opinions related to that law, if any; there is not much a SCOTUS will do at this point relative to gun laws, except interpret new laws if called upon to do so.

Gun lobbyists and right-to-life lobbyists hoping a conservative SCOTUS will effect laws that support their beliefs would be guilty of using the courts to enforce same, rather than using legislation; the very same thing he accuses liberals of doing.

Justices have often explained in opinions, confirming or dissenting, that they may agree that the topic MATTERS but they are not called upon to issue LEGAL opinions based on subjective opinions like "it matters." Instead, they have to remain within the boundaries of current law, if any, plus facts presented, weighed against the text of the US Constitution and existing case law (precedent). Justices are liberal or conservative only as to the strictness of their sticking to those elements; the liberal justices are far more guilty of introducing external elements like public opinion and what is "right" in their opinion, which is subjective and not objective.

[allegro]

God money I'll do anything for you
God money just tell me what you want me to
God money nail me against the wall
God money don't want everything he wants it all
No you can't take that away from me
Head like a hole
Black as your soul
I'd rather die than give you control

Anyway, enough talking about NIN in this non-NIN section of the board.
Volband thought With Teeth is a political record, but With Teeth was primarily about Reznor going through rehab after being addicted to alcohol, coke and heroin for years; it wasn't a political record, at all. Reznor did stay out of politics (it used to be rumored that he was a Republican because Courtney Love supposedly let that cat out of the bag) but "Year Zero" and his anti-Republican comments to audiences confirmed that he wasn't anymore.

[Jinsai]

allegro, we've seen conservatives side with liberal causes and vice versa. In justices that do their job we get objective rulings.

It comes down to interpretation of the constitution, and we see disagreements on that. Some justices are predictable on where they will fall on an issue, and they will present their reasoning in a well-presented argument. It doesn't mean that it isn't cherry picking or coming from a place of personal bias, even though it shouldn't.

This is going to be one of those "well, I guess we'll see" things, but I have had a bad feeling about this guy since I first heard his name. There's a reason I was saying that this was the one Trump was going to pick.

[allegro]

Bad feeling: subjective.

Chief Justice Roberts upheld the ACA. TWICE. Conservative or Liberal re SCOTUS Justices relates solely to their strict or liberal application of stare decicis: NOT on personal political leanings. Trump said he thinks Roberts is "terrible" because he upheld Obamacare. No, Roberts' opinion made TOTAL SENSE if you objectively read the Opinion and put away your OWN biases and read the Opinion based on that same NON-political agenda required of SCOTUS Justices.

The only two REALLY PREDICTABLE Justices were / are Scalia and Thomas, because they were / are VERY VERY LITERAL in interpretation. But I've seen the other "liberal" Justices join an Opinion with the conservative Justices

[Jinsai]

Bad feeling: subjective.
well, I'm not a SCOTUS justice


the only two REALLY PREDICTABLE Justices were / are Scalia and Thomas, because they were / are VERY VERY LITERAL in interpretation. But I've seen the other "liberal" Justices join an Opinion with the conservative Justices

well, given that he's started his speech with grandiose praise of Scalia...

[allegro]

well, I'm not a SCOTUS justice



well, given that he's started his speech with grandiose praise of Scalia...
Scalia's legacy is strict interpretation. But I think this guy is mostly praising Scalia because he is nominated to REPLACE Scalia, and it is rare for a SCOTUS Justice to die while still seated.

RBG and Scalia were good friends, even RBG says she misses Scalia.

I at least UNDERSTOOD Scalia's Opinions, they were often brilliant (although too literal for my tastes, they were pretty much always logical). I HATE THOMAS, though. Ugh.

[allegro]

I was curious what your thoughts were. It sounds like this guy is a textualist and originalist. (Someone who interprets the words as they were originally understood).

Lots of people are freaking about him being more conservative, but that always seems a weird thing to focus so heavily on when it comes to SCOTUS.

This is the kind of justice who might prove to be a solid block against the unconstitutional things Trump may do.

Interprets the words LITERALLY. Not necessarily how they were originally "understood" because that is subjective, we can only guess that. Literal interpretation does not require strict "historian" interpretation that prevents old text like the US Constitution or old case law from being read not only based on strict literal reading (and the text's intent) but also through a modern lens. What strict text reading does is prevents Opinions from introducing anything OUTSIDE the text and its intent.

But, yes, a Justice who is strictly literal is not a friend to somebody or something that strays outside the text.

One of the biggest things you see in any decision that any Judge makes: intent. Since language in laws and contracts are often ambiguous, Judges are there to look at the whole text and the intention of the document or law.

Look at Chief Justice Roberts' dissenting opinion re gay marriage: he isn't against it; he stresses that his literal interpretation of the cases that were presented to the Court do not (in his opinion) violate any part of the Constitution (not in a literal sense) and he mostly argues state's rights. Prior case law ("Loving") is supportive of the plaintiff's stance, but the Federal decision in that case would have better been better served by legislation and not via court opinion. Even Scalia's dissenting opinion stressed "hey, good luck enforcing this, because we don't make law; we interpret law." He's against the intent of the lawsuit desiring new Federal law to assist the Plaintiff when legislation is the proper channel. For those on the dissenting side, it was an issue of Federal rights trumping state's rights as the main intent, and state's rights is a huge part of the US Constitution that they rarely disregard.

Yes, it's weird to focus on strict textual interpretation as always being "conservative." Each time Roe has been upheld, the opinion primarily focused on strict application of Roe and Casey. The dissenting opinions are always a disagreement as to whether or not Roe or Casey were strict applications of the text of the US Constitution, or the dissenting opinion disagrees with the main opinion's lack of strict interpretation of case law or appliation of the US Constitution (straying outside the lines and using assumptions or public opinion etc.).

[Jinsai]

Lots of people are freaking about him being more conservative, but that always seems a weird thing to focus so heavily on when it comes to SCOTUS.

This comes back to my point; that the ulterior agendas of justices on the SCOTUS do matter, especially in a situation like we're currently in. I disagree with @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) (and you, I would presume) on the benefit of state law preempting federal law. We're too broad, and lately we're too divided. The whole #CalExit thing is ludicrous, but it at least demonstrates a voice for us... We meant nothing in this election, but we have the largest voting population. Ultimately, our voice was thrown on the giant dumpster fire that is now, unfortunately, the presidency

[Volband]

@Volband (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=3656) thought With Teeth is a political record, but With Teeth was primarily about Reznor going through rehab after being addicted to alcohol, coke and heroin for years; it wasn't a political record, at all. Reznor did stay out of politics (it used to be rumored that he was a Republican because Courtney Love supposedly let that cat out of the bag) but "Year Zero" and his anti-Republican comments to audiences confirmed that he wasn't anymore.
Whenever I try to not explain myself, so that I cut off from the wall of text, which can be a chore to read, I get misunderstood. Argh!!

I know WT is not political, but it has THTF on it, which is a direct message from the singer to the audience, while the second verse is a direct critique of Bush and the war in Iraq. HLAH is a song defying greed, but you could stamp it onto any government.

If he was indeed a Republican though, THTF and its lines about naivety and still trying to hold on gives it a slightly different meaning.

[Swykk]

Oh, @Volband (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=3656), that must've cut deep for you to resort to baseless inaccurate personal attacks. I know what you are here on ETS, I know nothing of you personally (don't want to), but you apparently haven't a clue about me. You could easily go back and see where I've posted many times about who I am and what my stances are, with honesty. In fact, you would have to know this given the personal attacks (though I am not on any pills other than for medical issues. I am not taking any antidepressants. Haven't in years).

Do you see how this works? I'm not playing a character. I don't get off on trolling like you do. I don't load up a "question" piñata with shit waiting for someone to break it open. I ignore you mostly until I see others, especially people I like, falling for your shitty game.

You're a sad tired act.

Sorry for derailing, everybody. I'm aware WT is political (went to multiple shows on that tour). YZ is the more obvious one.

[allegro]

This comes back to my point; that the ulterior agendas of justices on the SCOTUS do matter, especially in a situation like we're currently in. I disagree with @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) (and you, I would presume) on the benefit of state law preempting federal law. We're too broad, and lately we're too divided. The whole #CalExit thing is ludicrous, but it at least demonstrates a voice for us... We meant nothing in this election, but we have the largest voting population. Ultimately, our voice was thrown on the giant dumpster fire that is now, unfortunately, the presidency

But, see, that's state's rights. State's rights is working pretty well with the sale of marijuana right now. State's rights are clearly indicated in the Constitution. Sometimes they seem unfair, but we are a Republic made up of separately-governed states under one Federal government. Federal overreach can be REALLY bad, too. Like in education right now with the new head of the Dept of Education, said Dept having control over education in all the states in a negative way since Bush was in office with "No Child Left Behind" and then "Common Core" with Obama.

