U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)

[Bird_Gunner45]

Hmmmm. Not sure how you did it, but you've, obviously, mistaken me for someone that you think cares. While I respect the Office of the PM and what it stands for, I have not respected all our PMs. This current one goes beyond the pale of dislike. He is PM in name only. Other than that, he's a spoiled, childish, arrogant pissant. I don't like him, I don't like liebrals, I don't like communists, laurentian elitists, democrats, or socialists of any stripe. I don't like politicians that lie during campaigns and then frig us off once elected. I don't like phony taxes, climate liars and environmental charlatans and terrorists, generational welfare and social services parasites that get my money, that I worked for, so they don't have to. The Tides Foundation and all it's anarchist branches, ANTIFA, BLM, and globalists. I don't like illegal migrants. I don't like organized religion or religious, cultish or political terrorists. I don't like that we don't have the death penalty. I don't like firearms registries of any sort or the criminal way legal, law abiding gun owners are harassed by the same government that refuses to keep people safe.** I'm sure you have a better understanding of me now. One last thing...................

Before your (Gerald) Butts puppet guts the Charter completely, I still have the right to free thought and speech and contrary to your closing line, I'll decide when and about what I want to complain about. Nobody else.

...and I'll be offended if you get offended. [

Double down  :2c: :2c:

** darn, how the heck did I miss the CBC and the rest of the liebral propaganda media machine.

You clearly missed the point. In one post you went on about how no one respects Trump, bla bla bla. In the next you refer to PM Trudeau as "Justine", which infers a lack of respect. When you were called on it you went on some sort of incoherent rant about Liberals, the CBC, Gerald Butts, etc which had absolutely nothing to do with the original post and can be best summed up with the picture attached. Do you see the irony?  if you want to complain that people are irrationally negative about Trump than you can't in the same time be irrationally negative about Trudeau or any other politician you disagree with.

You can disagree with whatever you feel like, just like I can think that you're a caricature for the lefts image of the angry old white man. For the record, I generally vote conservative (for fiscal reasons, though I disagree with most far right social positions (anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, etc), agree with free speech, etc. I dislike Trump not because he's a conservative, but because he's a buffoon that makes conservatives look bad.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... some of you have NO objectivity ...

As I've been accused of that, I'd agree ...

** darn, how the heck did I miss the CBC and the rest of the liebral propaganda media machine.

I gotta say that surprised me too  ;D

... He is PM in name only. Other than that, he's a spoiled, childish, arrogant pissant ... I still have the right to free thought and speech and contrary to your closing line, I'll decide when and about what I want to complain about. Nobody else ...

And I'm sure you'll extend the same right & courtesy to anyone taking issue with politicians you generally support, right?  After all, words can't hurt unless one lets them, right?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You clearly missed the point. In one post you went on about how no one respects Trump, bla bla bla. In the next you refer to PM Trudeau as "Justine", which infers a lack of respect. When you were called on it you went on some sort of incoherent rant about Liberals, the CBC, Gerald Butts, etc which had absolutely nothing to do with the original post and can be best summed up with the picture attached. Do you see the irony?  if you want to complain that people are irrationally negative about Trump than you can't in the same time be irrationally negative about Trudeau or any other politician you disagree with.

You can disagree with whatever you feel like, just like I can think that you're a caricature for the lefts image of the angry old white man. For the record, I generally vote conservative (for fiscal reasons, though I disagree with most far right social positions (anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, etc), agree with free speech, etc. I dislike Trump not because he's a conservative, but because he's a buffoon that makes conservatives look bad.

Trudeau is as much a buffoon as Trump. Yet you like one but not the other. Good for the goose and all that. You tell me to respect our despot and then call Trump names, yet you presume to lecture me for the same. Said my piece. Done with the derail. You can do as you wish.

 

[Lumber]

I don't like him, I don't like liebrals, I don't like communists, laurentian elitists, democrats, or socialists of any stripe. I don't like politicians that lie during campaigns and then frig us off once elected. I don't like phony taxes, climate liars and environmental charlatans and terrorists, generational welfare and social services parasites that get my money, that I worked for, so they don't have to. The Tides Foundation and all it's anarchist branches, ANTIFA, BLM, and globalists. I don't like illegal migrants. I don't like organized religion or religious, cultish or political terrorists. I don't like that we don't have the death penalty. I don't like firearms registries of any sort or the criminal way legal, law abiding gun owners are harassed by the same government that refuses to keep people safe.** I'm sure you have a better understanding of me now.

