The US Presidency 2019

[FJAG]

And you can always ask yourself if you really want to be the kind of person who mocks someone for accent, and therefore which way you should allow the benefit of doubt to dominate your thinking.

Actually none of us here are that "kind of person" when it comes to people in general and in fact none of us here mock anyone for their "accent".

However, when one deals with a self proclaimed genius who considers himself the epitome of everything excellent, but treats anyone who disagrees with him in a vile, cantankerous way, I can make an exception about exposing his foibles be they big or small. He does provide a rich target environment.

My only hesitation is that I think that marionmike is quite possibly right and that Trump may well be suffering from serious cognitive impairment. (and not just based on this one incident but on hundreds of his habits, mannerisms and utterances.) That, however, is something that he and his bevy of cheerleaders will vehemently deny. That leaves me in a bit of a Catch-22 situation. Until he admits he has a legitimate medical problem, he's fair game for sarcasm, satire and criticism.

:cheers:

 

[Remius]

When politicians say dumb things, they will get laughed at. That’s just how she goes.

Yep.  There are snowflakes on both sides of the political spectrum who will be offended regardless.

The local radio station here regularly plays sound bites from all sorts of politicians.  From Jim Watson’s “on time on budget”, Trudeau’s various verbal gaffes and Trump’s collection of gems. 

My favourite was the whole taking of airports during the revolutionary war and trudeau’s paper water bottle thing.  These are all minor gaffes but still funny.

 

[mariomike]

One of the ways in which people mock others is by making fun of their accents and mannerisms and is intended to be-little the victims and establish the superiority of the one who does the mocking. 

Good point,
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/nov/26/donald-trump-appears-to-mock-disabled-reporter-video

 

[The Bread Guy]

… people who want to believe things are a certain way and too lazy to check for themselves.

… There are snowflakes on both sides of the political spectrum who will be offended regardless …

Yup, on all sides these days ...

 

[brihard]

One of the ways in which people mock others is by making fun of their accents and mannerisms and is intended to be-little the victims and establish the superiority of the one who does the mocking. 
Rich Little used the same techniques in his imitations and generated a lot of laughs as a result.  His Jack Benny and Richard Nixon copies made him a very rich man but that was comedy and was never really intended to be vicious. 
This word game being played by the press and others is of the first variety.  It is bullying at its worst and demonstrates the shallowness of these so-called pundits and reporters and their resignation to any claim of being objective.  If Trump were to hiccup during a reception the headlines would read 'President drunk'.  Enough I say.

Indeed (though I’d not that anyone who pays attention is probably aware that he doesn’t drink).

So can I take it that we’re agreed that bullying, name calling, mockery, making fun of people’s characteristics and such are generally bad things that don’t speak well of someone’s character?

 

[Remius]

Yup, on all sides these days ...

Just to be clear I’m not insinuating anyone here is a snowflake.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

How did operatives of British, Australian and Italian intelligence get involved spying on a US Presidential campaign ?

Please elaborate.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>So can I take it that we’re agreed that bullying, name calling, mockery, making fun of people’s characteristics and such are generally bad things that don’t speak well of someone’s character?

Correct.  That Trump is guilty of all of those doesn't excuse anyone else.  What I observe: socially, people deplore Trump's behaviour; politically, people deplore whatever they imagine amounts to Trump's "undermining of institutions".  But some of those same people are themselves ill-mannered and prone to weakening institutions in their desire to get rid of Trump.

PS: Don't confuse "tickled to see Hillary Clinton sidelined" with "Trump fan".

 

[Brad Sallows]

>How did operatives of British, Australian and Italian intelligence get involved spying on a US Presidential campaign ?

Can't figure out who you mean.  Christopher Steele is a former British spy, not a current one.  Alexander Downer is the only involved Australian that comes to mind; he's a diplomat, not a spy.  Is Joseph Mifsud supposed to be the Italian?  He's a Maltese academic who some people imagine is either a tool of the Russians or a tool of the Americans.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Just to be clear I’m not insinuating anyone here is a snowflake.

Not meant that way at all -- no worries.