[Swykk]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/317302-gop-changes-rules-to-push-through-nominees-after-dem-boycott

Great work, GOP. <golf clap>

[Demogorgon]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/317302-gop-changes-rules-to-push-through-nominees-after-dem-boycott

Great work, GOP. <golf clap>

Honestly though, is this at all surprising? If the situations were reversed, Democrats would have done the same thing. If you have enough of a majority, then you may as well use it. We're going to see a lot of that, at least until the midterms.

Edit: also, Sessions just confirmed by the Senate. Nominations are moving forward.

[Swykk]

No, none of it is shocking. Slimy? Evidence of complicitness? Yep.

Of course, I'm annoyed by the Democrats who either are just talking and not doing a thing or just staying silent and doing nothing, like Indiana's own Joe Donnelly.

[allegro]

No, none of it is shocking. Slimy? Evidence of complicitness? Yep.

Of course, I'm annoyed by the Democrats who either are just talking and not doing a thing or just staying silent and doing nothing, like Indiana's own Joe Donnelly.

Aren't you following this on Twitter or via activists? The Dems are TRYING to "do something" but they are a minority and are being overruled; and they all boycotted the voting and confirmations for TWO DAYS demanding more info, and the Republicans changed the rule that says that at least one Democrat shall be present to vote. The Dems have been REALLY vocal about this via Twitter etc. I even got a response letter from Senator Dick Durban about Price and my concerns.

This is why it's so important to care MORE about whom we elect to Congress than the President.

[Volband]

Sorry for derailing, everybody. I'm aware WT is political (went to multiple shows on that tour). YZ is the more obvious one.
Thank you!

[allegro]

Thank you!

I went to 13 shows on the tour, the sole political song is "THTF" which is totally incongruous on the album. Every single interview with Reznor during that time focuses on his writing the lyrics based on his lawsuit against his former manager and his having done a live-in rehab stint, and whether or not he'd still be relevant after being gone for years and not high anymore.

http://www.theninhotline.net/archives/articles/manager/display_article.php?id=189

And really, who cares? Sure, this is a NIN board but the biggest reason this board is and always has been inhabited by liberals is not due to aping Reznor's politics; it's because we have always had a bunch of educated and intelligent people in here and they tend to be more liberal.

Reznor isn't Al Jourgensen.

[allegro]

Honestly though, is this at all surprising? If the situations were reversed, Democrats would have done the same thing. If you have enough of a majority, then you may as well use it. We're going to see a lot of that, at least until the midterms.

Edit: also, Sessions just confirmed by the Senate. Nominations are moving forward.
Some Dems and one independent voted in favor of Sessions.

[Swykk]

Can we meet in the middle on some things @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76)?

Yes, you're right, the only lyrically political song on WT is "THTF" but what I was referring to was the visuals during Eraser/BYIT/RWIB during the tour. Again, I think YZ is way more politically overt, thus why I picked it to make my point, which was less of "Every NIN fan needs to be a liberal" and more of "Why would you be surprised that so many are?"

As for following the political actions of Dems on Twitter, today I've been busier at work, so not so much. I'm more than a little gun shy about giving credit when it's been too little too late for awhile now. I specifically mentioned Donnelly not just because he represents my state but also because he's voted "Yes" on the confirmations through and through.

[Demogorgon]

This is why it's so important to care MORE about whom we elect to Congress than the President.

YES.

I said this until my face (or my fingers, I guess, typing online) turned blue, that Congress was where the focus needed to be.

[Mantra]

Just spent my lunch break reading through this opinion piece on Gorsuch.

"In Gorsuch, Trump gave Democrats a gift. They should take it." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2017/02/01/in-gorsuch-trump-gave-democrats-a-gift-they-should-take-it/?utm_term=.9aee82b2a0f8)

I think he makes a pretty compelling argument. I'm inclined to say that the Dems should accept this and move on to other issues.

[Deepvoid]

Looks like DeVos is gonna hit a brick wall.
Key Senate Republican Susan Collins will oppose nomination.

Also in the news, Trump has put Iran on notice for testing a ballistic missile. Not sure why

[allegro]

Just spent my lunch break reading through this opinion piece on Gorsuch.

"In Gorsuch, Trump gave Democrats a gift. They should take it." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2017/02/01/in-gorsuch-trump-gave-democrats-a-gift-they-should-take-it/?utm_term=.9aee82b2a0f8)

I think he makes a pretty compelling argument. I'm inclined to say that the Dems should accept this and move on to other issues.

I absolutely agree. Take it and run. Don't play games with this "but, they didn't seat Garland on the bench!" shit. It will BITE THEM ON THE ASS. Trump could have chosen WAY worse judges.

That's a great article, thanks for linking it.

[Kodiak33]

The only thing is Gorsuch safety pick may cause Kennedy to retire...which means the next justice could be a doozy.

[allegro]

The only thing is Gorsuch safety pick may cause Kennedy to retire...which means the next justice could be a doozy.

Then oppose THAT one. Save the blockade for the doozy.

[Jinsai]

I absolutely agree. Take it and run. Don't play games with this "but, they didn't seat Garland on the bench!" shit. It will BITE THEM ON THE ASS. Trump could have chosen WAY worse judges.

That's a great article, thanks for linking it.

He also could have picked a WAY better, more moderate judge. I don't know what to make of the Kissinger quote that's been going around, but apparently it is true. (http://www.snopes.com/neil-gorsuch-yearbook/)

Also, this isn't reassuring (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/neil-gorsuch-apartheid-protests-donald-trump-supreme-court-nominee-scotus-a7556706.html)

[Louie_Cypher]

cannot believe the dem's are laying down again. may sound drastic call your rep and sound off http://www.house.gov/representatives/
-louie

[Demogorgon]

cannot believe the dem's are laying down again. may sound drastic call your rep and sound off http://www.house.gov/representatives/
-louie

Face it; this is a "pick your battles" situation. The democrats are straight fucked until the midterms at the earliest. Shouting and saber rattling on principle is getting them nowhere.

[Louie_Cypher]

again using distraction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCHxSm4ks1I
-louie

[Exocet]

Steve Bannon is the most powerful man in the world..not Donald Trump...Trump is bannons puppet...Bannon is genuine in his worldview Trump is the tool.

[allegro]

He also could have picked a WAY better, more moderate judge. I don't know what to make of the Kissinger quote that's been going around, but apparently it is true. (http://www.snopes.com/neil-gorsuch-yearbook/)

Also, this isn't reassuring (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/neil-gorsuch-apartheid-protests-donald-trump-supreme-court-nominee-scotus-a7556706.html)

There is no fucking way that he was going to deliberately choose a "more moderate" SCOTUS Justice to replace Scalia. Not a snowball's chance in Hell that ANY Republican candidate at this juncture would do that.

Since Gorsuch was the founder of "The Federalist Paper" at his school, it's pretty obvious to me that his quote meant a lot more than how it appears.

Re the second article / link, I read the whole article, twice, including the remainder of his quote, and -- again -- he was driving at making an overall statement, there. His other statements indicated on that page balance out whatever is fuzzy about the apartheid quote. He's not a total right-wing nutjob. He has a really good pedigree (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/31/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-nominee-five-things-to-know/97083588/). It could be WAY WORSE.

How much worse?

https://www.biography.com/.image/c_fit,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,q_80,w_620/MTE5NTU2MzE2Mzg2OTg1NDgz/clarence-thomas-wc-9505658-2-raw.jpg

[Demogorgon]

Slight tangent, shit like this isn't helping the cause much: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/man-who-said-mother-died-in-iraq-after-trump-travel-ban-made-it-all-up-imam-says/ar-AAmvWoN?li=BBnbfcL

[sweeterthan]

Steve Bannon is the most powerful man in the world..not Donald Trump...Trump is bannons puppet...Bannon is genuine in his worldview Trump is the tool.

Bannon is the new Cheney.

[Wretchedest]

Devos is going to win on the spineless piece of shit dems that back her, even if a few Republicans vote against

[leo3375]

I think that any Democrat who votes FOR these cabinet and SCOTUS picks must be primaried in their next election if they decide to run again. Senator Klobuchar, I'm looking in your direction!