Ou! Ou! Is it:

I like our PM, I like liberals, I like conservatives, I like members of the NDP, I like Greens, I like democrats, I like Republicans, and I like socialists so long as they understand sound fiscal policy. Basically, I like all people, no matter their political affiliation, so long as they are good people, who are kind and accepting and general well-meaning. I don't mind politicians lying during elections because I see big "P" Politics as a game, and those are just the rules of the game. I don't care about phony taxes; I know what they really are. A politician refusing to call it a tax doesn't change it from being tax; it affects me just the same. I like those that take a passion about climate change and the environment; this way, I don't have to, and can continue using my free time for selfish reasons. I like immigrants, illegal or otherwise; what I don't like is criminals, whether they are born in Canada, or immigrants (illegal or otherwise). I don't like cry-baby neo-Marxists and the damage they pose to free speech. I don't care that some of my money goes to paying for social services for people who refuse to help themselves; if I can still live a comfortable life and know that a few pennies of my dollar is helping others, lazy as they are, than I've done a little good. I don't think I believe in cultural appropriation, but I also don't think I fully understand it (white man syndrome). I don't like organized religion but most religious people are very nice people. I don't like that we don't have the death penalty, but not for the same reasons most would think. I think firearms registries are stupid, but I believe there should be some level of licencing and control for gun ownership to ensure proper safety and training (I watched a video last night of some Texans hunting feral hogs with an automatic .50 cal... talk about accident waiting to happen). Oh I also think JJ Abrams is ruining the Star Wars franchise.

Cheers

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Trudeau is as much a buffoon as Trump. Yet you like one but not the other. Good for the goose and all that. You tell me to respect our despot and then call Trump names, yet you presume to lecture me for the same. Said my piece. Done with the derail. You can do as you wish.

I'll take the final word then. I never actually said that I agreed with Trudeau or that he wasn't a buffoon or that I liked him, so your point is moot, unfounded, and quite "Trumpian". If you want to debate policy than fine, but you're irrationally attacking abstract concepts but asking for the opposite in return. Caricature and all that.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And I'm sure you'll extend the same right & courtesy to anyone taking issue with politicians you generally support, right?  After all, words can't hurt unless one lets them, right?

Exactly. I'll voice my views. You can love them or hate them, same as when I read others' posts. Can we rebutt? Absolutely. Can we just walk away when the discussion takes a turn you don't like? Again, absolutely. Because I don't respond doesn't mean I don't agree/disagree or that either side has 'won' so to speak. It's because I'm simply moving on to some other totally uninspiring, unimportant task and I have nothing further to say on the present subject. I don't come here to convince anyone of anything, I have very strong opinions and some are likely wrong, but in the end, I really don't care if someone is bothered by my views. If it's discussion they want, I'm all ears. If they want to silence me or lecture me, that's a different ball of wax. I never claimed perfection. I have faults that I try correcting, sometimes works, sometimes not. I am also getting better at screening out the white noise that accompanies a lot of posts here. In the same token, there is no one here that even comes close to Sainthood, so they should quit trying to act like one.

 

[GAP]

What the hell does this have to do with U.S. Politics 2017?

Get back on topic and quit this dick measuring contest....

 

[Lumber]

What the hell does this have to do with U.S. Politics 2017?

Get back on topic and quit this dick measuring contest....

I thought U.S. Politics was all dick measuring and seeing who's sh*t stinks the least?

But, if you insist. How about that budget? Really shelving the social services and given tax breaks to the wealthy, which I guess really fits with a conservative fiscal policy.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The danger with Trump's bumbling is that he might muddle through four years, and thereby prove that the president doesn't need to be much of a leader or have much of a vision for the country to do well.

For many, periods of governance with neither big successes nor big failures is a feature, not a bug.

There are no technocrats capable of executing technocracy at the level it would have to be executed in order to be successful.  (Hari Seldon is, and always will be, a fictional character.)  They should stop trying, so that no-one has to endure their (inevitable) big mistakes.

