American Politics Thread: Orange is the new POTUS

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ogy/571707001/

This guy lost his job...

http://www.businessinsider.com/resta...e-rally-2017-8

This guy lost his job...

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/comp...aAxQ?li=AA54rW

This guy lost his job...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.3452580

And so on.

A one and a two and a one-two-three...

If you're a Nazi and you're fired, it's your fault!
*clap clap*
If you're a Nazi and you're fired, it's your fault!
*clap clap*
If you're spotted in the mob, and you lost your normal job, If you're a nazi and you're fired, it's your fault!

[Oling_Roachinen]

When you're saying that people who voted for Trump deserves to face the same natural disasters that are currently killing people, I guess you can take comfort in being better than a Nazi, but your both despicable people.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

When you're saying that people who voted for Trump deserves to face the same natural disasters that are currently killing people, I guess you can take comfort in being better than a Nazi, but your both despicable people.

You used the wrong your/you're. Therefore you are despicable people.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by nik-

You used the wrong your/you're. Therefore you are despicable people.

Just another person I can't take reno advice from.

[nik-]

but I'm a general contractor!

[DuffMan]

I wonder if "twitter" would be a reasonable answer to "why did you leave your last job"

[FlameOn]

Russia confirms that Trump campaign team lawyer, Cohen, reached out to Russia during Trump's campaign. They deny however acting or responding to the information. Whether this is true or not is up to debate and further investigation.

Appears that Russia is dropping just enough information to sow more chaos while obfuscating their own involvement as per their usual MO. The only question now is how personally involved Trump was in pushing for and receiving aid from Russia.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.dddc491a1324

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Unequivocally yes he did.

Pretty much no one deserves death threats. But fired? Of course he does. What happens if he's teaching a person who voted for Trump (in Florida no less)? He said that he believes they deserved to have their house flooded, be displaced, face dangerous conditions and potential death...you think he's going to treat them fairly?

Here's the supposed original tweet.

“I don’t believe in instant Karma but this kinda feels like it for Texas. Hopefully this will help them realize the GOP doesn’t care about them,”

I don't see him wishing ill-will on any one. Nor in your follow-up tweet. He was speaking of karma, not wishing ill-will on anyone. Suggesting that someone has a dose of karma coming their way does not mean you wish ill one anyone. For example, you voted for a guy that would not support funding for those hit by a flood. Karma would then be that particular guy having to g hat in hand to ask for the exact same funding he denied to someone else. No ill-well there.

Do I think he is going to treat all people fairly? Yes, because he is an educator and a professional. As an educator you have people with all sorts of beliefs come into your classroom, and you are not going to agree with what they have to say. I know faculty that get lots of papers that they just outright disagree with, but you have to check your beliefs and ego at the door and grade the paper on the work presented, not on what you believe. I could have a student who is an Oiler fan come in and submit a paper on why the Oilers are the greatest team in the universe. I vehemently disagree with that premise, but I have to judge the paper on the research and work presented, not on what I believe or know to be true. I believe this person would do the same.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by New Era

Here's the supposed original tweet.

“I don’t believe in instant Karma but this kinda feels like it for Texas. Hopefully this will help them realize the GOP doesn’t care about them,”

I don't see him wishing ill-will on any one. Nor in your follow-up tweet. He was speaking of karma, not wishing ill-will on anyone. Suggesting that someone has a dose of karma coming their way does not mean you wish ill one anyone. For example, you voted for a guy that would not support funding for those hit by a flood. Karma would then be that particular guy having to g hat in hand to ask for the exact same funding he denied to someone else. No ill-well there.

Blah, you're really stretching to defend this guy. When the instant karma he is referring to is a horrible natural disaster that is killing people and he then goes on to say that anyone who voted for Trump deserves that instant karma as well, there's not much room to argue that he isn't wishing ill-will upon someone. But congrats, you somehow did.

[photon]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

This thread moves quickly, has anyone noted that Mattis stopped Trump's shortsighted transgender military ban and is convening a panel to research if it's worthwhile to do? A bit surprised Don hasn't come out and attacked him yet.

Yeah, and there was an interview with Tillerson a few days ago too where Tillerson sure seemed to throw Trump under the bus:

Tillerson: “I don’t believe anyone doubts the American people’s values or the commitment of the American government or the government’s agencies to advancing those values and defending those values.”

Wallace: “And the president’s values?”

Tillerson: “The president speaks for himself.”

Could be an indication of Trump's waning political capital, others seem to be a little more ready to disagree with Trump.

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

This thread moves quickly, has anyone noted that Mattis stopped Trump's shortsighted transgender military ban and is convening a panel to research if it's worthwhile to do? A bit surprised Don hasn't come out and attacked him yet.

Yea, that's gotta annoy Trump to no end. I'm sure he'll attack Mattis as soon as he's done stewing over his small rally crowd in Phoenix. One thing at a time.

[photon]

Or maybe not.

Despite media reports to the contrary, Secretary of Defense James Mattis didn’t freeze President Trump’s ban on transgender troops. Instead, Mattis is doing exactly what Trump told him to do: Prepare a plan to implement a deeply controversial order that many in the military and on Capitol Hill oppose.

“The department will carry out the president's policy direction,” Mattis said in a statement last night. “I will establish a panel of experts serving within the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security to provide advice and recommendations on the implementation of the president's direction.”

And once the panel gives Mattis its recommendations, he’ll talk to the president about how to turn them into practice.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...eeze-statement

[DuffMan]

This is from the US Employment Opportunity Commission

Under the laws enforced by EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person's race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to retaliate against a person because he or she complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.
The law forbids discrimination in every aspect of employment.

Wouldn't Trump be breaking the law? or is that OK at this point, as long as Constitution and Freedom and God?

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

This is from the US Employment Opportunity Commission



Wouldn't Trump be breaking the law? or is that OK at this point, as long as Constitution and Freedom and God?

Making America great again supersedes the law.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by photon

Or maybe not.

Despite media reports to the contrary, Secretary of Defense James Mattis didn’t freeze President Trump’s ban on transgender troops. Instead, Mattis is doing exactly what Trump told him to do: Prepare a plan to implement a deeply controversial order that many in the military and on Capitol Hill oppose.

“The department will carry out the president's policy direction,” Mattis said in a statement last night. “I will establish a panel of experts serving within the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security to provide advice and recommendations on the implementation of the president's direction.”

And once the panel gives Mattis its recommendations, he’ll talk to the president about how to turn them into practice.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...eeze-statement

Well there you go, seems I was fooled by the story I saw. It thought he wasn't going to implement it as he told trans service people they wouldn't be removed from active duty.

Every time I think this Republican adminstration can't be any dumber they do something like this...and totally redeem themselves!

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Blah, you're really stretching to defend this guy. When the instant karma he is referring to is a horrible natural disaster that is killing people and he then goes on to say that anyone who voted for Trump deserves that instant karma as well, there's not much room to argue that he isn't wishing ill-will upon someone. But congrats, you somehow did.

You have to put and read comments in full context, even twitter comments. The karma he was referring to was the blocking of Sandy relief funds. That is the context. Context matters.

I mean, seriously. How the hell can you extrapolate anything more than that when he clearly said "the GOP doesn’t care about them?" Where would that indicate he was wishing ill on anyone as a result of the storm? It was the past action of the GOP where the context is provided!

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by New Era

You have to put and read comments in full context, even twitter comments. The karma he was referring to was the blocking of Sandy relief funds. That is the context. Context matters.

"I don’t believe in instant Karma but this kinda feels like it for Texas."

What do you think the this means in that sentence? Is there some other event going on in Texas that he could be talking to?

No, he's literally saying that the hurricane was like instant karma because Texas voted Trump. He then goes on to say that others who voted for Trump deserve it too. Ur bias is showing.

It's no better than a preacher saying that a hurricane was divine intervention because of gay marriage. I have a feeling you wouldn't be trying to defend someone who said that. Divine intervention, karma, makes no difference to me. If ur saying that people deserve a natural disaster while people are currently dieing, famiies torn apart, thousand of lives ruined, ur not a good person. But because this reprehensible person happens to share ur ideology against Trump, ur willing to try and twist his own words to make them sound less cruel.

Here's the thing, the conservatives didn't jump on him because of his opinions on FEMA, he wasn't fired because he wasn't a Trump supporter. He was fired because what he said was gross.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

"I don’t believe in instant Karma but this kinda feels like it for Texas."

What do you think the this means in that sentence? Is there some other event going on in Texas that he could be talking to?

The context for this is provided by the part you intentionally keep leaving out of the tweet.

“Hopefully this will help them realize the GOP doesn’t care about them.”

This sentence provides the context and meaning of this. Yes, it is the event of the hurricane, but it is the GOP's refusal to support the the Sandy response funding where the author indicates “the GOP doesn’t care about them,” and establishing the real this in the tweet.

Good lord, you're doing exactly what gun nuts do when trying to interpret the 2nd amendment. You're leaving out the crucial information which informs the context of the amendment. This (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed) says something different than this (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed). That part left out is what clearly defines the intent of the other part of the amendment.

No, he's literally saying that the hurricane was like instant karma because Texas voted Trump. He then goes on to say that others who voted for Trump deserve it too.

No, it isn't. You are clearly ignoring the recent history between the state of Texas and hurricane relief. It is that history is what establishes the karmic perspective for Texans to reflect upon.

Ur bias is showing.

Your ignorance of actions which would lead to such a comment is what is showing. Trump would have zero bearing on any karma affecting Texas in this regard. Texas refusing to support funding for those affected by hurricane Sandy clearly establishes the karma Texas would receive by the landing of a hurricane, and the subsequent requests for funding from the federal government.

It's no better than a preacher saying that a hurricane was divine intervention because of gay marriage. I have a feeling you wouldn't be trying to defend someone who said that. Divine intervention, karma, makes no difference to me. If ur saying that people deserve a natural disaster while people are currently dieing, famiies torn apart, thousand of lives ruined, ur not a good person. But because this reprehensible person happens to share ur ideology against Trump, ur willing to try and twist his own words to make them sound less cruel.

And that is not what he is saying. He is speaking to the fact that 25 of 26 Texas representatives voted to block government assistance to the victims of hurricane Sandy. This has nothing to do with ####ing Trump. Here's the context you really need to understand.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/ted-cru...or-harvey-help

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf...or_aid_af.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...ainst_the.html

Here's the thing, the conservatives didn't jump on him because of his opinions on FEMA, he wasn't fired because he wasn't a Trump supporter. He was fired because what he said was gross.

He was fired because of bunch of an over-reaction, which is quite prevalent in higher ed these days. A conservative farts backwards and the administration calls a grand inquisition to placate the masses. Like I said earlier, a retraction and apology should have been sufficient.

[ResAlien]

Good, glad we got that settled.

The Tillerson comments got overshadowed by Harvey but those were pretty damning as well. Can this possibly continue to come off the rails even worse than it already has? I'm curious what the record is for cabinet members replaced due to firings and resignations.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by New Era

And that is not what he is saying. He is speaking to the fact that 25 of 26 Texas representatives voted to block government assistance to the victims of hurricane Sandy. This has nothing to do with ####ing Trump. Here's the context you really need to understand..

Nothing to do with Trump.