 

[kkwd]

Now that the Mueller report didn't live up to expectations the old mental fitness angle reappears. Anyway, seems Nancy Pelosi is upset that Trump is a king. Even though the supreme court gave him permission to go ahead with using defense funds for the border wall. Since when is a supreme court decision anything close to monarchy like?

https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1154900257521750017?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/26/politics/supreme-court-pentagon-border-wall-construction/index.html

 

[brihard]

Now that the Mueller report didn't live up to expectations the old mental fitness angle reappears. Anyway, seems Nancy Pelosi is upset that Trump is a king. Even though the supreme court gave him permission to go ahead with using defense funds for the border wall. Since when is a supreme court decision anything close to monarchy like?

https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1154900257521750017?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/26/politics/supreme-court-pentagon-border-wall-construction/index.html

I hope you understand that the court explicitly did not rule on whether Trump has the legal authority to use those funds, but that rather it was a ruling on who has standing to bring a lawsuit on that issue, right? It was not a dismissal of lower court appeals that are still working their way through; it was essentially nullifying an injunction against continuing while those appeals move forward.

By all means a victory at this stage for Trump, but it is not a ruling to the effect that what he did was constitutionally sound. That still remains to be seen.

Obviously some people will be fine with the President being able to end-run around the legislature to the time of billions of dollars, and others will not. Those opinions will in many cases fall along partisan lines. This matter has a long way yet to go.

 

[kkwd]

I hope you understand that the court explicitly did not rule on whether Trump has the legal authority to use those funds, but that rather it was a ruling on who has standing to bring a lawsuit on that issue, right? It was not a dismissal of lower court appeals that are still working their way through; it was essentially nullifying an injunction against continuing while those appeals move forward.

By all means a victory at this stage for Trump, but it is not a ruling to the effect that what he did was constitutionally sound. That still remains to be seen.

Obviously some people will be fine with the President being able to end-run around the legislature to the time of billions of dollars, and others will not. Those opinions will in many cases fall along partisan lines. This matter has a long way yet to go.

He can spend the cash. But they have to do it quick, the funds will disappear at the end of the fiscal year on September 30th.

 

[tomahawk6]

Supreme Court actoally says he 
can use Defense funds.

https://www.foxnews.com

The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration on Friday in lifting a freeze backed by a lower court that had halted plans to use $2.5 billion in Pentagon funds for border wall construction.

The decision, which split the bench along ideological lines, allows the administration to move ahead with plans to use military funds to replace existing fencing in California, Arizona and New Mexico.

 

[FJAG]

Supreme Court actoally says he 
can use Defense funds.

https://www.foxnews.com

The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration on Friday in lifting a freeze backed by a lower court that had halted plans to use $2.5 billion in Pentagon funds for border wall construction.

The decision, which split the bench along ideological lines, allows the administration to move ahead with plans to use military funds to replace existing fencing in California, Arizona and New Mexico.

Technically the Supreme Court did not say that he can use the funds. That suggests that the USSC specifically authorized use of such funds.

What the majority did was issue a stay (without reasons) of a lower court's interim injunction which prevented the use of the funds until a full trial.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/19a60_o75p.pdf

:cheers:

 

[mariomike]

Supreme Court actoally says he can use Defense funds.

Technically the Supreme Court did not say that he can use the funds.

Remember his campaign promise?

I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall.

Throughout his campaign he described his vision of a concrete wall, 30 to 50 feet high and covering 1,000 miles of the 1,900 mile border, with the rest of the border being secured by natural barriers. After taking office he suggested a "steel wall with openings"; starting in 2018 he referred to it as a "steel slat barrier".
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/08/trump-wall-concept-timeline/2503855002/

 

[Fishbone Jones]

That is a tired old canard. There's lot's of way of making people pay and there is absolutely no doubt Mexico has been paying big time.

It's like trotting out the vote numbers, saying Clinton won. It's been proven wrong time and again, but some people just can't get passed it. Four years later and some are still trying to hang their hats on a stale, debunked sound byte. Just like the above.

 

[Remius]

Remember his campaign promise?

His base will selectively forget or forgive it.  Or explain it away with some other definition of what paying means.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>I will have Mexico pay for that wall.

Rumour has it he will rename "DoD" to "Mexico" by executive action.  Et voila.

 

[dimsum]

>I will have Mexico pay for that wall.

Rumour has it he will rename "DoD" to "Mexico" by executive action.  Et voila.

I would love to see the look on Cpl Hillbilly Jim Bob's face when he realizes he's now a Mexican.