 

[GAP]

While I don't think Trump will get his next 4 year term unless he changes into a better president, I have real doubts about who might follow him......is it just going back to the same ol' same ol'....

 

[Remius]

If anyone is interested, SNOPES does a fact check on Trump's accomplishments.  Some surprising, and some with a bit of reality injected into it.  Based on that alone, and if you can ignore his controversies and scandals then what he actually has done isn't too bad. 

http://www.snopes.com/everything-donald-trump-accomplished/

The problem is all the self inflicted stuff and the bad/not thinking things he's said and done. He's his own worst enemy on most days...

 

[muskrat89]

I like immigrants, illegal or otherwise; what I don't like is criminals

If you knowingly enter a country illegally you're not a criminal?

Of course, there are semantics at play (isn't there always?)  http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/24/politics/undocumented-immigrants-not-necessarily-criminal/

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

This thread is why I stay out of political discussions op:

 

[Lumber]

If you knowingly enter a country illegally you're not a criminal?

Of course, there are semantics at play (isn't there always?)  http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/24/politics/undocumented-immigrants-not-necessarily-criminal/

When I use the term criminal, I don't mean the simple black and white, textbook term, i.e. you committed a crime that is on the criminal code and therefore you are by definition criminal. I meant more the type of person who has a general disregard for the rule of law and has no interest in respecting the personal rights of those around them. Take a  hypothetical family of 4 that crosses the border illegally to avoid harm/persecution from the country they are fleeing. The family are all gentle people who are great neighbours and work hard, have a dog, donate to charity and invite their new neighbours over for a BBQ. The kind of people that see a person drop a $20 bill and run after them to give it back. By definition these people are criminals, but I'd gladly welcome them into my Canada.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

What the hell does this have to do with U.S. Politics 2017?

Get back on topic and quit this dick measuring contest....

Call it what you will. I'm simply answering questions. There's not that much that makes difference here anyway. Nothing will change while you relax and take a few breaths.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

When I use the term criminal, I don't mean the simple black and white, textbook term, i.e. you committed a crime that is on the criminal code and therefore you are by definition criminal. I meant more the type of person who has a general disregard for the rule of law and has no interest in respecting the personal rights of those around them. Take a  hypothetical family of 4 that crosses the border illegally to avoid harm/persecution from the country they are fleeing. The family are all gentle people who are great neighbours and work hard, have a dog, donate to charity and invite their new neighbours over for a BBQ. The kind of people that see a person drop a $20 bill and run after them to give it back. By definition these people are criminals, but I'd gladly welcome them into my Canada.

None of the people entering Canada ILLEGALLY, are fleeing any sort of persecution or danger that can be taken into account. Of course, you are always free to have them live with you while you sponsor them. They are breaking the law. Good start to their stay in a new country, disrespecting our laws and programs to the detriment of those that have been waiting for years. And you know for a fact that every single one crossing illegally has no criminal record, or is a part of a terrorist cell? That is why we have a process. The illegals have just decided our rules don't apply to them and it only emboldens them to stay outside the system breaking more laws and taking advantage of Canada's good nature and our 'bountiful' social programs. I don't care if your American, Mexican or a purple people eater. If you smuggle you and your's into this country, you are a criminal. I hold the same sentiment for all the WASP draft dodgers that show up here. If they don't follow the process, they don't belong here until they do follow it and are granted entry. We can't choose which laws we enforce.

 

[GAP]

That I agree with.

 

[Kirkhill]

Now, this is getting ridiculous and somebody needs to be doing some serious time in Leavenworth.

I get the inclination to piss on your opponent's parade if you really are convinced you are on the side of the angels.  But this level of leaking isn't just hurting Trump and the Republicans. It is destroying the trust in the entire security system.  These leaks are far more damaging than anything Trump could do himself.  They can bring down the whole National Security/Intelligence Community apparatus on which the Western system relies.

These leakers aren't bringing down Trump.  They are doing the very thing that Trump is accused of - serving the interests of foreign powers.

I guess the good news is that the leakers have to be exposing themselves with the speed of the leaks and the nature of the sources. 

The bad news is, with all sides discredited in this battle,  the bureaucrats are not trusted by the politicians or the public, the Democrats and the Republicans in the House and Senate as well as the bureaucracy are all about partisanship and Donald Trump has been effectively eviscerated by the press (rightly or wrongly) who is in a position to clean house?  Is there a house left to clean now or is the entire system so heavily politicized as to to be irredeemable?

Breaking the system and building back up again will leave a huge gap for a long time. 

Pictures leaked 'after being shared with US intelligence' show bomb used in Manchester attack

Gordon Rayner, political editor  Robert Mendick, chief reporter
24 MAY 2017 • 7:00PM

The rucksack bomb that killed 22 people in Manchester was so complex that it could only have been made by an expert, leaked crime scene pictures suggest, as it emerged that an al-Qaeda bomb-maker lived on the same street as suicide attacker Salman Abedi.

Photographs of bomb remnants found at the Manchester Arena show a trigger switch with a tiny circuit board soldered into the end, which experts say could point to a remote-control or timer built into the bomb to ensure an accomplice could detonate it if Abedi lost his nerve.

Investigators believe the bomb, packed with bolts and screws, was contained in a lightweight metal case carried in a black Karrimor rucksack with a blue lining. They also found the remains of a specialist 12 volt battery that is more powerful than high street brands of battery used in previous attacks.

The crime scene photographs were leaked to the New York Times after being shared with US intelligence, prompting a furious response among ministers.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/leaked-pictures-show-bomb-used-manchester-attack/

My concern is that those that want Trump out at all costs are playing into the hands of those that want the Institutions of the US gone.

 

[Altair]

Now, this is getting ridiculous and somebody needs to be doing some serious time in Leavenworth.

I get the inclination to piss on your opponent's parade if you really are convinced you are on the side of the angels.  But this level of leaking isn't just hurting Trump and the Republicans. It is destroying the trust in the entire security system.  These leaks are far more damaging than anything Trump could do himself.  They can bring down the whole National Security/Intelligence Community apparatus on which the Western system relies.

These leakers aren't bringing down Trump.  They are doing the very thing that Trump is accused of - serving the interests of foreign powers.

I guess the good news is that the leakers have to be exposing themselves with the speed of the leaks and the nature of the sources. 

The bad news is, with all sides discredited in this battle,  the bureaucrats are not trusted by the politicians or the public, the Democrats and the Republicans in the House and Senate as well as the bureaucracy are all about partisanship and Donald Trump has been effectively eviscerated by the press (rightly or wrongly) who is in a position to clean house?  Is there a house left to clean now or is the entire system so heavily politicized as to to be irredeemable?

Breaking the system and building back up again will leave a huge gap for a long time. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/leaked-pictures-show-bomb-used-manchester-attack/

My concern is that those that want Trump out at all costs are playing into the hands of those that want the Institutions of the US gone.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/uk-ends-us-intel-sharing-after-manchester-leaks/ar-BBBvE8Q?li=AAggNb9&ocid=iehp

British police investigating the Manchester bomb attack on Monday that left 22 people dead have stopped sharing information with U.S. authorities after a series of leaks to American media.

U.K. officials were  reportedly angered on Wednesday night after  The New York Times published images from the scene of the bombing carried out by Islamic State militant group (ISIS). They showed remnants of the explosive device, the backpack and a detonator used by 22-year-old British national Salman Abedi at the exit of the Manchester Arena shortly after an Ariana Grande concert ended.

The BBC reported that Greater Manchester Police, the regional force overseeing the investigation, is “furious” with the Americans.

The New York Times report followed a series of leaks pertaining to the Manchester investigation that were traced back to U.S. sources. American media first reported the initial death toll after the blast, citing U.S. officials, then the method of the attack and finally the identity of the bomber, before British officials wished to release the information. The reports citing the name and death toll later proved to be true.

Ya, one could see this coming.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Latest from whitehouse.gov on that ...

The alleged leaks coming out of government agencies are deeply troubling. These leaks have been going on for a long time and my Administration will get to the bottom of this. The leaks of sensitive information pose a grave threat to our national security.

I am asking the Department of Justice and other relevant agencies to launch a complete review of this matter, and if appropriate, the culprit should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. 

There is no relationship we cherish more than the Special Relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom.