Home

Do You Find Nasty Nickname to be "Refreshing"
  Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 17, 18, 19
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News -> Politics

View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Jeanette




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Sep 18 2019, 11:50 pm
<Yawn>

Posters have posted links to dozens of examples of Trump's corruption, self-dealing and fraud. Just because you call everything fake news doesn't mean we're making it up out of thin air or are motivated by petty dislike of his hair or suits.
Back to top

#BestBubby




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Sep 18 2019, 11:51 pm
Jeanette wrote:
To all the people following Trump blindly:

I don't know, nor do I care, if you are foolish, misguided, ignorant, stupid, evil or just plain wrong. What I do know is that you are putting all your trust in someone who does not deserve it. He demands absolute loyalty from everyone and gives none in return. His loyalty is not to America and much less to Israel. He's loyal to whatever serves his ego in the moment. I don't know why that's so hard for you to see. He will throw you under the bus as easily as he's thrown everyone else.


To all the people following Fake News/Liberal Propaganda blindly:

I don't know, if you are foolish, misguided, ignorant, stupid, evil or just plain wrong.
What I do know is that you are putting all your trust in a movement that seeks to take away our Constitutional Rights, take away the right of peasants (that's us) to own property, use electricity, own a car, travel by plane, etc. because of some fake global warming hoax. Only our RULERS are entitled to fly around in private jets while lecturing us peasants on how we have to give up cars and electricity to "save the planet".

I do know that the Democrat Party is anti-religion and is using the LGBQT agenda as an excuse to persecute religious people and outlaw religion (preaches "hate) (but Islam is OK), take away free speech (any opposition to Democrats is "hate speech")
take away our second amendment (because all tyrants grab guns from peasants).

I do know that Democrats loyalty is NOT to America. Democrats bash America 24/7 as "racist", Democrats burn American Flags. Democrats loyalty is certainly not to Israel as they refuse to condemn anti-semitism, refuse to condemn muslim terrorists, support
BDS movement - not just the 4 congresswomen, but BDS is preached in all DEMOCRAT college campuses.
Back to top

#BestBubby




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Sep 18 2019, 11:54 pm
chanatron1000 wrote:
What they say and how they present themselves is still the best way to predict what they will act like if elected.


If there is a D after their name, they will vote with Pelosi 99.9% of the time.

That's a fact.
Back to top

Cheiny




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Sep 19 2019, 6:11 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
Under Obama"

    The economy gained a net 11.6 million jobs. The unemployment rate dropped to below the historical norm.

    Average weekly earnings for all workers were up 4.0 percent after inflation. The gain was 3.7 percent for just production and non-supervisory employees.

    After-tax corporate profits also set records, as did stock prices. The S&P 500 index rose 166 percent.

    The number of people lacking health insurance dropped by 15 million. Premiums rose, but more slowly than before.

    Home prices rose 20 percent.

    Illegal immigration declined: The Border Patrol caught 35 percent fewer people trying to get into the U.S. from Mexico.

    Wind and solar power increased 369 percent. Coal production declined 38 percent. Carbon emissions from burning fossil fuel dropped 11 percent.


Terrible, just terrible.

As to Israel, Ehud Barrack said, "The security ties between us and the current administration are at the highest level they have ever been.” Guess who was president? If you said anyone other than Obama, try again.

Obama led the way in funding and supporting the research, development and production of the Iron Dome. $235 million in 2014 alone. Not to mention a $38 billion package of military aid for Israel over the next 10 years, stated to be the “largest of its kind ever.” He agreed to give Israel 14 F-35 fighter jets; and agreed to provide Israel with Bunker-busting bombs (which Bush refused to do)

Now, of course, the US did abstain rather than veto a UN Security Council resolution calling for a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip. Oh, wait, sorry. That was Bush. Well, OK, it joined a Security Council resolution condemning Israel for its destruction of Iraq’s nuclear facility, and sold AWACS surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia. Oh, Wait. That was Reagan. Well, it must have been Obama who opposed loan guarantees to Israel. Wait. That was George HW Bush.

