Trump [Archive] - Page 7

TheOneWhoKnocks

18/04/2017, 1:47 AM

You're onto something here. I posted on here a couple of weeks ago about my own personal experience via the prism of the drug problem on the streets of America (and might I add, was quickly shot down for it). To me it is all about personal experience and if I can please be allowed to restate my perspective on Donald Trump. I try to use logic in all debates I see before me. And my logic regarding Donald Trump / drugs in America is the following: If I walk out my door I see legions of drug affected young people in my community (they appear to offer little as far as work ethic and responsibility and accountability). And it's just a microcosm of American suburbia, where every community is affected by drugs. It is obvious to me - drugs are the silent killer in this country. You can talk all you want about terrorism (which of course needs talking about) but the ravages of drugs on the people is right there in front of your face every day.

Now whom among the clatter of politicians who vied for the presidency over an 18 month period, actually took on and addressed the subject of drug abuse. There was only one man and that was Donald Trump. And look where it has led him. It has led him to declare war on the drug gangs of America, to stop illegal immigration which was fueling these gangs, and to address the Mexican government who make between $300 and $400 billion per year on drug trafficking (of course there are the users themselves who are also a big part of the problem). It will also lead Mr Trump to slowly but surely take back the neighborhoods in this country and to bring back a day when kids can go to school without having to worry about being accosted by gang bangers (Chicago under Obama was something to behold). That is just a personal view on how things are improving in America under Donald Trump.

I can cosign this.

I can only speak on behalf of what I've seen in Philly and Howard Beach, Queens but the amount of teens and young adults on drugs in America is eye-opening.

And I'm talking about white suburbanites from "upstanding" families.

TheOneWhoKnocks

18/04/2017, 1:49 AM

It is funny how this thread has come almost full circle and back to the points that I was originally making about the mainstream media shaping our opinion and controlling/defining political and social discourse. If people are interested in becoming as informed as possible on certain issues (e.g. President Trump) one source of news will not provide that to you. Looking at a headline wont do. Thinking that SNL is "funny cos its true" is not an acceptable point of view.

The only solution I have found is to expose oneself to as many different information outlets (of all persuasions) and try and figure out your own take on the issue. It requires you to learn more about who you are as a person, what values and principles you truly hold near and dear and then determine if you are or are not willing/comfortable to have those adjusted by challenging yourself, your biases and your thinking.

I think ive been labeled on this site now as a stupid Trump fan who is blindly loyal to a dictator and I think my reputation has taken a hit. That blind loyalty has never been the case. I don't agree with him on every policy item, far from it, although I think if you take a step back and look at what he has accomplished he is doing a fairly good job for someone who is the anti-politician really and I think he has been treated so badly by the major media sources who, quite frankly, I think are scared of him and what he may expose about those who fund and control them.

My journey from thinking "Sanders is God" to "Hilary for President" to "actually I think Trump should be President" came about as a result of a lot of what I set out above and what I learned along the way. About 16-18 months I was asked if I thought Obama would be looked upon as a good President and I laughed and said "of course, I think he will be seen as one of the best". About 12 months after that question, my opinion had done a full 180. Wikileaks was my biggest moment of realization wrt the political system and the control the players had on the information we consumed and what we were and were not allowed to know and think and talk about.

These are really the things we should be questioning from a broader perspective as citizens. Things like google providing fact checks on searches, Facebook tagging what it determines to be "fake news". The ability to debate and discuss issues without being shouted down, attacked or labeled has all but disappeared. It is all about control. These are worrying developments for us all. Sure, Trump is a buffoon, is inexperienced and a couple of his policies are certainly sufficiently right-leaning to be questioned and debated - but really, the issues that are most important to me are the ones that I have set out in this post and previously.

Excellent comment.

mark12345

18/04/2017, 11:20 PM

Guardian op ed pulling no punches on Trump's war on drugs.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/17/war-drugs-racist-donald-trump-embracing-open-arms

Author of this article in the Guardian is out of his mind or else he walks the streets every day with a blindfold on. Drugs are affecting everyone these days.

mark12345

18/04/2017, 11:41 PM

It's one reading of the opioid crisis in America, mark12355. 29,000 deaths in 2014, 33,000 a year later. But buried within those figures are deaths from addiction to prescription opioids, manfactured by the big pharma chains - Oxycontin, Vicodin, Fentanyl. I've heard no proposals to reduce TV advertising of meds, or reign in the marketing practice of big pharma. It's easy-to-understand jingoism to point the finger at foreigners bringing death and destruction with them across the border, less so when it's national and state-level business interests, employment, tax revenue and so on.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/ng-interactive/2016/may/25/opioid-epidemic-overdose-deaths-map and https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/opioid-crisis-epidemic.html and https://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/legislative-activities/testimony-to-congress/2016/americas-addiction-to-opioids-heroin-prescription-drug-abuseare worth reading.

Foreigners are bringing death and destruction with them across the border. Have you not heard about MS13? But Mr Trump has promised to address big pharma as well. And I take him at his word.

Charlie Darwin

18/04/2017, 11:42 PM

Foreigners are bringing death and destruction with them across the border. Have you not heard about MS13? But Mr Trump has promised to address big pharma as well. And I take him at his word.
I looked up MS13 and you seem to be right. Foreigners are bringing death and destruction with them across the border... into Canada and Mexico.

Eminence Grise

19/04/2017, 8:17 PM

But Mr Trump has promised to address big pharma as well. And I take him at his word.

Oh phew! That's alright then. I'll sleep easy tonight.:rolleyes:

dahamsta

20/04/2017, 8:40 AM

Author of this article in the Guardian is out of his mind or else he walks the streets every day with a blindfold on. Drugs are affecting everyone these days.

Bit of an overstatement there, don't you think? Drugs don't affect me now, haven't affected me in years, and affect very few people I know. That's unless you're stretching the word "affect" to a fairly ridiculous extreme, in my case at least.

That's not to say drugs are bad, some drugs are, some drugs aren't. But they most certainly don't affect "everyone".

strangeirish

20/04/2017, 1:03 PM

That's not to say drugs are bad, some drugs are, some drugs aren't. But they most certainly don't affect "everyone".
True, but do they affect all Trump supporters..? :D

SkStu

20/04/2017, 1:54 PM

True, but do they affect all Trump supporters..? :D

I was sure you lot would be needing drugs to help with all the butthurt? :)

BonnieShels

20/04/2017, 3:01 PM

I can cosign this.

I can only speak on behalf of what I've seen in Philly and Howard Beach, Queens but the amount of teens and young adults on drugs in America is eye-opening.

And I'm talking about white suburbanites from "upstanding" families.

What's 'on' drugs?

Is this someone who takes a tab occasionally weekend at a gig or someone who mills through a couple of grams of coke a week. Or some guy who gets paralytic every Friday?

And what does being a white suburbanites have to do with anything?

---

My experience of drugs in Dublin is counter-intuitive. I grew up in a poor, working [sic]-class suburb of Dublin which was rife with heroin.

Bar the odd neighbour having an addiction it never actually affected me or was in my life for a second.

However, going to college and hanging out with my "white suburbanite" friends from apparent "upstanding families", exposed me to them on a more regular basis.

Would I say there's a drug problem in Dublin? No, because it depends on the drug, your definition of problem and whether it affects you or not.

---

America is not suffering from a drug problem either. It's suffering from a civilized breakdown and drugs, booze and violence are the symptoms of this.

I was in Amsterdam over this past week, a city widely considered to be more lenient on narcotics than most and possibly the drugs capital of Europe. I would never have considered myself in any danger at any point either.

The "War on Drugs" has been consistently ridiculed as a war on poor black people in the States. Which it is. America needs a war on something at all times or else it will cease to be America.

SkStu

20/04/2017, 3:28 PM

The war on pharmaceuticals is far more important than the war on street drugs in my opinion. Until we figure out that it makes sense to decriminalize and/or legalise and/or regulate (and tax), recreational and street drugs will be fact of life in every country, not just the States, so you have to just accept that it will always be there until our policymakers start thinking about this in a different way. So I agree with Bonnie to that extent.

However, I do disagree a little bit in that to just accept that it exists as long as it doesn't affect you doesn't mean that a person, neighbourhood, class, society doesn't have a problem with these drugs. It is a bit selfish. In all my trips to Dublin I have seen working class junkies and upper class cokeheads all too regularly. Wandering about like zombies in town or acting like arseholes in pubs and clubs. Both these examples cause different emotions in me (sympathy v anger to simplify). I class both examples as a problem and I would like to see our leaders do something that acknowledges it and takes a different approach to resolving it. Fighting it doesn't work and causes more misery and crime and violence. The definition of insanity is repeating the same mistake over and over and expecting different results. That is what this war on drugs is.

mark12345

20/04/2017, 9:45 PM

What's 'on' drugs?

Is this someone who takes a tab occasionally weekend at a gig or someone who mills through a couple of grams of coke a week. Or some guy who gets paralytic every Friday?

And what does being a white suburbanites have to do with anything?

---

My experience of drugs in Dublin is counter-intuitive. I grew up in a poor, working [sic]-class suburb of Dublin which was rife with heroin.

Bar the odd neighbour having an addiction it never actually affected me or was in my life for a second.

However, going to college and hanging out with my "white suburbanite" friends from apparent "upstanding families", exposed me to them on a more regular basis.

Would I say there's a drug problem in Dublin? No, because it depends on the drug, your definition of problem and whether it affects you or not.

---

America is not suffering from a drug problem either. It's suffering from a civilized breakdown and drugs, booze and violence are the symptoms of this.

I was in Amsterdam over this past week, a city widely considered to be more lenient on narcotics than most and possibly the drugs capital of Europe. I would never have considered myself in any danger at any point either.

The "War on Drugs" has been consistently ridiculed as a war on poor black people in the States. Which it is. America needs a war on something at all times or else it will cease to be America.

You make a few interesting points here. If only you could get over your anti-American bias, I could take you somewhat more seriously. You are absolutely correct when you say: "America is not suffering from a drug problem either. It's suffering from a civilized breakdown." So true, and so true of most first world countries these days, I would say. The problem does extend to (as Stu says below) pharmaceuticals taken by people which are prescribed by doctors who never should be in the profession in my opinion. Not too long ago I had a tooth removed and was prescribed a very high caliber opioid. I threw it in the rubbish as soon as I got home, and took Tylenol. However there are hundreds of thousands of people in America taking these opioids prescribed to them for minor ailments. For that the pharma companies and doctors are responsible.

On the other hand there are the illegal street drugs coming from Mexico via Colombia and other parts. Just an update on that - Trump administration is on the verge of declaring MS 13 (El Salvadorian drug gang) as a terrorist organization. That will mean they'll be able to take the fight to El Salvador and Mexico in search of these drug lords.