[theimage13]

Devos is going to win on the spineless piece of shit dems that back her, even if a few Republicans vote against

I don't want to hear anyone sounding "surprised" when she gets confirmed. She's got the votes, but I swear all of my friends are acting like she's going to be blocked and a lot of media outlets are saying she's in "dangerous" territory. No, she isn't.

[sweeterthan]

I don't want to hear anyone sounding "surprised" when she gets confirmed. She's got the votes, but I swear all of my friends are acting like she's going to be blocked and a lot of media outlets are saying she's in "dangerous" territory. No, she isn't.

God I hope you're wrong. I need her confirmation to be on shaky ground after tillerson was confirmed today

[allegro]

God I hope you're wrong. I need her confirmation to be on shaky ground after tillerson was confirmed today


From HERE (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/01/us/politics/donald-trump-administration.html):


[R] Senators Susan Collins of Maine and [R] Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said on the floor of the Senate that they would vote against Ms. DeVos.

“I will not, I cannot vote to confirm her as our nation’s next secretary of education,” Ms. Collins said.

Both senators, who voted to advance her selection out of committee, said they had serious reservations about her lack of familiarity with public schools. “I think that Mrs. DeVos has much to learn about our nation’s public schools,” Ms. Murkowski said.

Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, has said he believes every Democrat will vote against Ms. DeVos. If that is the case, the defections by Ms. Collins and Ms. Murkowski would bring the number of votes against her to 50, setting up a tie in the Senate that Vice President Mike Pence, in his capacity as president of the Senate, might need to come in to settle.

Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, said he had no worries.

“I am 100 percent confident she will be the next secretary of education,” he said.

[leo3375]

Even if the Senate rejects any of these picks, it would not surprise me if they're installed via executive order.

[Demogorgon]

seeing reports that she's just been confirmed by the Senate, but I'd wait until the major outlets pick it up before we decide that's true or not.

[allegro]

Even if the Senate rejects any of these picks, it would not surprise me if they're installed via executive order.

That can't happen, legally, it would get Trump into BIG trouble that he doesn't need right now. Rules are rules, these appointments require confirmation.

[aggroculture]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/neil-gorsuch-the-nominee-for-a-stolen-seat.html

Why is it a stolen seat? Looks like the Republicans legally blocked Garland - otherwise it seems to me there would have been some challenge beyond merely complaining about it.

[Frozen Beach]

Well, this UC Berkeley protest is a nightmare. And from what I've heard, the UCPD were told to stand down. I've seen a person beat with what looked like a shovel, someone beat with multiple flag poles, businesses broken into and even attempted arson (they're breaking into Starbucks now), some Woman maced directly in the face. Someone's going to get killed.

edit: The periscoper I was watching was approached by a few people, and they told him "Put that camera down, or we'll make you put that camera down."
Then it seems like his camera was hit by something and the stream died. Hope he's okay.

[botley]

Rules are rules
Fuck rules, kill Iran (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/10)

[allegro]

Fuck rules, kill Iran (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/10)

That's a Bill introduced by a US Representative. They introduce dumb Bills every day. The vast majority go nowhere then die. There's nothing against the rules by introducing a Bill.

See also.
(http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/83057-290-bills)
Trump put Iran "on notice" today (https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN15G5ED?client=safari).

[Jinsai]

a heads-up: BandCamp will be donating all proceeds from this Friday to the ACLU

[theimage13]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/neil-gorsuch-the-nominee-for-a-stolen-seat.html

Why is it a stolen seat? Looks like the Republicans legally blocked Garland - otherwise it seems to me there would have been some challenge beyond merely complaining about it.

I'd call it a stolen seat because the republicans fucking quit their jobs. I don't know the full legal proceedings, but they literally said "we refuse to go along with this" for a fucking year.

I truly believe the primary reason that the left didn't complain about it more was because they were so fucking arrogant that they never thought for a second that someone other than Clinton could be the one making the pick. I think they all thought "fine, we'll just wait until we've got the Oval Office, then we'll push the pick".

[Deepvoid]

I don't want to hear anyone sounding "surprised" when she gets confirmed. She's got the votes, but I swear all of my friends are acting like she's going to be blocked and a lot of media outlets are saying she's in "dangerous" territory. No, she isn't.

From all accounts, she's going to end up with 50-50 and Pence is gonna push her through.

[Deepvoid]

Yemen raid by SEAL approved by Trump without sufficient ground intelligence. (http://thehill.com/policy/defense/317501-trump-ordered-raid-in-yemen-approved-without-sufficient-intelligence)

Obama had a pretty bad track records with his drone strikes. Not a good start for Trump.

"As a result, three officials said, the attacking SEAL team found itself dropping onto a reinforced Al Qaeda base in Yemen defended by landmines, snipers, and a larger than expected contingent of heavily armed Islamist extremists, according to Reuters."

[allegro]

I'd call it a stolen seat because the republicans fucking quit their jobs. I don't know the full legal proceedings, but they literally said "we refuse to go along with this" for a fucking year.

I truly believe the primary reason that the left didn't complain about it more was because they were so fucking arrogant that they never thought for a second that someone other than Clinton could be the one making the pick. I think they all thought "fine, we'll just wait until we've got the Oval Office, then we'll push the pick".

The left complained about it A LOT! That video of Warren on the Senate floor telling the Republicans, "DO. YOUR. JOB!" spread like wildfire. But, the Dems couldn't DO anything about it, because they were an even WORSE minority in the Senate, then. The Senate Judicial Committee is Republican majority, too (because they hold a majority in the Senate) and the Constitution provides that the Senate shall "advise and confirm" relative to a a SCOTUS justice so the Republicans knew they would deny the confirmation and then send it to a Senate vote where it would be overwhelmingly denied so they just didn't bother.

[allegro]

Meanwhile, wtf: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-jerry-falwell-trump-education-reform-20170202-story.html

[baudolino]

us relaxes sanctions on rus

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Pages/20170202_33.aspx#.WJNl2sgnp-Q.twitter


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mantra]

Meanwhile, wtf: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-jerry-falwell-trump-education-reform-20170202-story.htmlOh, how WONDERFUL. Wow. Just what higher ed asked for. I'm sure he'll provide some quality guidance for us. Jesus.

[baudolino]

and now T switches to rhetorical questions? to make his decisions appear as the will of the "people"? outright fascistic.

[allegro]

Okay, Trump + Black History Month = SMFH

What a MORON (https://qz.com/901159/donald-trumps-black-history-month-remarks-are-so-ridiculous-the-full-transcript-speaks-for-itself/). Seriously, has he been so high up in an ivory tower that he doesn't know that VOLUMES of books have been written about Frederic Douglass, including a few of his own, and that Douglass has been DEAD for over 100 years?

“I am very proud now that we have a museum on the National Mall where people can learn about Reverend King, so many other things, Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more, I notice."

This is typical Trump speak bullshit (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/frederick-douglass-trump/515292/) around a topic, always bringing it back to himself:

“Last month we celebrated the life Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., whose incredible example is unique in American history. You read all about Martin Luther King when somebody said I took a statue out of my office. And it turned out that that was fake news. The statue is cherished. It’s one of the favorite things—and we have some good ones. We have Lincoln, and we have Jefferson, and we have Dr. Martin Luther King.”

And we have a JANITOR, too! In the White House. Which I now own, and I must say, our decorating, which includes gold-leafing everything, even the toilets, is going just great, just great. You will see it, soon, I'm sure, the media will talk about how I'm an really innovative for gold-leafing the entire White House including Lincoln's bedroom, it's just phenomenal. And so is Black History Month. Which is about black people, but also many people, many many people, including people out there who voted for me, some people, maybe not, but that's okay, and CNN, they say things, many many things, and it's so unfair, so so unfair, lies, all lies, fake news, it's fake news. But, yes, Black History Month, this is very very good, and we will do so many things.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elg1BF_hfII

[Louie_Cypher]

relentless resistance
-louie

[Deepvoid]

I have to stop reading US news for a while. It's just too much non-sense.

From Session wanting to double down on the failed war on drugs to the new Executive Order on Freedom of Religion basically allowing all forms of discrimination under the guise of religion beliefs, I'm just sympathizing with you for the shitty 4 years ahead.
At this point, why not start a war with Iran ...

[baudolino]

how they manage to twist the shit out of the usa is flabbergasting

and depressing

[onthewall2983]

I'm trying to remain optimistic that the ultimate victim of this will be the Republican party more than, well, everybody else. This is affecting me personally, and I really shouldn't let it. The majority of my family voted for him, and there was ample reason to do so from their perspective. And even if, at the end of all this, they stand by their choice I will still love them.