And of course there are all those pesky Israeli generals who supported the Iran deal. The chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, Gen. Gadi Eisenkot, who said the deal “with all its faults is working”; the chair of the Israeli Space Agency and award-winning military scientist, Isaac Ben-Israel, who says “the agreement is not bad at all, it’s even good for Israel” because “it averts an atom bomb for 15 years”; the former director of the spy agency Mossad, Efraim Halevy, who says the JCPOA provides a “credible answer to the Iranian military threat, at least for a decade, if not longer”; the former chief of domestic security agency Shin Bet, Carmi Gillon, who says the nuclear agreement has helped “make the region, and the world, a safer place”; the former head of Israeli military intelligence, Amos Yadlin, who says “tearing up the deal would create a dangerous void”; and former Israeli prime minister — and the country’s most decorated soldier — Ehud Barak, who says withdrawing from the deal would be a “mistake.” Among others. But we can freely ignore them in light of all of the vast military expertise of imamothers.

Oh, and the money? There was an arbitration started was back in the 80s, underway in the Netherlands between the U.S. and Iran. At issue was a $400 million payment the Shah made to a Pentagon trust fund for airplane parts that were never delivered. Obama administration officials have said they believed the U.S. was set to lose the court proceedings in The Hague and would end up being liable for as much as $10 billion because of accrued interest. I know that's not how the Trump campaign painted it, but as Corey Lewandowski stated, under oath, "I have no obligation to be honest with the media." Just so we now how much to trust anything said by the Trump campaign.

Facts. They're important. Although I've little doubt that you'll ignore them.


Source please. And I challenge all those points.
Back to top

Cheiny




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Sep 19 2019, 6:12 pm
#BestBubby wrote:
But candidates often LIE when running for office. They pretend to be conservative.
If they are Democrat, they will vote the way Nancy Pelosi orders 99.9% of the time.
So if you see a D next to their name. it doesn't matter what they promise when they are running, they will vote as ordered by Pelosi.

Republican Candidates also Lie, pretending to be more conservative than they are, promising to fight for a Republican Agenda, but once elected, basically do nothing.
Like Republicans voted to repeal obamacare when Obama was president and they knew it would be vetoed. But when Trump was president and would have overturned obamacare, the Republicans reneged on their promise. Because they didn't really want to overturn Obamacare, they just PRETENDED they wanted to.

That is why Trump is so refreshing. He is actually keeping his campaign promises.


John McCain was responsible for that disaster.
Back to top

Cheiny




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Sep 19 2019, 6:13 pm
chanatron1000 wrote:
What they say and how they present themselves is still the best way to predict what they will act like if elected.


Lol! Seriously? You don’t know that candidates are notorious for making false campaign promises only to break every single one when they get into office? Do some research. Donald Trump stands alone in keeping the vast majority of his promises, and the ones he hasn’t kept yet are because of obstruction by the dems.
Back to top

Cheiny




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Sep 19 2019, 6:15 pm
Jeanette wrote:
To all the people following Trump blindly:

I don't know, nor do I care, if you are foolish, misguided, ignorant, stupid, evil or just plain wrong. What I do know is that you are putting all your trust in someone who does not deserve it. He demands absolute loyalty from everyone and gives none in return. His loyalty is not to America and much less to Israel. He's loyal to whatever serves his ego in the moment. I don't know why that's so hard for you to see. He will throw you under the bus as easily as he's thrown everyone else.


And many Americans, and nearly all frum Jews, would say they don’t know how you don’t see that he’s the best president in US history for America and for Israel/ Jews.
Back to top

Cheiny




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Sep 19 2019, 6:16 pm
roses wrote:
Aha.

Is that why Trump has by now appointed more ex-lobbyists to his cabinet than Bush and Obama combined- in his two terms? Instead of draining the swamp, he made sure to stock it with the worst of the worst

And until recently, Trump had a Republican House and Senate- he had everything going for him, and he still couldn't accomplish the mainstay of his campaign promises- health care. Either he is a really lousy and ineffectual leader, or he doesn't care at all about health care and the American people. Or all of the above- that's my vote

And Trump is fighting for a wall....LOL. With our taxpayer dollars. The promise was that Mexico will pay. So that's a big fat joke, especially since there are so many obstacles to it being a reasonable and effective choice that it just exposes Trump as the big fool that he is. It never was or will be an effective or reasonable strategy, and certainly not on the taxpayers dime. And diverting military funds for this wall...is this something you are actually proud of?