Real ale Madrid

21/04/2017, 10:06 AM

On the other hand there are the illegal street drugs coming from Mexico via Colombia and other parts. Just an update on that - Trump administration is on the verge of declaring MS 13 (El Salvadorian drug gang) as a terrorist organization. That will mean they'll be able to take the fight to El Salvador and Mexico in search of these drug lords.

Yet more optics for Trumps redneck supporters.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/7-things-trump-gets-wrong-about-ms-13-2017-4?r=US&IR=T/#the-ms13-represents-a-threat-comparable-to-mexican-and-colombian-drug-cartels-and-the-italian-mafia-6

mark12345

21/04/2017, 9:05 PM

Yet more optics for Trumps redneck supporters.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/7-things-trump-gets-wrong-about-ms-13-2017-4?r=US&IR=T/#the-ms13-represents-a-threat-comparable-to-mexican-and-colombian-drug-cartels-and-the-italian-mafia-6

Redneck supporters. You have experience of them do you? Another throw-away comment with little basis in reality, and sure if it's anti-Trump it must be ok.
As for the article - some interesting points but an awful lot of splitting hairs.
Just so you know, MS 13 which this article speaks about is a very dangerous gang with some 10,000 organized members across the US.
Their recent exploits - four teenagers killed in Long Island. Two more in same location last November / December.
Two girls raped and murdered in Texas at the end of last year.
A 14 year old girl raped by two gang in a school bathroom in Baltimore area six weeks ago (by an 18 year old and 17 year old whom some genius school official decided to put in class of younger girls to learn English).
And let's not forget the call police in Georgia got a couple of months back to say there was a domestic dispute at a house. When they arrived a 16 year old MS teenager was holding his mother's head in one hand and a machete in another.
Just a few facts that you should know.

mark12345

21/04/2017, 9:12 PM

In other news - you can expect a big anti-Trump rally tomorrow (Saturday) as Earth Day kicks off in the US. Why would an oil pipe line coming from the Dakotas to Texas garner so much hatred across the country?
It wouldn't - there's a lot more to the story that they'll never tell you.
And also at the weekend a conservative speaker, Anne Coulter, is scheduled to speak at Berkley University. It has the potential to be a wild scene as the brainwashed students and George Soros mobsters
will not be able to bear hearing ideas from anyone that their professors don't approve of.
And next Wednesday is a big day. That's when President Trump is scheduled to roll out a new tax cut deal.
Say what you want about him but he is doing a lot more work than any president I can remember.

mark12345

21/04/2017, 9:26 PM

True, but do they affect all Trump supporters..? :D

All too easy to throw out mindless comments. Are you capable of having a comprehensive discussion to back up your claims?

SkStu

22/04/2017, 3:19 PM

With all the focus on the liberal outlets, this is a fascinating piece on the impact of Trump and his victory on the conservative wing of MSM.

"How Trump Blew Up the Conservative Media"
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/21/trump-conservative-media-breitbart-fox-news-wall-street-journal-215035

While both Fox and Breitbart have undergone modest adjustments since Trump took office, his victory has thrown old-line conservative media into a state of genuine crisis. The conservative elite represented by the Wall Street Journal editorial page�whose hawkish, free-market views enjoyed outsize influence in previous Republican administrations�is now struggling to figure out what, exactly, its role is in the Trump era. After helping lay the groundwork for many of the policies of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, the elite conservative media have no place in the Trump White House. �They�re like the Catholic Church during the Great Schism, plagued by deep internal feuding, dancing on the head of a pin because they�re not important anymore,� says one executive of Dow Jones, the paper�s parent company, which is also run by Murdoch.

Real ale Madrid

24/04/2017, 8:35 AM

In other news - you can expect a big anti-Trump rally tomorrow (Saturday) as Earth Day kicks off in the US.

Yeah well what do you expect intelligent people to do ? Trump thinks global warming is a Chinese invention to hinder US manufacturing!

All too easy to throw out mindless comments. Are you capable of having a comprehensive discussion to back up your claims?

Do you read Trump's twitter feed?

osarusan

24/04/2017, 1:55 PM

All too easy to throw out mindless comments.

It has the potential to be a wild scene as the brainwashed students and George Soros mobsters

The lack of awareness is staggering.

SkStu

24/04/2017, 3:28 PM

Is it the Soros connection you are questioning Osa?

osarusan

24/04/2017, 3:52 PM

SkStu

24/04/2017, 4:22 PM

I presume you are referring to the bolded bit in the comment below. This is reference to what is going on more broadly in society.

These are really the things we should be questioning from a broader perspective as citizens. Things like google providing fact checks on searches, Facebook tagging what it determines to be "fake news". The ability to debate and discuss issues without being shouted down, attacked or labeled has all but disappeared. It is all about control. These are worrying developments for us all.

With respect to the words thrown out, I was quite clearly having a bit of light hearted banter when I responded with "butthurt" (in response by the way to an assertion that all Trump supporters must be on drugs!). Come on... the other two, I don't recall the context within which I used them but hardly the most upsetting or unreasonable terms that could be used. But sure, I have had a few lapses - I am not perfect - but I mostly try to enter into reasoned, adult debate, as you put it, in this thread. More genuinely than some others too, I think.

osarusan

24/04/2017, 4:32 PM

I am not perfect - but I mostly try to enter into reasoned, adult debate, as you put it, in this thread. More genuinely than some others too, I think.

Fair enough, if you could get back to me on this please...

FISA Act operates under the oversight of the Presidents office therefore anything ordered by, say, the FBI is ordered by the President.

I don't think this makes any sense at all.

Depending on what they want to investigate, the FBI could apply for warrants to a number of different courts. If the FBI wants to investigate what they believe to be foreign spies operating inside the USA, they apply to a FIS court.

I don't see the logic behind the argument that an FBI request for a warrant to a FIS court is on somehow on behalf of the presidential administration.

"The FBI doing it is the same thing as the Obama administration doing it" doesn't make much sense to me at all.

SkStu

24/04/2017, 5:03 PM

well you got into some other conversation about it before I had a chance to respond and then I was banned for a week.

My understanding is that the Act is a presidential instrument from which power is delegated to some bodies such as the FBI or AG - from Wikipedia:

Without a Court Order:
The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year, provided that it is only to acquire foreign intelligence information,[5] that it is solely directed at communications or property controlled exclusively by foreign powers,[6] that there is no substantial likelihood that it will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party, and that it be conducted only in accordance with defined minimization procedures

from the act itself relating to "With a Court Order"

(a) Necessary findings Upon an application made pursuant to section 1804 of this title, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested or as modified approving the electronic surveillance if he finds that—
(1) the application has been made by a Federal officer and approved by the Attorney General;
(2) on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant there is probable cause to believe that—
(A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power: Provided, That no United States person may be considered a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

If you believe that Obama just didn't know what was going on - because, granted, despite the act operating under his authority, he may not (although it is unlikely) have explicitly known that the FISA warrant would end up gathering intel on Trump and/or associates of Trump - then I refer you to Susan Rices comments on MSNBC on March 2nd (when she oopsed) and April 4th (when she tried to limit the damage).

Susan Rice on MSNBC on March 2nd:

I was urging my former colleagues, and, and frankly speaking the people on the Hill [Democrat politicians], it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can – get as much intelligence as you can – before President Obama leaves the administration.”

Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left; so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy, um, that the Trump folks – if they found out HOW we knew what we knew about their, the Trump staff, dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods; meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.

So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia; so then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were also trying to help get information to the Hill. … That’s why you had the leaking.

Susan Rice on MSNBC on April 4th - describing the Presidents Daily Briefing:

Let me explain how this works. I was a National Security Adviser, my job is to protect the American people and the security of our country. That’s the same as the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and CIA Director.; and every morning, to enable us to do that, we receive – from the intelligence community – a compilation of intelligence reports that the IC, the intelligence community, has selected for us –on a daily basis– to give us the best information as to what’s going on around the world.

I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to. Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.

And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and assess it’s significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.

strangeirish

24/04/2017, 7:40 PM

All too easy to throw out mindless comments. Are you capable of having a comprehensive discussion to back up your claims?
I guess the 'Smiley' face is beyond your comprehension?

osarusan

24/04/2017, 8:44 PM

SkStu

24/04/2017, 9:30 PM

osarusan

24/04/2017, 10:28 PM

With respect, my original claim has nothing to do with the question you asked me in the previous post which I answered to the best of my ability and I question why you now bring up that original post again despite the fact that I've already suffered a ban as a result of that post and apologized for it.
Ok fair enough, I didn't see that you had apologised for that post. I asked because as I looked at your post from earlier today, I realised that I wasn't really clear on exactly what monitoring/surveillance has been done/alleged to have been done.

But, to the earlier post. Once again, I want to go back to your earlier post that said:

FISA Act operates under the oversight of the President’s office therefore anything ordered by, say, the FBI is ordered by the President.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that because it is in a FISC, anything the FBI (or NSA, etc) applies for is effectively the same thing as the president doing it.

Now, if you hold this to be true in general terms (not specific to FISC), then you would have to conclude, as I earlier suggested to Mark12345, that this would effectively mean that the FBI investigating Clinton's emails is the same thing as Obama investigating Clinton's emails.

If you don't hold that to be true in general terms (and I expect you don't), then why is it something you believe to be true in a FISC court? You have quoted a wikipedia excerpt about what the president can do without a court order, but I am not seeing the relevance of that, as the claim has always been that the FBI did make a request (more than one) to FISC. So do you believe that Obama instructed the FBI to make the request? if so, do you have any evidence to support that? Or do you just argue that the FBI making the request is the same as Obama doing it - and if so, why?

You say that you think it is unlikely that Obama wouldn't have known what was going on - which makes me think you do not think he actually instructed the FBI to investigate Trump, as surely you would otherwise think it was impossible that he wouldn't know what was going on. Either way, you say that "the act operates under his authority", but what does that actually mean? There are over 1000 FISC Orders a year, and I would not be so sure that Obama was even aware of them all, never mind initiating them all.

Finally, to your quotes. The first one is not a quote from Susan Rice. It is a quote from a woman called Evelyn Farkas, when she was speaking to MSNBC. She spoke with them on March 2nd, to discuss the content of a New York Times article from the previous day, titled Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/obama-trump-russia-election-hacking.html?_r=0)

What the article said, and what Farkas also said, was that in the final days of the Obama administration ( the best part of 2 months after Trump had won the election), the White House started sharing evidence of Russian interference in the election, which included evidence of possible contacts between Trump associates and Russians. They did this for two reasons - firstly, because they wanted it to be known more widely in political circles so that it could be properly investigated and therefore minimise the risk of it happening again, and secondly, because they had little faith that the Trump administration, having repeatedly denied any link to Russians, would be willing to conduct an investigation if they felt they could avoid one.

So the comments made by Farkas should be taken in the context of the NYT article of the previous day, and also in the context of the alleged Russian interference which was very much in the news at that time.

But for whatever reason, organisations like Fox News waited until March 28th, by which time the alleged wiretapping of Trump by Obama before the election was the big news, to highlight sections of Farkas' comments, and attempt to suggest her comments applied to that context instead, making no mention of the NTY article (in which it's claimed that among the 'leaked' documents was a cache of evidence of alleged Russian interference in elections worldwide, shared with both Democrats and Republicans).

With all that in mind, I wonder if you still see the comments made by Rice on April 4th as an attempt 'to limit the damage.'

The question does remain though, as to what evidence, if any, was gathered on aspects of his campaign before the election. Various sources, and Farkas' comments, make it pretty likely that some surveillance was done of Trump associates in relation to possible links to Russia during this period. Do you think this vindicates Trump's (and your) claims?

Indeed, Trump claimed that he felt 'somewhat vindicated' in his original allegations after comments made by the House Intelligence Committee Chair, Devin Nunes. Nunes commented that in investigating Russian interference in elections, the FBI had indeed ended up monitoring Trump associates, and in doing so, they had also monitored periods in which campaign matters were being discussed. Nunes called these periods of monitoring 'incidental collection' and according to Nunes, these collections happened during the transition period, after the election was over – not in the lead up to the election, as Trump had said.

SkStu

24/04/2017, 11:34 PM

Look, as I said, id like Schiff and Nunes to try and answer the remaining questions about what was done, when and how before rolling back any further on this. You're right about Farkas of course. I knew that. I got it wrong as I am at work and rushing while I am reviewing/responding.

On my initial post, there is one question in your post that I think is pertinent to my earlier post that you want to discuss and here is my response:

Or do you just argue that the FBI making the request is the same as Obama doing it - and if so, why?

I think that the President, if he didn't order it directly, loses plausible deniability when a) his AG appointment approves all requests and b) these agents, such as FBI, reporting the collected information back to him and his administration, carry out these actions. More so during an election season or during transition of power. One of the many scandals of the Obama administration included the IRS targeting members of the conservative Tea Party movement. The former President took a lot of flak for that as it was done under his tenure and by agents of his administration. This is similar.

In my opinion, delegated power shouldn't protect the person in power from appropriate accountability.

mark12345

24/04/2017, 11:43 PM

I guess the 'Smiley' face is beyond your comprehension?

My mistake. Smiley faces or sad ones for that matter, go right over my head.

mark12345

24/04/2017, 11:53 PM

Because I think that at this stage, on the issue of an actual wiretap of Trump's phones, literally nobody has said they believed it happened.[/QUOTE]

Nobody has they believed it happened because they are waiting on the outcome of the investigation by the FBI. It seems that anyone who did comment on the issue (Devin Nunes for example) was castigated by the MSM and ended up recusing himself from the investigation. As far as the whole 'wiretap' claim goes, the word wiretap I generally took to mean was 'surveillance' as wiretaps have not been used since the 1970's I'm told. And on the subject of Obama not knowing about it, that is quite possible. But when you combine all the things he didn't know during his presidency (Fast And Furious, IRS scandal, Benghazi, Loretta Lynch meeting Bill Clinton in plane on tarmac, the 33,000 emails which went missing) then it is an awful lot he didn't know. Did he not know it by design? Or is he not very intelligent. You decide.

KrisLetang

25/04/2017, 2:55 PM

Obama's lies about the Iran deal coming out more and more. This is another thing Trump is going to have to deal with.
Incidentally, Former Spokesperson Josh Earnest saying yesterday that Obama would become more engaged in comments about Trump "If this government crosses a red line" were hilariously unaware.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/04/24/more-obama-lies-about-the-iran-deal-revealed-n2317349

http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/24/barack-obamas-iran-deal-was-much-worse-than-we-suspected/#.WP9hRtIZHZs.twitter

mark12345

27/04/2017, 11:13 PM

It's the bit about lamenting mindless comments being thrown about, while throwing out mindless comments like 'brainwashed students' and 'Soros mobsters'.

A bit like you lamenting the lack of reasoned, adult debate (or whatever words you used) while also using terms like 'sheeple' and 'liberal loony' and 'butthurt'.

Oh I'm sorry, they are so reasoned human beings, those students. They see or hear something they don't like and they show up dressed from head to toe in black and whip out their clubs and pepper spray to beat anyone within striking distance. And when they're done with that they start smashing up the place. Perfectly normal behavior wouldn't you say. And if they are so proud of what they do, why do they have to hide their faces?

mark12345

27/04/2017, 11:18 PM

Anne Coulter (conservative commentator) wanted to speak at Berkley University this week. She was given a date of April 27, but then they changed the venue and time to when no one would be in the school. Then they took back the invitation. When she threatened to sue, they reinstated the invitation. Then they told her they could not guarantee her safety. Speech was called off. Looks like Freedom Of Speech is dying a death in America. And no one else on here can see that?

Charlie Darwin

27/04/2017, 11:39 PM

I want some of whatever mark is on.

DannyInvincible

28/04/2017, 3:17 AM

And if they are so proud of what they do, why do they have to hide their faces?

Because they're engaging in activity that also happens to be illegal - or punishable by law, in other words - and they'd rather the authorities remained unaware of their identities for fear of potential adverse repercussions in the future? Just a guess...

Anne Coulter (conservative commentator) wanted to speak at Berkley University this week. She was given a date of April 27, but then they changed the venue and time to when no one would be in the school. Then they took back the invitation. When she threatened to sue, they reinstated the invitation. Then they told her they could not guarantee her safety. Speech was called off. Looks like Freedom Of Speech is dying a death in America. And no one else on here can see that?

Funnily enough, the most severe university campus attacks upon free speech rights in the contemporary US are against individuals and groups who are critical of Israeli policy in Palestine (https://www.thefire.org/media-coverage/the-greatest-threat-to-campus-free-speech/), but few conservatives have bothered to raise objections to such attacks on behalf of proponents of the Palestinian cause for some reason...

Anyhow, would this be regular-Fox-News-mouthpiece, frequent-speaker-at-conservative-conferences, Universal-Press-Syndicate-columnist and author-of-a-dozen-best-seller-books-printed-and-sold-by-major-publishers Ann Coulter that you're talking about? It's unfortunate that the event couldn't be accommodated over security fears (because the exchange of ideas and views is generally a healthy thing for any society), but let's not pretend Ann Coulter is a poor, voiceless soul on the powerless margins of US society here. She's also, irrespective of what she has claimed*, not actually entitled to the provision of a platform by anyone, never mind a university.

As far as I understand, it was Coulter herself who cancelled her speech (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/ann-coulter-berkeley-speech.html?_r=1). The Berkeley College Republicans had originally invited her to speak but had failed to consult with the university in respect of event security first (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/04/24/new-round-debate-over-ann-coulter-and-her-right-speak-berkeley). As a result, police were not able to offer advice on the most appropriate time and venue.

Alex Bollinger has conveniently summarised (https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/04/ann-coulter-withdraws-berkeley-appearance/) the consequences of this (in a much more rigorous and circumspect summary than your dubious portrayal, I might add) for LGBTQ Nation:

The university, concerned about student safety after several violent confrontations on campus this year between �outside groups,� changed the date of her appearance for a time when an indoor venue would be available � earlier in the day, and during a week when fewer students are on campus. These sorts of time, place, and manner restrictions on speech are constitutionally acceptable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Time.2C_pla ce.2C_and_manner_restrictions), but the BCR sued the university anyway.

The university's response (http://www.salon.com/2017/04/24/uc-berkeley-sued-for-postponing-ann-coulters-speech/) is also worth re-posting here:

This semester, UC Berkeley has dedicated more resources � in the form of staff time, administrative attention, police resources and cash outlay � to facilitating BCR�s expressive activities than have been devoted to any other student group in memory. Dedicated staff and administrators have spent countless hours, including during weekends and vacations, working to enable BCR�s planned events and to maximize the possibility that those events can occur safely for the participants, the speakers, our students and others in our campus community.

The free speech of privileged conservatives is dying a death, you say? I'm afraid I'm not convinced. What is it exactly that you feel Coulter is deprived from spouting in the public arena?

As an interesting aside, wasn't Coulter recently condemning American footballer Colin Kaepernick (http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/07/ann-coulter-on-colin-kaepernick-its-outrageous-video/) for his conscientious refusal to stand for the US anthem (a means by which Kaepernick was exercising his right to free expression)? She went as far as calling for his suspension from the NFL and requested that he either like it or lump it. "I think it�s outrageous. He�s making a lot of money off this country. If he doesn�t like it I�m with Donald Trump, he can go to another country", said the outraged... erm, is "snowflake" the word I'm looking for here? ;) I guess Kaepernick just didn't share with her the "correct" sort of politics...

In fact, as you probably well know, many conservatives like the hypocritical Coulter will moan of "political correctness gone mad" when their bigotry and ignorance is scrutinised and challenged, but that phrase is really just a pitiful device utilised to try and discredit or police what is often-valid criticism (an exercising of free speech in itself) of their lazy, inaccurate and offensive opinions. So, not the greatest of free speech advocates after all then, is she? :rolleyes:

On the other hand, Noam Chomsky is always worth investing time in if you want to read or listen to a serious commentator of actual academic repute on matters relating to the protection and/or regulation of freedom of expression:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsdvYbG3U_U

*She deludedly claimed: "Even the most lefty, Coulter-hating judge would probably have had to order Berkeley to let me speak."

NeverFeltBetter

28/04/2017, 8:18 AM

KrisLetang

28/04/2017, 6:39 PM

Snowflakes vs a sign at Berkley. Talk about first world problemos.

And guys, the thing with Coulter is pretty simple. Berk takes over 300 million dollars in fed funds every year. I think that Linda Sarsour is a vile, anti semitic, pro terror, pro genital mutilation, generational welfare hag who comes from a long lineage of first cousins marrying, but she speaks on college campuses all the time. BC of Free Speech. At least Ann works for her money. We have professional protesters now who make more than Barack Obama at his Wall Street speeches. That's not exactly grass roots. Nutty NY Sen Gillibrand gave Sarsour an award the other day ffs.

http://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2017/04/28/bad-sign-bad-antifa-picks-fight-with-sign-yes-a-sign-at-berkleyprotest-loses-video/

mark12345

28/04/2017, 7:13 PM

I want some of whatever mark is on.

Common sense? I don't think you can buy it online

mark12345

28/04/2017, 7:25 PM

Because they're engaging in activity that also happens to be illegal - or punishable by law, in other words - and they'd rather the authorities remained unaware of their identities for fear of potential adverse repercussions in the future? Just a guess...

Funnily enough, the most severe university campus attacks upon free speech rights in the contemporary US are against individuals and groups who are critical of Israeli policy in Palestine (https://www.thefire.org/media-coverage/the-greatest-threat-to-campus-free-speech/), but few conservatives have bothered to raise objections to such attacks on behalf of proponents of the Palestinian cause for some reason...

Anyhow, would this be regular-Fox-News-mouthpiece, frequent-speaker-at-conservative-conferences, Universal-Press-Syndicate-columnist and author-of-a-dozen-best-seller-books-printed-and-sold-by-major-publishers Ann Coulter that you're talking about? It's unfortunate that the event couldn't be accommodated over security fears (because the exchange of ideas and views is generally a healthy thing for any society), but let's not pretend Ann Coulter is a poor, voiceless soul on the powerless margins of US society here. She's also, irrespective of what she has claimed*, not actually entitled to the provision of a platform by anyone, never mind a university.

As far as I understand, it was Coulter herself who cancelled her speech (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/ann-coulter-berkeley-speech.html?_r=1). The Berkeley College Republicans had originally invited her to speak but had failed to consult with the university in respect of event security first (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/04/24/new-round-debate-over-ann-coulter-and-her-right-speak-berkeley). As a result, police were not able to offer advice on the most appropriate time and venue.

Alex Bollinger has conveniently summarised (https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/04/ann-coulter-withdraws-berkeley-appearance/) the consequences of this (in a much more rigorous and circumspect summary than your dubious portrayal, I might add) for LGBTQ Nation:

The university's response (http://www.salon.com/2017/04/24/uc-berkeley-sued-for-postponing-ann-coulters-speech/) is also worth re-posting here:

The free speech of privileged conservatives is dying a death, you say? I'm afraid I'm not convinced. What is it exactly that you feel Coulter is deprived from spouting in the public arena?

As an interesting aside, wasn't Coulter recently condemning American footballer Colin Kaepernick (http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/07/ann-coulter-on-colin-kaepernick-its-outrageous-video/) for his conscientious refusal to stand for the US anthem (a means by which Kaepernick was exercising his right to free expression)? She went as far as calling for his suspension from the NFL and requested that he either like it or lump it. "I think it�s outrageous. He�s making a lot of money off this country. If he doesn�t like it I�m with Donald Trump, he can go to another country", said the outraged... erm, is "snowflake" the word I'm looking for here? ;) I guess Kaepernick just didn't share with her the "correct" sort of politics...

In fact, as you probably well know, many conservatives like the hypocritical Coulter will moan of "political correctness gone mad" when their bigotry and ignorance is scrutinised and challenged, but that phrase is really just a pitiful device utilised to try and discredit or police what is often-valid criticism (an exercising of free speech in itself) of their lazy, inaccurate and offensive opinions. So, not the greatest of free speech advocates after all then, is she? :rolleyes:

On the other hand, Noam Chomsky is always worth investing time in if you want to read or listen to a serious commentator of actual academic repute on matters relating to the protection and/or regulation of freedom of expression:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsdvYbG3U_U

*She deludedly claimed: "Even the most lefty, Coulter-hating judge would probably have had to order Berkeley to let me speak."

Danny, you have made some influential comments about football in your time, but you are sadly lacking when it comes to events in today's America.
Regarding Kapernick, ask yourself how you would feel if say Robbie Brady or James McClean sat down for or wore clothing to protest during the Irish national anthem at the next international at the Aviva. Not only would they be booed off the stage they would also be sanctioned by FIFA.
How different is it when someone like Anne Coulter calls for sanction s for a similar transgression.

NeverFeltBetter

28/04/2017, 8:47 PM

Ann Coulter once called the President a "retard" and refused to apolgise after, but Colin Kapernick kneeling during a song to protest endemic racism is taking freedom of speech too far.

mark12345

28/04/2017, 10:00 PM

Well said Danny. The far-right myth-making over "attacks" on freedom of speech on college campus' is beyond irritating, as is the general "snowflake" narrative.

I had to smile at Trump's tax plan. How exactly is he planning to get that past a deficit obsessed Republican congress?

Myth making over attacks on freedom of speech? You're seriously questioning the attacks on freedom of speech? Have you been living in a cave for the last year?
Have you seen the amount of students looking for 'safe spaces' at their schools and heckling anyone they don't agree with. And professors failing students who don't think the way they want them to. And clubs at schools which ostracize conservative students. No there's no attack whatsoever on freedom of speech.

And Trump's tax plan. Why did you have to smile about it? He's trying to get a more comprehensive plan for everyone including the common man. Tax rate down (first $24,000 free of tax and corporate tax down from 35% to 15%). What on God's green earth is wrong with that

mark12345

28/04/2017, 10:07 PM

Ann Coulter once called the President a "retard" and refused to apolgise after, but Colin Kapernick kneeling during a song to protest endemic racism is taking freedom of speech too far.

Do you have an opinion you'd like to share on H Clinton. Did you ever ask yourself if someone was looking to be up front and honest with the public, would they hide a server in their basement? Or if the same someone was looking to be up front and honest with the public would they destroy 33,000 e mails after being told by the FBI that they wanted to examine them (many people seem to forget that Trump said he would release his taxes once those e mails were released)? And why would the staff of that same someone all ask for immunity beforehand in case they were called to testify? Appears to me that had D Trump not been elected last November, we would have had a real up front and honest Democrat in the White House.

DannyInvincible

28/04/2017, 10:14 PM

Danny, you have made some influential comments about football in your time, but you are sadly lacking when it comes to events in today's America.

Well, don't hold back now on pulling me up on something specific - anything even - if you think my understanding or interpretation is lacking.

Regarding Kapernick, ask yourself how you would feel if say Robbie Brady or James McClean sat down for or wore clothing to protest during the Irish national anthem at the next international at the Aviva. Not only would they be booed off the stage they would also be sanctioned by FIFA.
How different is it when someone like Anne Coulter calls for sanction s for a similar transgression.

I certainly wouldn't be calling for official sanctioning by the FAI, UEFA or FIFA, nor would I be calling for their expulsion from what is also their country.

It's a totally different context, but Derry City and Bohemians were contesting the FAI Cup final at the RDS in 2008 and Sammy Morrow, a Protestant from Limavady was named in Derry's starting line-up. Before the game, the two teams formed a line along the red carpet for the pre-match formalities. With Amhr�n na bhFiann about to commence, both sides turned sideways to face the Irish tricolour behind a goal at one end of the stadium, as is protocol in football settings when our national anthem is played. The only player not to turn – he stood out like a sore thumb – was Sammy Morrow. Instead, he remained standing quietly and out-of-sync facing towards the supporters in the main stand as the anthem played. He stood starkly at odds with the 21 other players in line with him, but he had every right to opt out of paying deference to an anthem with which he might not have felt culturally comfortable. It was entirely his business; no big deal.

Out of interest, on what basis would or could McClean or Brady actually be sanctioned by FIFA in your hypothetical scenario?

Anyway, isn't that all besides the point? You're really just trying to deflect from the fact that Coulter is, quite evidently, a total hypocrite. She purports to champion free speech and claims to loathe the "oppressiveness" of "political correctness" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqrqM7qah6U), yet she has no time whatsoever for defending expression when a particular example (such as Kaepernick's anthem stance) offends her sensitivities and fails to meet her personal standard of what is politically tolerable, acceptable or appropriate. In fact, she goes as far as calling for the suppression of such expression via official sanction and asks that Kaepernick departs the country simply because he has expressed a viewpoint with which she happens to disagree. That she can even take herself seriously in light of such blatant double standards is ludicrous; it's not even funny. In fact, you yourself were cursing the supposed "death of free speech" only a few posts ago, but now you too appear to be trying to justify official sanction as a means of penalising and suppressing relatively harmless expression just because you regard it to be inappropriate. Where's your self-awareness?

Charlie Darwin

29/04/2017, 12:01 AM

If Robbie Brady sat down during the national anthem I imagine a few people would be a bit upset but then everyone would get on with their lives because there's far more important **** going on.

NeverFeltBetter

29/04/2017, 12:08 AM

And Trump's tax plan. Why did you have to smile about it? He's trying to get a more comprehensive plan for everyone including the common man. Tax rate down (first $24,000 free of tax and corporate tax down from 35% to 15%). What on God's green earth is wrong with that

Because it will create a gigantic deficit, and the Republicans in Congress have made a crusade out of doing the exact opposite? Which, you know, I thought I made clear in the very post you quoted? For a guy quick to throw insults (and then whinge about "mindless comments" from others) you seem to read other posts rather selectively yourself.

Do you have an opinion you'd like to share on H Clinton. Did you ever ask yourself if someone was looking to be up front and honest with the public, would they hide a server in their basement? Or if the same someone was looking to be up front and honest with the public would they destroy 33,000 e mails after being told by the FBI that they wanted to examine them (many people seem to forget that Trump said he would release his taxes once those e mails were released)? And why would the staff of that same someone all ask for immunity beforehand in case they were called to testify? Appears to me that had D Trump not been elected last November, we would have had a real up front and honest Democrat in the White House.

That's an impressive swerve away from my comments on Coulter, even for a Trump supporter. No, I won't offer a comment on Hilary Clinton in this instance just so you pivot the conversation towards a direction of your preference when it gets uncomfortable for you, just as you apparently won't offer a comment on Coulter's hypocrisy. Indeed, I think there's little else I could say to you that I would reasonably deem productive.

DannyInvincible

29/04/2017, 12:45 AM

I've no idea what Hillary Clinton has to do with this particular discussion either. A truly bizarre attempt at deflection. :confused:

Have you seen the amount of students looking for 'safe spaces' at their schools and heckling anyone they don't agree with.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but safe spaces are spaces where voluntary participants, who may feel marginalised by mainstream society, mutually consent to the provision of a collective space in order to facilitate discussions about their experiences and sense of marginalisation without fear of harassment or abuse, no? I have never knowingly participated in a space designated as such on a university campus, but, as far as I'm aware, nobody is forced to participate, nor is anyone entitled to participation.

Also, isn't heckling a common feature of many life situations? Heckling has always been so, for as long as humans with the ability to roar and shout have existed. The deployment of heckling as a weapon of intimidation is not merely confined to usage by "liberal" students on university campuses in the modern day. Doesn't Trump heckle and abuse reporters, for example?

And aren't you also guilty of a contradiction in your complaints above? You object to the provision or establishment of safe spaces for students - presumably because they're places that will be free of heckling, abuse, ridiculing, taunting, baiting and inflammatory comments, whilst I'm guessing you'd prefer a verbal free-for-all - but then you claim to object to heckling of students by other students in the very same sentence. Like Trump and Coulter, you seem to be all over the place.

And professors failing students who don't think the way they want them to.

Any examples of professors failing students who don't think the way the professors want them to think?

And clubs at schools which ostracize conservative students.

Any examples of clubs at schools ostracising conservative students because of their views?