[Mantra]

I will study this dumb deal!

[allegate]

http://korrekt.com/movie/v_for_vendetta/v_for_vendetta_0054.jpg

[allegro]

I usually dislike the Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass, but his column today is pretty good, I think:

Supreme Court fight: Elections, consequences (https://shar.es/1OMLLE)

[allegro]

Regarding said SCOTUS appointee (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html):


In 1992, with a Republican president and a Democratic Senate, Judiciary Chairman Biden said that “once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process.”

[theimage13]

Regarding said SCOTUS appointee (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html):

Innnnnnnnteresting. Given the circumstances, even as a staunch Biden supporter, I wonder about the authenticity of his 2016 claim that the 1992 speech was being "misinterpreted". Granted, it's always possible that people twist words. And people can certainly change their views on things over the course of 24 years. But, given the context under which the two viewpoints were made, it certainly seems plausible that it was political self-interest that was being expressed each time. Frankly, I just don't know what to believe in this case - not that it matters, I suppose.

[allegro]

Innnnnnnnteresting. Given the circumstances, even as a staunch Biden supporter, I wonder about the authenticity of his 2016 claim that the 1992 speech was being "misinterpreted". Granted, it's always possible that people twist words. And people can certainly change their views on things over the course of 24 years. But, given the context under which the two viewpoints were made, it certainly seems plausible that it was political self-interest that was being expressed each time. Frankly, I just don't know what to believe in this case - not that it matters, I suppose.

His speech (video), the whole thing, is right there on the CSPAN video on that page, he was the Chairman of the Senate Judiary Committee for many years, I don't see how his speech and actions could possibly be misinterpreted even when the whole speech is there and knowing the context. Ain't no word-twisting, it was just the Dems using the same tactics that the Republicans later used.

Each time the Dems pull something for their own benefit ("going nuclear") they are "surprised" when the Republicans use the same tactic or utilize the loophole that the Dems created. They need to stop creating this precedent.

[Jinsai]

Well... Today has been a nightmare and a half... Mistakenly accusing Iran of attacks, and ending the statement with a threat... Protecting the tax exempt status for politically outspoken churches... Threats to UC Berkely for cancelling Milo's appearance... Can he please take a vacation already?

[allegro]

I follow Pete Souza (former WH photographer) on Instagram and WOW this made me cry:

https://instagram.com/p/BP59BXuhFiT/

Bring back Obama, waaaaaaaaaahhhhhh :(

[WorzelG]

I thought Trump said he was going to focus on America and not get involved in foreign wars? Now Bannon is talking about inevitable war?
https://qz.com/900919/trump-adviser-steve-bannon-thinks-theres-no-doubt-the-us-is-headed-for-war-in-the-south-china-sea/

[Jinsai]

but hey, let's piss off Australia while we're at it!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/no-gday-mate-on-call-with-australian-pm-trump-badgers-and-brags/2017/02/01/88a3bfb0-e8bf-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.5401316bdff2

Donald Trump just told Australia "You're fired!"

[Conan The Barbarian]

Where are the Lee Harvey Oswalds of the world?

[Aladdinsanity]

HAHAHA, did you guys catch the part where I guess Trump threatened the President of Mexico that he'd send the military down his way to take care of the "bad hombres"? Good stuff.

[Jinsai]

HAHAHA, did you guys catch the part where I guess Trump threatened the President of Mexico that he'd send the military down his way to take care of the "bad hombres"? Good stuff.

shit.... just... HOW is anyone ok with what is happening? (http://time.com/4657474/donald-trump-enrique-pena-nieto-mexico-bad-hombres/)

[Aladdinsanity]

Threats to UC Berkely for cancelling Milo's appearance...
Milo should not be speaking at universities... getting protested to the point of his speaking engagements getting cancelled is actually a pivotal facet to his whole spiel. He gets paid a shit-ton of money regardless on top of stealing from others under the guise of a college fund (the so-called "Privilege Grant"). Part of me wonders of he's actually disappointed when the protests aren't enough to keep him from carrying out his appearances.

There's a conspiracy going around that he actually put in place paid agitators to turn the protest violent (it was non-violent for HOURS beforehand). I don't actually believe this myself, but it most certainly wouldn't be out of character for him to do so.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Jinsai]

Milo should not be speaking at universities... getting protested to the point of his speaking engagements getting cancelled is actually a pivotal facet to his whole spiel. He gets paid a shit-ton of money regardless on top of stealing from others under the guise of a college fund (the so-called "Privilege Grant"). Part of me wonders of he's actually disappointed when the protests aren't enough to keep him from carrying out his appearances.

There's a conspiracy going around that he actually put in place paid agitators to turn the protest violent (it was non-violent for HOURS beforehand). I don't actually believe this myself, but it most certainly wouldn't be out of character for him to do so.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Seems plausible... This guy is only showing up on my radar recently, but it seems like his whole shtick is to bait people into calling him an Uncle Tom, and then to rant against that to excuse his racist, sexist, narcissistic rhetoric. Unfortunately, that shell game works for Trump supporters desperate to point to their "gay" allegiance... and that plays into his hands, or whomever is pulling the strings behind how he's propped up.

[Frozen Beach]

Why do Universities even allow him to be scheduled if they know what he brings to their campuses? I'm pretty sure Berkely knew what they were getting into.



There's a conspiracy going around that he actually put in place paid agitators to turn the protest violent (it was non-violent for HOURS beforehand).
I'll eat a brick if that's true. That's how much I think that's bullshit. I saw people get beat by flag poles, a man knocked unconscious and people attempt arson on businesses. It was pure hostility. UCPD dropped the ball big time sitting back and letting that crap happen.

[Jinsai]

I'll eat a brick if that's true. That's how much I think that's bullshit. I saw people get beat by flag poles, a man knocked unconscious and people attempt arson on businesses. It was pure hostility. UCPD dropped the ball big time sitting back and letting that crap happen.

We're living through a new version of fascism... new violence seems plausible. Also, I'm sure there's a bunch of Breitbart-reading Trump supporters who would love to don a mask and punch a snowflake. It's not that outlandish.

[xmd 5a]

but hey, let's piss off Australia while we're at it!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/no-gday-mate-on-call-with-australian-pm-trump-badgers-and-brags/2017/02/01/88a3bfb0-e8bf-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.5401316bdff2

Donald Trump just told Australia "You're fired!"

Our current government is shithouse and full of Trump wannabes so they deserve each other tbh. Our past few governments have (literally, per the UN and Amnesty International) tortured these asylum seekers. There wouldn't have to be a "dumb deal" if the xenophobic fuckheads would own up to their mistakes and let the innocent people they've abused for political gain settle here.

[telee.kom]

Milo should not be speaking at universities...

Maybe it's just me, but university should be place for dialogue and diverse opinions, no matter how much you might disagree with them. Those people rioting against him are clueless

[theimage13]

Maybe it's just me, but university should be place for dialogue and diverse opinions, no matter how much you might disagree with them. Those people rioting against him are clueless

Maybe it's just me, but no place in the world should be a place for a lecture promoting racism and sexism, and that's literally his agenda. Not some thinly veiled, "oh maybe if you twist his words" kind of thing. He was permanently banned from twitter for literally inciting racist and sexist attacks against someone. He publishes articles on subjects like "why there should be fewer women in science". His opinions have no place in decent society.

[theimage13]

His speech (video), the whole thing, is right there on the CSPAN video on that page, he was the Chairman of the Senate Judiary Committee for many years, I don't see how his speech and actions could possibly be misinterpreted even when the whole speech is there and knowing the context. Ain't no word-twisting, it was just the Dems using the same tactics that the Republicans later used.

Each time the Dems pull something for their own benefit ("going nuclear") they are "surprised" when the Republicans use the same tactic or utilize the loophole that the Dems created. They need to stop creating this precedent.

Ah, I had just closed the video when it started - figured it was one of those annoying "watch it here or read it below" things. Didn't realize it was the whole speech.

[Deepvoid]

Mattis warns North Korea of "overwhelming" response to nuclear use. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38850995)

So basically there are now three countries on notice: China, Iran and North Korea ... oh Russia too

Nikki Haley criticizes Russia over Crimea (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/03/un-envoy-nikki-haley-criticises-russian-aggression-in-ukraine)

[telee.kom]

Maybe it's just me, but no place in the world should be a place for a lecture promoting racism and sexism, and that's literally his agenda. Not some thinly veiled, "oh maybe if you twist his words" kind of thing. He was permanently banned from twitter for literally inciting racist and sexist attacks against someone. He publishes articles on subjects like "why there should be fewer women in science". His opinions have no place in decent society.

And I suppose you should be the judge of what opinions are acceptable in society right? How about we let each individual to decide whether they want to hear what he has to say or not. And what kind of argument is that he was banned from twitter lol?

[xmd 5a]

Maybe it's just me, but no place in the world should be a place for a lecture promoting racism and sexism, and that's literally his agenda. Not some thinly veiled, "oh maybe if you twist his words" kind of thing. He was permanently banned from twitter for literally inciting racist and sexist attacks against someone. He publishes articles on subjects like "why there should be fewer women in science". His opinions have no place in decent society.

It's utterly bizarre to me how the narrative of "outspoken conservative silenced for having differing opinions" has gained so much uncritical traction. I guess "Guy Who Rips Off Employees, Defrauds Fans, Writes Defamatory Articles About Random People He Disagrees With On Twitter, Plagiarises Tori Amos Lyrics And Cosplays In Nazi Regalia Gets Shown The Door" doesn't have quite the same ring to it as "PC GONE MAD!!!!! PT. 25838229"...

[Sallos]

And I suppose you should be the judge of what opinions are acceptable in society right? How about we let each individual to decide whether they want to hear what he has to say or not. And what kind of argument is that he was banned from twitter lol?

You fight fascism with more fascism haven't you heard? Free speech has no place in a free speech society, unless the fascist left agrees with it.

[Swykk]

This evil lying bitch: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/03/513222852/bogus-bowling-green-massacre-claim-snarls-trump-adviser-conway?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews
(https://www.bowlinggreenmassacrefund.com/)

Good news is it led to this, which put a smile on my face:

https://www.bowlinggreenmassacrefund.com/

[theimage13]

And I suppose you should be the judge of what opinions are acceptable in society right? How about we let each individual to decide whether they want to hear what he has to say or not. And what kind of argument is that he was banned from twitter lol?

I suppose the entire human race should endeavor to treat each other respectfully and not systematically repress people based on the color of their skin and whether or not they have a penis, yes. And the Twitter comment was simply a reference or source; something people cite when making evidence-based claims instead of just shouting at people and making fun of them. But I can see that compassion and rational thought are wasted in this instance.

[theimage13]

You fight fascism with more fascism haven't you heard? Free speech has no place in a free speech society, unless the fascist left agrees with it.

What's the fascist left?

On the left, I see citizens making their voices heard by calling their representatives, voting with their wallets, making use of strength in numbers, etc.

On the right, I see the president signing executive order after executive order, and his staff telling people that black is white and to not believe anything you've ever been told before they arrived, amid their calls for a free press to no longer be free.

Sorry, only one of those sounds fascist to me. And spoiler alert: it's not the top one.

[baudolino]

You fight fascism with more fascism haven't you heard? Free speech has no place in a free speech society, unless the fascist left agrees with it.

here, read this

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/25998-the-so-called-paradox-of-freedom-is-the-argument-that-freedom


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[allegro]

Good news is it led to this, which put a smile on my face:

https://www.bowlinggreenmassacrefund.com/

This one (https://twitter.com/natasharothwell/status/827393205372981250) made us crack up.

[allegro]

What's the fascist left?
It's an oxymoron.

Like: "Falsely True"

Like: "Alternative Fact"

[aggroculture]

Or "Feminazi"

[Sallos]

What's the fascist left?

On the left, I see citizens making their voices heard by calling their representatives, voting with their wallets, making use of strength in numbers, etc.

On the right, I see the president signing executive order after executive order, and his staff telling people that black is white and to not believe anything you've ever been told before they arrived, amid their calls for a free press to no longer be free.

Sorry, only one of those sounds fascist to me. And spoiler alert: it's not the top one.

Shutting down dissenting speech is not fascist? Okay.

[baudolino]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3udH6YWMAAtGvf.jpg




this hypocritical, misanthropic bloke wouldn't even be tolerated at speaker's corner for long. ;)

[Mantra]

From an objective legal perspective, Milo obviously has the right to plan a speaking event where he wants, but from a practical point of view, it's pretty stupid to schedule your silly alt-right speech at a famously liberal college. It's like scheduling an anti-gun protest in the middle of a gun convention at the NRA headquarters. Don't whine when you find yourself surrounded by pure hostility. You obviously asked for it.

It reminds me of this time when Karl Rove came to speak at the University of Minnesota and, naturally, everyone showed up to protest. I only caught the beginning of it, cause I had to get to class, but I knew it was going to get ugly. And I just thought: Why the fuck would Karl Rove come to speak at the U of M of all places? As if there were any chance AT ALL that a bunch of cool, young college kids might say, "Woah, wait a minute...did you just say Karl Rove is gonna be speaking here next week?? Oh my god, I LOVE Karl Rove! Wait till all my friends hear about THIS!" Seriously, the guy didn't have a prayer of finding an audience here. It's the fucking U of M. He should have gone to some bland, upper-class suburb outside the city, like Plymouth or Edina or some other soulless shithole. That's his audience.

Freedom of speech cuts both ways. Milo has the right to be the drooling moron that he is, and no one can ever take that special quality away from him. But everyone else has the right to show up and tell him that he fucking sucks. Tired of these pathetic crybabies who whine about "muh freedom of speech!" and imagine that they're being oppressed just because people show up to protest. No basic common sense.

[Aladdinsanity]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3qzWMnWcAAmbRF.jpg

[Louie_Cypher]

haven't you caused enough shit asshole
-louie

[Sallos]

Freedom of speech cuts both ways. Milo has the right to be the drooling moron that he is, and no one can ever take that special quality away from him. But everyone else has the right to show up and tell him that he fucking sucks. Tired of these pathetic crybabies who whine about "muh freedom of speech!" and imagine that they're being oppressed just because people show up to protest. No basic common sense.

There's a huge difference between protesting and trying by every means necessary that people don't gather to discuss whatever subject they see fit.

[Louie_Cypher]

milo is nothing than a fame-seeking starfucker nothing more kkk used to pull this shit all the time best to just ignore
-louie

[theimage13]

Shutting down dissenting speech is not fascist? Okay.

No, you're oversimplifying and making false analogies.

One racist white guy wanted to speak, and 1,500 hundred people gathered and told him to fuck off. That's not fascism. That's a democratic people using their constitutional right to assemble.

[theimage13]

milo is nothing than a fame-seeking starfucker nothing more kkk used to pull this shit all the time best to just ignore
-louie

The problem with this strategy is that if those who disagree ignore him, those who buy into his hate speech will become emboldened.

[Louie_Cypher]

The problem with this strategy is that if those who disagree ignore him, those who buy into his hate speech will become emboldened.
it's what http://www.breitbart.com/ does it's what trump does, it's trolling in real life, say something outrageous insight anger then point at those outraged for being outraged
-louie

[Aladdinsanity]

It's fine, really. He thrives off of these incidents. He hopes to delegitimize his political opponents in the process.

Only problem now is his scheme is hitting a snag after he, Breitbart and the rest of his drooling fans cried wolf in Seattle (claiming one of his supporters was shot by a protester [turned out a supporter shot one of the protesters and put him in critical condition]) and in Quebec (after the mosque shooting wherein they claimed the perp to be a Muslim terrorist [turned out he was an anti-feminist Trump-supporting terrorist]). When the facts of both of those events came to light, he and said supporters swept the convo under the rug without mustering even a simple apology for spreading bullshit to fit their narrative and now the chickens have come home to roost. That's why you won't be seeing a whole lot of sympathy for him.

[Sutekh]

Oswald Moseley and the British fascists of the thirties used to stage marches through Jewish areas of London, so they could brand the local population thugs when they retaliated

Milo is a well read man

I find it funny people with a bee in their bonnet over liberals tolerating muslims suddenly request that tolerance be applied to fascists

Funny as in, naive or hypocritical

[hellospaceboy]

You fight fascism with more fascism haven't you heard? Free speech has no place in a free speech society, unless the fascist left agrees with it.


Free speech applies to the government interfering with expression of opinion. A college (if it's private, like most US colleges), twitter, which is a company, and society at large (by setting standards to what is acceptable to say culturally) can absolutely draw limits. The government cannot stop you from going on TV and saying that white people are superior to black people, but the TV network can, and the viewers (by calling the station to complain) to a certain extent can. This is not liberal fascism and PC culture. It's just how society works. What is acceptable changed throughout history, you could say racially insensitive shit in the 50s that wouldn't fly today. And we -as a culture- are becoming more accepting of LGBTQ people, so those standards are changing too, like it or not...

[Sutekh]

You can go to a bar and say you think LGBTQ is a sign of the moral decline of the west if you want. You have free speech. As hellospaceboy said, private entities are allowed to show what they want. Same as you won't see extensive pride coverage on breitbart

[Frozen Beach]

Why would they allow him to be scheduled there in the first place if they didn't want to allow him to speak? As if Berkeley didn't research him up beforehand.

[onthewall2983]

I have a feeling that the corporate revolt against Trump, as typified recently by Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus dropping Ivanka's fashion line, will be the most destructive if it continues to gain momentum.

[Sutekh]

Is this a problem with the left though? If you turn up at an NRA meeting dressed like Leigh bowery and waving a sign saying ban all guns and let all Muslim refugees in... would you be politely asked to leave

[Frozen Beach]

would you be politely asked to leave
Not everyone in the NRA is an immediate, hostile, trigger happy person. Sure, you might get some people who'll accost you, but that's in any group.

[onthewall2983]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXuhqVH1baA

[telee.kom]

No, you're oversimplifying and making false analogies.

That's a democratic people using their constitutional right to assemble.

You know I was literally eating popcorn while reading this thread but your comment made me find the article about those "democratic" and "constitutional" protests. There you go http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/index.html

[allegro]

You know I was literally eating popcorn while reading this thread but your comment made me find the article about those "democratic" and "constitutional" protests. There you go http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/index.html

"Masked agitators" that were not part of the protest. But, free speech is free speech and he was INVITED by students.

Trump says: "American universities are on notice. The President is watching. The days you could silence conservative and libertarian voices on campus and still expect to collect their tax money are coming to an end."

I am reminded of the quote from Evelyn Beatrice Hall: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Free speech is free speech.

But I agree with my husband: free speech goes both ways: the speaker AND the protesters; THIS was a law enforcement issue.

[hellospaceboy]

I am reminded of the quote from Evelyn Beatrice Hall: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"


https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-QrsB3lOc2Jo/WJUejH3gJuI/AAAAAAAAKso/B9U7zJHyfuYc_P4TgrKfZ_t8eWiqZvNuACJoC/w480-h260-p-rw/17%2B-%2B1

[Louie_Cypher]

I have a feeling that the corporate revolt against Trump, as typified recently by Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus dropping Ivanka's fashion line, will be the most destructive if it continues to gain momentum. i think it will be worse he is quietly dismantling banking regs when people lose their retirement and more we could have a revolution
=louie

[onthewall2983]

Federal judge in Washington has ordered a nationwide block on the Muslim band. I'm watching CNN, and someone has said that the higher-ups at airports are going to conduct their business as usual prior to the ban.

[Deepvoid]

Federal judge in Washington has ordered a nationwide block on the Muslim band. I'm watching CNN, and someone has said that the higher-ups at airports are going to conduct their business as usual prior to the ban.

It's safe to say this is gonna end up before the Supreme Court.

[onthewall2983]

How long before that can happen?

[thelastdisciple]

Free speech, i think a huge problem with how people interpret this is down to semantics regardless of actual LAW.

It's like when someone offers you a bag of chips or a plate of baked goods and they say "help yourself!" they don't mean go whole hog, there's that unwritten rule or limit and way of not taking it so damn literally.

Just because you can have free speech doesn't mean you go whole hog and go around committing hate crimes and think you're getting off the hook, you don't go around hurling threats at people saying you're going to rape them and other things of a serious nature and not expect to be held accountable... like WTF is wrong with people that don't understand this? You don't fucking get to hide behind free speech like that.

THOSE are the type of people that need the reality check and THOSE are the type of people that Trump has been fucking emboldening lately, how does anyone not see this? people think this behavior is ok to let go unchecked? Nothing at all should be done about it? That's disturbing.

[allegro]

Free speech, i think a huge problem with how people interpret this is down to semantics regardless of actual LAW.

It's like when someone offers you a bag of chips or a plate of baked goods and they say "help yourself!" they don't mean go whole hog, there's that unwritten rule or limit and way of not taking it so damn literally.

Just because you can have free speech doesn't mean you go whole hog and go around committing hate crimes and think you're getting off the hook, you don't go around hurling threats at people saying you're going to rape them and other things of a serious nature and not expect to be held accountable... like WTF is wrong with people that don't understand this? You don't fucking get to hide behind free speech like that.

THOSE are the type of people that need the reality check and THOSE are the type of people that Trump has been fucking emboldening lately, how does anyone not see this? people think this behavior is ok to let go unchecked? Nothing at all should be done about it? That's disturbing.

The First Amendment says this:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

But case law has determined that free speech IS limited (http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1.html).

Examples most often given are yelling "Fire" in a crowded building, or saying "HI JACK!" on a plane.

But Nazis in the U.S. are allowed to protest with a proper permit, just like anybody else.

And anarchists, same thing.

"Speech" that doesn't endanger people is still free speech.

Saying "I'm gonna go kill those lesbians" = not free speech, that's a threat.

Saying "I fucking hate all lesbians" is hateful, but it's an opinion so it's still free speech.

The lesbians can then have a protest saying "We all hate that asshole."

Still free speech.

Free speech under the Constitution relates to whether or not you can be arrested, by law, for said speech.

A teacher who goes on Facebook and writes "fuck all these niggers!" isn't going to be ARRESTED for her free speech; but she will most certainly be (legally) fired, because it violates the terms of her employment (she represents the school, even when not on the job).

THIS IS A GOOD ARTICLE ABOUT THIS SUBJECT. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.de3766e8f0fd)

[thelastdisciple]

Right, it just seems like a lot of that gets twisted everywhere in the U.S. and i see threats happening all over the place that people like to justify as free speech, i always see it coming from the same type of crowd.

All i can say is, as a Canadian I'm glad we have this: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-319.html

and this: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-72.html#h-93

EDIT: Also, I should clarify that i would never insist on some kind of "thought police", to hell with that and i am generally against censorship but these days I have to wonder if there should be more serious discussions on "speech". Words have a massive amount of power and granted the chances are low but i've always feared people being brainwashed on massive scales to do harm either to themselves or to others, people being manipulated psychologically.

Jonestown still freaks me out, the fact something like that could even be possible.

[Jinsai]

Shutting down dissenting speech is not fascist? Okay.

Glad to hear that you agree Trump is a fascist.

[Volband]

I went to 13 shows on the tour, the sole political song is "THTF" which is totally incongruous on the album. Every single interview with Reznor during that time focuses on his writing the lyrics based on his lawsuit against his former manager and his having done a live-in rehab stint, and whether or not he'd still be relevant after being gone for years and not high anymore.

http://www.theninhotline.net/archives/articles/manager/display_article.php?id=189

And really, who cares? Sure, this is a NIN board but the biggest reason this board is and always has been inhabited by liberals is not due to aping Reznor's politics; it's because we have always had a bunch of educated and intelligent people in here and they tend to be more liberal.

Reznor isn't Al Jourgensen.
Whether it's 12 songs bashing the Bush government or just one, the fact remains that he made his stance clear for the first time within a song of his - I obviously did not read every interview up to that point, but neither did the average listener. Also, what the fuck, 13 shows? Aren't you around ~50? Sure, that would make you 30/40 at the time, but that's still rad.

Btw, I absolutely love that this is the cockiest I've ever seen you, haha. I mean, its absolute self-fallation, pretentious and toxic, but from someone who is usually the voice of reason, it's nice to see some things can make you jump out of your skin too. Passion is probably the second most attractive trait after confidence.

[Jinsai]

Whether it's 12 songs bashing the Bush government or just one, the fact remains that he made his stance clear for the first time within a song of his - I obviously did not read every interview up to that point, but neither did the average listener. Also, what the fuck, 13 shows? Aren't you around ~50? Sure, that would make you 30/40 at the time, but that's still rad.

Btw, I absolutely love that this is the cockiest I've ever seen you, haha. I mean, its absolute self-fallation, pretentious and toxic, but from someone who is usually the voice of reason, it's nice to see some things can make you jump out of your skin too. Passion is probably the second most attractive trait after confidence.

For fuck's sake, if you didn't notice that the lyrics don't line up with neocons, that's your fucking problem. Also, NIN's lyrics mostly suck, and that's the path that I have chose, so STFU already with this drift. FFS, listen to the first two songs on the first NIN album if you're confused about where the fans probably stand on unfettered capitalism or religious fanaticism; both of which are big middle fingers to far-right alignment.

[Demogorgon]

Passion is probably the second most attractive trait after confidence.

Did you just...

Did you really just... hit on Allegro? In the Trump Thread?

O.o

[Volband]

For fuck's sake, if you didn't notice that the lyrics don't line up with neocons, that's your fucking problem. Also, NIN's lyrics mostly suck, and that's the path that I have chose, so STFU already with this drift. FFS, listen to the first two songs on the first NIN album if you're confused about where the fans probably stand on unfettered capitalism or religious fanaticism; both of which are big middle fingers to far-right alignment.
HLAH defies greed and Terrible Lie questions (but does not defy) religion. How is that compareable to straight out saying that the war in Iraq is a charade and urging you to voice or even act on your concerns regarding the government?

Sure, you grew up in American culture, and I know religion is a big part of politics there, but do you honestly think it has a direct political (aka anti-Republican) message that a young man is torn and desperately cries out to an alleged deity up in the sky? Or that a young man saying no to selling out himself and his beliefs is somehow a clear sign of Mr. Reznor pursuing Democratic values?

Also, I did not imply you in any of my sentences, so not sure what got you so worked up outside your own idea of HLAH and TL.

Did you just...

Did you really just... hit on Allegro? In the Trump Thread?

O.o
Hahah, yeah, I guess I did in a platonic way. Must be some motherly impulse from her that made me fond of her. Is that weird? I've always had my favorites on every board, regardless of age, gender, or whether we cursed or complimented each other 0-24. Allegro always came across to me as a chill, level-headed, open-minded, non-opressive dudette, whom I would enjoy some early afternoon non-alcoholic beverages every 2 or 3 months, if we were closer in age.

And what better place could I spread my love in, if not here, where cozy and warm feelings seems like far-fetched ideas?

[Jinsai]

Sure, you grew up in American culture, and I know religion is a big part of politics there, but do you honestly think it has a direct political (aka anti-Republican) message that a young man is torn and desperately cries out to an alleged deity up in the sky? Or that a young man saying no to selling out himself and his beliefs is somehow a clear sign of Mr. Reznor pursuing Democratic values?

Well... I grew up with one of my parents being an immigrant, and I spent part of my childhood living in England... but whatever about me... whatever ends this fucking political discussion about Nine Inch Nails in the one "safe space" on this board where we stop fucking talking about Nine Inch Nails. Stop it. Please.

I don't care. You don't live in America, and apparently you don't look up stuff on that internet thing you have, but most republicans are not into anti-Christian or anti-Capitalist shit. There's your answer. Now please, shut the fuck up about it.

[Volband]

Thank you for the kind offer, but I really couldn't care less about how you live through the mental torture of having to read or skip through posts which discuss NIN+politics in a thread that has Year Zero in its title, on a board dedicated to NIN.

I'm sure Trump did or will do something today as well, to which you can calmly reflect, so don't be bummed out, no one will miss out on your commentary from Hell today either.

[Jinsai]

Thank you for the kind offer, but I really couldn't care less about how you live through the mental torture of having to read or skip through posts which discuss NIN+politics in a thread that has Year Zero in its title, on a board dedicated to NIN.

I'm sure Trump did or will do something today as well, to which you can calmly reflect, so don't be bummed out, no one will miss out on your commentary from Hell today either.

What? Were you trying to make a point here? Do yourself a favor and take my advice. Stop it. Nobody is coming into this thread for NIN-related ANYTHING

[Volband]

What? Were you trying to make a point here? Do yourself a favor and take my advice. Stop it. Nobody is coming into this thread for NIN-related ANYTHING
But the topic still sparked, a few people chipped in and I was discussing it with said few people. You took it on yourself to act as the secret police, trying to end it, because you found the lack of "Trump is literally killing me" sentences disturbing.

Dude, you've got at least 4 years of playing the freedom fighter here; on that scale, a few of us discussing a semi-related alternate topic for a little while is nothing.

But hey, I did come forward about telling you that I find your maniac attitude annoying, so fair's fair with you telling me about your concerns about me. Dully noted.

Look what I found for you! (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/02/trump-says-he-cut-wall-street-reform-because-his-friends-need-money?mbid=social_twitter) Why don't you chew on this until you find something fresh? You are wasting your precious time on me, while the only person who can save the USA is You.

[Jinsai]

keep talking to yourself, moron

[Volband]

keep talking to yourself, moron
Me, allegro and Swyyk discussed the topic, I replied to them, then you chipped in angrily, like anyone was talking to you, and now you ended up in this childish rage. You do not realize, but you are acting rather pathetic, but you just can't leave the topic alone, because you already invested too much face value into it, which only got you shamed the way you acted like a kid, and your pride doesn't let you go.

Just cut your losses, man.

[Sutekh]

Not everyone in the NRA is an immediate, hostile, trigger happy person. Sure, you might get some people who'll accost you, but that's in any group.


I know, that's my point, it isn't a left-specific problem, you get those people in every group

Ps jinsai you lived in England?! I reckon Milton Keynes or reading

[miss k bee]

Like wtf

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/former-norway-pm-bondevik-held-washington-dulles-airport-2014-visit-iran?CMP=share_btn_tw

[Swykk]

@Volband (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=3656) I talked to @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) about it because I think she misunderstood me. The only time I talk to you is when you're trying to spread your thread cancer and to warn others of your stupid game and that you add nothing to ETS.

It's very Trump (childish) of you to spell our names wrong. Fuck off, troll.

[Volband]

@Volband (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=3656) I talked to @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) about it because I think she misunderstood me. The only time I talk to you is when you're trying to spread your thread cancer and to warn others of your stupid game and that you add nothing to ETS.

It's very Trump (childish) of you to spell our names wrong. Fuck off, troll.
What if I told you it wasn't intentional? Told you to spare me from your bipolar bullshit; so typical, you think everything is about and against you. Like, you really think after saying straight to you what I think about you, I'm gonna devise a plan to switch out one letter in your name, and not just me - the guy who never even realized Trump's wife is MelaniA and not -E - making a spelling accident.

Jesus, the hatred in your heart has consumed you. I could donate a million bucks to some cancer fund, and you'd just reach the conclusion that I must be showing off with my money.

And who is the troll? 80% of these long-winded shit throwing contests happen because you think everyone else is as mentally handicapped as you are, and they can not decide on their own whether they want to interact with me or not, and when they do, you think they are incapable of sorting out their own thoughts. Who the fuck asked you in any of those occasions? You pour gasoline to the fire and think the result proves your point. Well, it only proves you rather derail the threads, because you have a personal grudge which is fueled by your extreme self-esteem issues.

Dude, I still remember the day you declared me as your number 1 enemy. Others might think I kicked you a 100 different ways, but in reality, we exchanged like two long, rather civil posts (compared to these, anyway), but you disagreed with me so much that you said you don't want to listen to me anymore. This has been at least 2 (!!!) years and you are still fixated on me. You do realize it is not healthy, and a happy person wouldn't give a flying cactus, right?

I propose this as our main theme. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSZH-Zuwdjs) We will be the most dysfunctional superhero pairing ever. What'cha say? Don't even bother, "hurr durr, very funny, troll troll, nice game Satan, hurr durr, you think you got me, but you didn't, because i got you! boom, troll down! I am a confident, beautiful and valuable person [x5]." You know, my friend, Swykk, I think we should get to know each other, like a (couples?) therapy. We should start a PM-session. Maybe it would help understand each other! Everyone would win: us, the bystanders, the admins, Trent.

XOXO
Peter

[Swykk]

On the same day Trump rolled back regulations that will allow Wall Street to manipulate retirement funds, this happened:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2017/02/03/the-usda-abruptly-removes-animal-welfare-information-from-its-website/?postshare=941486213602370&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.2074cfa237af

[Louie_Cypher]

reading insane clown president by matt taibbi and really enjoying it not as good as fear and loathing on the campaign trail, imo, but trying to do anything like HST and you are going to fall short, very good read I recommend
-louie

[allegro]

Also, what the fuck, 13 shows? Aren't you around ~50? Sure, that would make you 30/40 at the time

I was in high school at the same time as Trent Reznor, so technically he and I are contemporaries. In 2005, he was on tour, and I was in the audience. I don't see any significance in that.

[Deepvoid]

How long before that can happen?
allegro can probably answer that question. Maybe SCOTUS can convene an emergency hearing?
This order is a legit mess all across the board. The sooner someone set the record straight the better it is for everyone.

[allegro]

On the same day Trump rolled back regulations that will allow Wall Street to manipulate retirement funds, this happened:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2017/02/03/the-usda-abruptly-removes-animal-welfare-information-from-its-website/?postshare=941486213602370&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.2074cfa237af

That's REALLY disturbing. All this hiding of information is crazy shit. I hope all of this will pile up to equal huge incentive to fire his ass, as well as all of his sycophantic friends, via voting.

[allegro]

allegro can probably answer that question. Maybe SCOTUS can convene an emergency hearing?
This order is a legit mess all across the board. The sooner someone set the record straight the better it is for everyone.

I think that will be necessary. The Executive branch is SUPPOSED to support the Judicial branch; without that support, the Judicial branch becomes totally powerless. Trump not enforcing Judicial decisions is, technically, a Constitutional crisis.

See Marbury v. Madison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison).

See Hamilton, "The Federalist Papers" #78 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm):


Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers." And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.

[allegro]

The most important call you'll ever make?
https://instagram.com/p/BQGUVXtAUc0/

[Jinsai]

a happy person wouldn't give a flying cactus, right?

What? What the actual fuck are you trying to.... Just... WHAT?!


Ps jinsai you lived in England?! I reckon Milton Keynes or reading

a town called Bishop's Waltham.

[Jinsai]

The most important call you'll ever make?
https://instagram.com/p/BQGUVXtAUc0/

Called and left a message

[hellospaceboy]

Sorry if this has been posted here already. While the judge's order about suspending the implementation of the ban was a big step, I'd say that this is the first sign that Trump won't be able to get away with whatever he wants.

"America began allowing foreigners from seven predominantly Muslim nations into its borders Saturday after the government stopped enforcing President Donald Trump's travel ban at airports"


http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-halts-trump-travel-ban-banned-countries-citizens-able-board-n716801 (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-halts-trump-travel-ban-banned-countries-citizens-able-board-n716801)

[Jinsai]

Sorry if this has been posted here already. While the judge's order about suspending the implementation of the ban was a big step, I'd say that this is the first sign that Trump won't be able to get away with whatever he wants.

Trump moves to insult and delegitimize the authority of the federal judge, calling Judge Robart a "so-called judge." (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/us/politics/visa-ban-trump-judge-james-robart.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur)

We'll see where this winds up...

[hellospaceboy]

^^^
Yes, we'll see.
But for now, the Homeland Security conducts business as it did BEFORE the executive order! That's huge, and Trump's insult is going to get lost in the sea of 1000 other insults coming out of his mouth (or phone) on a daily basis.

[Louie_Cypher]

for some reason this made me laugh, it really shouldn't
II don't know, Indiana still exists after 4 years of Pence.
-louie

[sweeterthan]

The so called judge remark is my favorite flub yet. My guess is trump doesn't understand checks and balances. You're the president, not the king, fuckface.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Louie_Cypher]

i don't think trump understands much of anything
-louie

[Mantra]

From Trump's warped point of view, a REAL judge would mindlessly go along with everything he commands. Anyone who defies him MUST be a fake judge.

[Sarah K]

SNL finally does a Spicer bit. Lolll


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWuc18xISwI

[cahernandez]

Man, SNL is FUCKING gold right now. "One day I'm going to write a book about the struggle, and going to call it 'My Struggle'" HA HA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZOF9q5fzfs

[theimage13]

The so called judge remark is my favorite flub yet. My guess is trump doesn't understand checks and balances. You're the president, not the king, fuckface.

This might be the clearest example yet of what scares me the most about this guy: he clearly believes - I mean really, truly, honestly believes - that he is a dictator, not a democratic leader. "So-called judge" isn't just a second grade playground bully insult that he childishly spat at someone on the internet; the actions that come with these statements are clear proof that he has absolutely no regard for checks and balances or a process in which anyone but himself has a say. He doesn't think he's President. He thinks he's Ruler.

[Jinsai]

moving right along to kill the EPA: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861/

[the duder]

moving right along to kill the EPA: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861/

Wait, seriously?

[Louie_Cypher]

people do know you have a better chance of winning the powerball than being in a muslim led terror attack
-louie

[Louie_Cypher]

you have the right because you have a law degree from?, please don't say trump university, even though you're in court more than cameron diaz farts during a tonight show appearance
-louie

[theimage13]

people do know you have a better chance of winning the powerball than being in a muslim led terror attack
-louie

It's driving me mad that I can't find this link now, but there was a terrific article years ago examining the psychology behind how we view odds for things with positive outcomes vs negative outcomes. In other words, you could have the exact same odds for two drastically different things, and yet you'd feel like one of them was not entirely far-fetched while thinking that the other could never actually happen.

[onthewall2983]

https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/16426018_10212195616865104_661318650247740277_n.jp g?oh=7599af1b0eb25cd76bc17a1c79f667d7&oe=590F2528

[Frozen Beach]

I don't care for Alec Baldwin's impersonation of Donald Trump. It feels like he tries too hard, a bit over exaggerated for my taste. Johnny Depp almost had it right, but not quite. I have a feeling Bruce Campbell could nail it.

[onthewall2983]

Frankly, I don't think I could be amused by any impression of him at this point.

[sweeterthan]

I only like baldwin's impression because it gets under trump's skin. He can't stop himself from tweeting about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[allegro]

I don't care for Alec Baldwin's impersonation of Donald Trump. It feels like he tries too hard, a bit over exaggerated for my taste.
I'm pretty sure that's deliberate.

[Frozen Beach]

I'm pretty sure that's deliberate.
I know, that's why I said "a bit over exaggerated for my taste."
It feels like he tries too hard at trying too hard. It's like a movie that purposely tries to be so bad it's good, but ends up just being meh.

[Louie_Cypher]

I only like baldwin's impression because it gets under trump's skin. He can't stop himself from tweeting about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk getting under trump skin couldn't be easier unless it was somehow mixed with dmso
-louie

[allegro]

I know, that's why I said "a bit over exaggerated for my taste."
It feels like he tries too hard at trying too hard.
I mean that he's exaggerating certain facial expressions, monotone voice, etc. as a form of parody that is deliberate; it's beyond "humor;" it's a political statement and a caricature (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caricature).

Like this in art:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3a/2c/80/3a2c80cdd844b9278387537a5dc94102.jpg

[Jinsai]

I mean that he's exaggerating certain facial expressions, monotone voice, etc. as a form of parody that is deliberate; it's beyond "humor;" it's a political statement and a caricature (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caricature).

Like this in art:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3a/2c/80/3a2c80cdd844b9278387537a5dc94102.jpg

I think what Frozen Beach is saying is that the caricature is overdone to the point where the humor fails... I don't agree, but I get the point. As in, imagine if that picture right up there of Trump was just a frozen yoghurt cone... the joke would fail to resonate. The humor lies somewhere in between.

Funny stuff is a hard thing to pull off. Anyone who actually watched the comedic travesty that was Trump's appearance as host on SNL knows that. Holy shit, watch that again. That is the most uncomfortable hour of television ever aired. Tremendous, disastrously unfunny.

The new SNL? Actually hilarious again. This is the one way that Trump has made America better. SNL is actually amusing again. Wow. Tremendous.

[allegro]

Trump WAS funny in the Hotline Bling skit. I laughed.

Alec Baldwin is a known liberal (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/24-alec-baldwin-quotes-proving-hes-liberal-enough-for-msnbc/article/2534122) and obviously HATES Trump (https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/alec-baldwin-trump-impression-inauguration-protest-2017-1?client=safari); his imitation is more parody (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody) than simple comedy. We are laughing at the deliberate expense of Trump.

[hellospaceboy]

Have we talked about this New York Times article yet:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/us/politics/trump-white-house-aides-strategy.html?_r=0

Just WOW

Probably the single most revealing/terrifying part:
"Mr. Bannon remains the president’s dominant adviser, despite Mr. Trump’s anger that he was not fully briefed on details of the executive order he signed giving his chief strategist a seat on the National Security Council (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_security_council/index.html?inline=nyt-org), a greater source of frustration to the president than the fallout from the travel ban."

[Jinsai]

Trump WAS funny in the Hotline Bling skit. I laughed.

I disagree tremendously.

[Louie_Cypher]

Seattle Judge James Robart: "How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals from those seven countries since 9/11?"
even executive orders must be rational and fact based
-louie