And the trade war...and economy...oh gosh. Are we talking about the economy of the American farmers and all of the markets that they (probably permanently) lost? Or what about all of those coal jobs people were supposedly going to be getting? Or the volatile stock market every time Trump's Twitter fingers get itchy? Or how the tax cuts were supposed to benefit all of us (oops, tough luck middle class! We're only caring about the rich for the moment!). And the trickle down that never happened. It is by the grace of G-d that Trump hasn't completely wrecked the economy yet. And it's not for lack of trying.

And it's rich that you said "people feel that Trump kept most of his promises" because that is all it is- a feeling. Nothing backed by facts.


I much prefer my taxpayer dollars going towards the wall than going towards paying for illegal aliens to have free health care and free everything else.
Back to top

chanatron1000




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Sep 19 2019, 7:43 pm
Cheiny wrote:
Lol! Seriously? You don’t know that candidates are notorious for making false campaign promises only to break every single one when they get into office? Do some research. Donald Trump stands alone in keeping the vast majority of his promises, and the ones he hasn’t kept yet are because of obstruction by the dems.

If Donald Trump is the only one to keep the promises, vote Democrat. They promise to support gay rights, a woman's right to choose, etc, so if they won't keep their promises, you ought to be thrilled.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Sep 19 2019, 7:56 pm
Cheiny wrote:
I much prefer my taxpayer dollars going towards the wall than going towards paying for illegal aliens to have free health care and free everything else.


Well, then, aren't you lucky that they don't get free health care, or free anything else.

I mean, sure, we don't ask for papers before we treat dying kids in the ER. Do you think we should? Should the US adopt a policy of letting children die if their parents brought them to the US illegally?
Back to top

Ruchel




 
 
 


Post  Fri, Sep 20 2019, 5:27 am
Like or not, Trump has its pros and cons. But as long as he's legal, you respect him in the way you publicly speak. You disagree CLEAN. you do not mock his age/gap/kid, ffs. Nor his mental illness if you think he has one.
signed someone who'd hate trumpas president
Back to top

JoyInTheMorning




 
 
 


Post  Fri, Sep 20 2019, 6:46 am
JoyInTheMorning wrote:
I basically agree, simcha2. I looked to see what the big fuss was about. Apparently, the second woman wasn't available for comment originally. So they went by what other people remembered about the event. Then the second woman said that she didn't remember, so they updated the article to reflect that. It was the responsible thing to do, given that they had this new information. Moreover, it's something that happens all the time now that news is published on the internet. There is constant updating. Don't you think that's a whole lot better than doubling down and insisting that they were right, as in SharpieGate, right?

I personally think that the reporters should have been more careful the first time around. But the New York Times is not alone in this regard. All the media are like this.

I don't think this is an opinion column or hard news. News analysis articles are neither, but in my opinion, because they are analyses and there's not that much time pressure, they should be more careful to get all the facts they can the first time.

But overall, the conservative press is making a mountain out of a molehill.

By the way, simcha2, I find it odd in a nice way that our names are translations of each other.


Simcha2: Two small corrections, corroborating what you previously said:

1. The piece was originally published as an opinion piece (which is usually what the New York Times does for book excerpts), and then moved to the news analysis section. So we were both right about this, but at different times.

3. The woman who claimed to have seen Kavanaugh's private part has not come forward to say she does not remember. She refuses to be interviewed and others have said that she does not remember. I think it is reasonable to conclude that she doesn't remember either way, but wanted to clarify.
Back to top

JoyInTheMorning




 
 
 


Post  Fri, Sep 20 2019, 6:53 am
#BestBubby wrote:
Ginsburg and Kagan are TREASONOUS Judges who INVENT "rights" that are not mentioned in the Constitution.

The only thing I and millions of Americans care about is will Kavanaugh follow the Constitution or will Kavanaugh violate it.

ALL Democrat Supreme Court Judges violate the Constitution and commit Treason.

SOME Republican Judges also violate the Constitution. It is too soon to know if Kavenaugh will be a Treasonous Judge or not.


Ginsburg and Kagan are not treasonous. They are no more treasonous than any judge who interprets the Constitution.

It seems to me that you're arguing that it’s only proper to adjudicate from original intent — that is, what the authors of the Constitution or its amendments originally intended — and from a strictly literalist point of view. (You may think that those two viewpoints are the same, but they need not be.)

You might want to rethink this, because it can lead to unintended consequences. Here are two examples:

1. Citizens United v FEC; Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores. The Conservative wing of the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that the First Amendment, and in particular, free speech in most circumstances, applies to corporations. Burwell v Hobby Lobby broadened this by including freedom of religion to apply to corporations. 



It’s quite clear that this is not explicit in the text. Moreover, it is quite unlikely that the Founding Fathers were intending to include corporations. The broadening of the “personhood" concept of “corporation” so that parts of the Constitution and its amendments apply to it, is the result of a long process, starting 40 years after the Constitution was written, and continuing today. The law so far is that corporations do not enjoy the protection against self-incrimination given by the Fifth Amendment, so it’s not like anyone is claiming that it was obvious which amendments were intended to apply to corporations and for which there was no such intention.

The complexities inherent in these decisions show that a simplistic approach to reading the Constitution cannot work. If it were so easy, why would decisions go on for many pages? Why would there be a tradition of publishing lengthy dissents as well as the Court decision, as well as concurring opinions on different grounds? Why would being a judge or Supreme Court justice be a difficult job, requiring years of training?


2. The Clean Air Act and related environmental regulations. When do states vs the federal government get to decide environmental regulations? It’s not as simple as the way you are interpreting the Tenth Amendment. If it were, there could have been no Air Pollution Control Air Act of 1955 (passed under Eisenhower, a Republican), no 1970 Clean Air Act (passed under Nixon, a Republican) and the many subsequent versions of that law. Because after all, there is no mention of air pollution or air quality in the Constitution.

But these federal laws have held up. This is due to the Commerce clause in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8. From https://www.theatlantic.com/sc.....1001/ :


Quote:

Congress has the power “to regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” Every major post-1970 environment law relies on this Constitutional power.





As another article in the Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/na.....1671/ explains, Tea Party advocates like to say that all powers not explicitly given to the federal government are given to the states. But actually the Tenth Amendment doesn’t use the word “explicitly”. It reads:

Quote:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.



Words like "explicitly" or “expressly" are not in the Tenth Amendment.

This was an intentional omission: the failed Articles of Confederation granted the confederation many fewer rights, specifically using the word “expressly” to reserve as much power to the states as possible. But in the Constitution, you can reason about implied powers; and the implied powers derived from the Commerce clause trump the Tenth Amendment.
Back to top

JoyInTheMorning




 
 
 


Post  Fri, Sep 20 2019, 7:08 am
#BestBubby wrote:
Re: Loving vs Virginia

It is NOT the same Obergefell. Here are differences:

1. 14th Amendment was SPECIFICALLY intended to protect the rights of African-Americans.

2. EVERY state had laws giving equal rights to homosexual unions, so there was EQUAL rights for Homosexuals.

But that was not good enough. Homosexuals wanted to FORCE states to call their unions "Marriage" which is a MORAL distinction, NOT a LEGAL distinction.

Supreme Court does not have the right to define Morality.

2. Allowing Blacks and Whites to marry does not change the definition of Marriage.
Allowing 2 men to marry and 2 women to marry changes the definition of marriage - that is THOUSANDS of Years old.

The Supreme Court does not have the right to INVENT a new definition of marriage that for thousands of years meant: One Man - One Woman.

3. In Loving vs Virginia the Supreme Court did not INVENT a "Constitutional Right to Marry" which is NOT in the Constitution.

Now a brother and sister can claim a Constitutional "Right to Marry".
A man now has a Constitutional Right to marry 3 wives.
A woman now has a Constitutional Right to marry 3 husbands.
If "Experts" declared that children are old enough to decide their gender, why can't children consent to marriage or relations? So now there is a constitutional right to marry
children!
Maybe there is also a constitutional right to marry animals (bestiality)

So, Obergefell is DIFFERENT than Loving vs. Virginia.


