Hilliary vs. Trump: The 2016 US Presidental Election

I worry it may well take 7 years.

 

I'm beginning to resign myself to the idea that Trump might be there for another 3½ years : / The blatant lies, the disinformation, the distrust culture & all the bad deed he has done... it seems like nothing can remove him from the White House. At this point, I think he could shot someone and get away with it with the smoking gun still in his hands.

 

I think it would help if the media would just stop discrediting themselves with over the top reactions and over the top attacks and just focused on actual stuff he's done or doing reported in plain facts without emotion, with proper mitigation and a fair hearing.

I think they'd have done better if they'd took him seriously and not literally rather than taking him literally and not treating him seriously. Also to stop reporting the stupid crap he says because that is often just a diversion from something bad/controversial that he's actually done. But I think it's too late now. Probably have another 7 years....

 

Would fit in the demote thread. Jebus...
Pirro especially really does sound like a North-Korean news anchor, with the strange tone, intonation and odd pauses.

Interesting times...

 

Spicer bowed out this morning. You did what you could, Sean, it's not your fault if your boss was a ungrateful pathological liar.

 

Did he walk or was he sacked?

Six months in and from what i gather Trumps still not filled half the posts in his government and those he has are either getting fired or quitting, so much winning.

 

Trump appointed one of his fundraisers as WH Director (Scaramucci, an fierce defender of Trump), Spicer was strongly against the move so he quit.

 

What is specifically going on. Firstly any articles at all?

 

Going on what flashed up in the first video the relevant bill is S.720, it seeks to amend the Export Administration Act of 1979 to declare that it shall be U.S. policy to oppose:

• requests by foreign countries to impose restrictive practices or boycotts against other countries friendly to the United States or against U.S. persons; and
• restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by an international governmental organization, or requests to impose such practices or boycotts, against Israel

And prohibits U.S. persons engaged in interstate or foreign commerce from:

• requesting the imposition of any boycott by a foreign country against a country which is friendly to the United States; or
• supporting any boycott fostered or imposed by an international organization, or requesting imposition of any such boycott, against Israel.

 

That's not how i read it but INAL, to me it seems to be saying it will be US policy to oppose requests made by other countries and exporters to impose sanctions.

To my untrained eye it just seems to be putting in words what they do already as requests are nothing more than that and often get ignored, i don't see it as prohibiting you or I from boycotting Israeli companies as we're not a foreign country or involved in foreign commerce and even if we were it doesn't seem to be saying we couldn't boycott them, just that the U.S. would oppose our request for the government to join our boycott.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong though and need a dummies explanation on why it prohibits normal people from boycotting Israeli companies.

 

I'm still not seeing it, just because i call for a boycott doesn't mean I've engaged in foreign commerce as I'm not trading good and services with another country, we'd have to broaden the definition of interstate or foreign commerce to mean the buying of good and services from local shops for it to have any meaning, wouldn't we?

As an example i could support not buying goods from Israel and even join an organization who shared my goals, as long as the group i joined isn't a international organization then it wouldn't be problem.

 

From what I've been reading though (1, 2, 3) that's not the case, all S.720 appears to do is expand existing legislation to include international governmental organizations such as United Nations agencies or the European Union.

 

I'm all for a slippery slope but in this case i think people are making a mountain out of a mole hill as not only are U.S. citizens protected by the constitution, that AFAIK overrides all other legislation, but also because precedence has been laid down many times in the courts already.

 

It depends on interpretation of the supreme court and if there are no laws against what you want to do. You have the right to free speech, but you can not run into a movie theatre screaming fire. You have the right to bear arms, but you are not allowed to have certain weapons that are classified as destructive devices. The 4th no longer applies since the NSA is already spying on everyone (hi NSA guy reading this). So on and so forth.

 

That makes sense and if S.720 was new legislation then I'd agree with jrs77, however as it's an amendment to existing legislation that's been challenged in the courts over the 40 odd years since it was enacted there's precedence to call upon.

Having said that with Trump in the WH i can certainly see why there's concern and i wouldn't put it past him to use something like this as a stick to threaten people with, i just don't think the courts would support him or it.

Personally i think the original legislation is something that's incompatible with a democratic society and shouldn't have been enacted in the first place, never pass laws you wouldn't want your your worst enemy to use is my opinion.

In other Trump related news: It seems the pentagon was worried Trump was going to use Twitter to declare war with North Korea, thank goodness North Korea didn't think the same.

 

Everyone should read this: http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-...e-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon/amp

Just when you think it has no where left to go it somehow gets even better/worse/weirder.

 

I've decided to just regard the Trump presidency as Dadaist performance art.

It actually makes a lot more sense that way.

 

Er, what's going on here? I can see this thread on the forum front page (as it's the most recently-replied to thread), but when I go into the Serious subforum, it's nowhere to be seen. What the devil is going on?

 

I think it's a quirk of the forums because the OP [rainbowbridge iirc] got banned. So the OP's post is gone/hidden, meaning the thread doesn't show in the forum... but the thread [sans rb's spam] and subsequent replies replies still exist...


EDIT: oooooor... was rainbowbridge on your ignore list?

 

Ah, he is on my ignore list. That'll explain it