I. The point is not whether Loving v Virginia is the same as Obergefell; the point is that even Scalia agrees that there is a right to marry between members of different races, even though that is not explicit in the Constitution or its amendments.

II. You argue that the Fourteenth Amendment was specifically intended to protect the rights of African-Americans. But actually, the Fourteenth Amendment does not mention African Americans or blacks or colored, or whatever term was then considered proper.

Moreover, regarding intent: Actually, it's quite clear that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment were opposed to miscegenation. See https://static1.squarespace.co.....6.pdf . I've seen this in numerous places. Every time legislation was passed to give rights to African Americans, legislators had to be calmed down and reassured that this didn't mean that blacks would marry whites.

The intent behind the Fourteenth amendment was NOT to permit blacks and whites marrying.

III. I've addressed explicit vs implicit rights in my previous post.

There's much more that I'd like to post, but there's no more time to post until after Shabbat.
Back to top

Squishy




 
 
 


Post  Fri, Sep 20 2019, 7:18 am
SixOfWands wrote:
Well, then, aren't you lucky that they don't get free health care, or free anything else.

I mean, sure, we don't ask for papers before we treat dying kids in the ER. Do you think we should? Should the US adopt a policy of letting children die if their parents brought them to the US illegally?


How many times must I tell you that illegal immigrants get free health care? Their health care in my county is better than legal citizens.
California voted free health care for illegal immigrants of a certain age. Our emergency room costs are through the roof because we treat everyone for free. We have medical tourism in my county. They can afford the plane flight here and then get free dental work. How many amothers can't afford their own dental work? Instead defrauding illegal immigrants get it for free? Do you not see the inequities here?

The problem with your policies of treating all for free is there are no limits. Why not the poor in India? Don't those babies deserve every single health care measure?

You need well though out policies how this effects the country. In all your rantings, I have never once heard you discuss policy and the effects.

Marina cares passionately, but she concedes there must be limits. I would love a policy discussion. I don't think conservatives are as hard hearted as you do. Our priorities are our citizens as it should be.

Don't you see the problems that these policies are creating in democratic controlled cities?

1. Please add an 's' to nickname in the title? I read the title with a Chinese accent.

2. I hope you apologize to Fox for lying about her words. It really bothers be that you would attribute to her that Hillary only called racists deplorables.
Back to top

cbsp




 
 
 


Post  Fri, Sep 20 2019, 9:02 am
JoyInTheMorning wrote:
Simcha2: Two small corrections, corroborating what you previously said:

1. The piece was originally published as an opinion piece (which is usually what the New York Times does for book excerpts), and then moved to the news analysis section. So we were both right about this, but at different times.

3. The woman who claimed to have seen Kavanaugh's private part has not come forward to say she does not remember. She refuses to be interviewed and others have said that she does not remember. I think it is reasonable to conclude that she doesn't remember either way, but wanted to clarify.


I'm confused. Wasn't it a book review? They had all the information in the book!

Also, I saw an interview where they said the information had been in the original article and then edited out before it went to print.
Back to top

Cheiny




 
 
 


Post  Fri, Sep 20 2019, 5:46 pm
cbsp wrote:
I'm confused. Wasn't it a book review? They had all the information in the book!

Also, I saw an interview where they said the information had been in the original article and then edited out before it went to print.


But dems couldn’t care less about that “detail” and are still pushing impeachment. This makes a farce of the #metoo movement and all the women crying wolf and the gullible or politically motivated believers who are only too willing to destroy an innocent man’s life in order to further their agenda.
Back to top
  Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 17, 18, 19 Recent Topics

Page 19 of 19 View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News -> Politics

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Anyone try the "sleeve" weight loss surgery?
by rochelp
21 Sun, Oct 20 2019, 9:18 am View last post
OK to buy "floor sample" jewelry?
by amother
17 Sat, Oct 12 2019, 6:07 pm View last post
"Chuck" kolichel? Like the smaller one??? 9 Thu, Oct 10 2019, 10:38 pm View last post
Ch"hm day trip, Lakewood area, age 2-5
by amother
14 Thu, Oct 10 2019, 9:06 pm View last post
ISO Lyrics for "vihaviosem el har kadshi"
by Optione
9 Mon, Oct 07 2019, 7:25 pm View last post

Jump to: