Donald J. Trump sent a tweet storm yesterday that set the Pentagon on edge because at first they thought it was about North Korea.
This is a man who spent a year and a half running for president, and has been president for six months, and still doesn't know what a President does. He still doesn't understand that he commands the most powerful military on Earth, among other things.
This is not surprising. If you voted for this fool, then you are either an idiot, or you weren't paying attention, in which case you're woefully irresponsible.
There are more than one approach to this problem. One approach is that the millions who have made this serious mistake can look into themselves and think about why they made it and what they can do to prevent it in the future.
Are you kidding? The cops see guns at a lefty protest, it just gets their dander up. They will gladly pull out the real weapons and take care of business. Rightwingers, of course, can march around all day with their rifles on their backs.
The black panthers open-carried. That did not last long. What you think of as gun rights is only a privilege earned by being a white Republican.
Trademarks granted by China to Trump fall under the emoluments clause. Any regulatory decision in his favor by a foreign government does, even if justly given.
Beyond the constitutional question, there's the ethical question. If Trump were a judge, he would have to recuse himself from any decision regarding the governments of China, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Kingdom etc to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.
There is no ethical way for a businessman of Trump's global scope to be President without first walking away from his businesses. We should never have a president whose personal wealth is in the hands of foreign governments. This is one of the purposes of the emoluments clause.
The difference between Trump and Washington is that Washington's wealth was in US property, and his income came from selling commodities. His business was not at the mercy of the British Monarchy. They could have bribed him as they could bribe anyone, but not through the normal operation of his business.
Because Washington was troubled by retaining Mount Vernon it's does not take any magical thinking to guess that he would have drawn the line at Trump's much greater conflicts of interest.
"That said, this kind of thing should focus on "too big to fail" rather than harm to consumers. The former seems much easier to quantify versus some notion of harm."
There's really no such thing as too big to fail for a cable company. The country would not go down the drain should every cable company fail at once.
"We already have an anti-trust act that's largely ignored. The existence of "too big to fail" or "abusive oligopolies" are simply are result of the failure to enforce what laws we have already."
It's your classic "let's create another worthless scrap of paper and pretend that that alone will fix the problem" approach. Half ass it (or less) and then blame everyone else when it fails.
You are perhaps being too cynical. The current anti trust laws may merely be inadequate. It's possible they could use some beefing up.
It's possible to do good with legislation. Obamacare generated a lot of noise from the right wing, the left wing and from cynics. Many of their criticisms were on point, but the system is still an improvement over what we had.
Is there any evidence that anyone benefited Washington's businesses on behalf of a foreign nation? A cursory reading shows there was much argument about this at the time, and that Washington himself was conflicted (is Trump I wonder?) . I think Washington has set a bad precedent.
I'm sure that if a foreign government had deliberately dumped money into Washington's business, that Washington would have shut it down. Would Trump? If I read his character correctly he would welcome the bribes, which would invite more bribes.
If any government has pumped money into Trump, he's duty bound to declare it, and either return it or hand it over to the United States. Has he done this?
"He's not being gifted money or titles by any foreign prince (or head of state), is he?"
You're going to have to assume that nobody ever does Donald's holdings any favors on behalf of their government. At this point, that beggars belief. Heck, someone with connections to a foreign government buying a membership at Mar a Lago would qualify. Has that happened?
And no, the emoluments clause has no requirement to prove a quid-pro-quo.
A lot of people genuinely do not like bigotry and think badly of bigots. They believe bigotry is stupid and leads to unnecessary harm.
This is an alien concepts for bigots, so they make accusations of parroting. It's reminiscent of the difficulties the Germans had in 1914 in understanding French "terrorists." They could not believe the resistance was spontaneous and self-organized.
What about Dumbledore? What about the Emperor? Nobody made a big deal about them being gay.
If at some point it becomes important that Heimdall is black, would that be a negative for the Thor series? He is black after all, and it does actually matter in the real world from time to time.
Slashdot Mirror
Public Service Announcement: Zerohedge will rot your brain.
Learning doesn't require reason. Can a flatworm reason?
They will probably be accurate about the presence of an aircraft. They will probably be highly dishonest in their follow on analysis.
One problem with the late war was that we didn't kill enough Nazis.
Donald J. Trump sent a tweet storm yesterday that set the Pentagon on edge because at first they thought it was about North Korea.
This is a man who spent a year and a half running for president, and has been president for six months, and still doesn't know what a President does. He still doesn't understand that he commands the most powerful military on Earth, among other things.
This is not surprising. If you voted for this fool, then you are either an idiot, or you weren't paying attention, in which case you're woefully irresponsible.
There are more than one approach to this problem. One approach is that the millions who have made this serious mistake can look into themselves and think about why they made it and what they can do to prevent it in the future.
Are you kidding? The cops see guns at a lefty protest, it just gets their dander up. They will gladly pull out the real weapons and take care of business. Rightwingers, of course, can march around all day with their rifles on their backs.
The black panthers open-carried. That did not last long. What you think of as gun rights is only a privilege earned by being a white Republican.
*Hillary* ran a condescending campaign?
"Elect me and your dreams will come true"
"I'll repeal obamacare on day one"
He promised to provide better healthcare and reduce healthcare costs at the same time.
"Only I can fix it".
Build the Wall!
The numerous lies about Hillary, Obama, his own past.
His "healthiest president ever" letter from his doctor.
Good god, he thinks so little of the American people, and you think Hillary was condescending.
You guys elected an actual con man.
He thinks the American people are too stupid to demand he disclose his business connections before becoming president, and he's right!
There are also smart people trying to infiltrate those groups so that they can commit violence in the groups' names and thereby discredit them.
Trademarks granted by China to Trump fall under the emoluments clause. Any regulatory decision in his favor by a foreign government does, even if justly given.
Beyond the constitutional question, there's the ethical question. If Trump were a judge, he would have to recuse himself from any decision regarding the governments of China, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Kingdom etc to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.
There is no ethical way for a businessman of Trump's global scope to be President without first walking away from his businesses. We should never have a president whose personal wealth is in the hands of foreign governments. This is one of the purposes of the emoluments clause.
The difference between Trump and Washington is that Washington's wealth was in US property, and his income came from selling commodities. His business was not at the mercy of the British Monarchy. They could have bribed him as they could bribe anyone, but not through the normal operation of his business.
Because Washington was troubled by retaining Mount Vernon it's does not take any magical thinking to guess that he would have drawn the line at Trump's much greater conflicts of interest.
Decisions made, possibly, because the laws are too weak?
"That said, this kind of thing should focus on "too big to fail" rather than harm to consumers. The former seems much easier to quantify versus some notion of harm."
There's really no such thing as too big to fail for a cable company. The country would not go down the drain should every cable company fail at once.
"We already have an anti-trust act that's largely ignored. The existence of "too big to fail" or "abusive oligopolies" are simply are result of the failure to enforce what laws we have already."
It's your classic "let's create another worthless scrap of paper and pretend that that alone will fix the problem" approach. Half ass it (or less) and then blame everyone else when it fails.
You are perhaps being too cynical. The current anti trust laws may merely be inadequate. It's possible they could use some beefing up.
It's possible to do good with legislation. Obamacare generated a lot of noise from the right wing, the left wing and from cynics. Many of their criticisms were on point, but the system is still an improvement over what we had.
You are also free to starve to death in the open.
He probably assumed you were educated.
Is there any evidence that anyone benefited Washington's businesses on behalf of a foreign nation? A cursory reading shows there was much argument about this at the time, and that Washington himself was conflicted (is Trump I wonder?) . I think Washington has set a bad precedent.
I'm sure that if a foreign government had deliberately dumped money into Washington's business, that Washington would have shut it down. Would Trump? If I read his character correctly he would welcome the bribes, which would invite more bribes.
If any government has pumped money into Trump, he's duty bound to declare it, and either return it or hand it over to the United States. Has he done this?
"He's not being gifted money or titles by any foreign prince (or head of state), is he?"
You're going to have to assume that nobody ever does Donald's holdings any favors on behalf of their government. At this point, that beggars belief. Heck, someone with connections to a foreign government buying a membership at Mar a Lago would qualify. Has that happened?
And no, the emoluments clause has no requirement to prove a quid-pro-quo.
That 5kW may not be distributed evenly. A smudge of dirt on the mirror and its over.
The Dr. Isn't real. They aren't violating Timelord genetics by making the Dr. female. Consider it an artistic reinterpretation.
... cause women are never villains in movies? I don't see why Babe Hitler would be a problem for Hollywood, but they should probably keep the stache.
A lot of people genuinely do not like bigotry and think badly of bigots. They believe bigotry is stupid and leads to unnecessary harm.
This is an alien concepts for bigots, so they make accusations of parroting. It's reminiscent of the difficulties the Germans had in 1914 in understanding French "terrorists." They could not believe the resistance was spontaneous and self-organized.
I think OP means the show is pretty dumb.
but through wits and snark
Anyone who gets upset at a female Dr. hasn't much in the way of wits.
The show isn't for the brainiacs.
If you're noticing the agenda in a popular art form, that just means you've outgrown it.
What about Dumbledore? What about the Emperor? Nobody made a big deal about them being gay.
If at some point it becomes important that Heimdall is black, would that be a negative for the Thor series? He is black after all, and it does actually matter in the real world from time to time.
Is making the Dr. a woman mistreating anyone in any way? Too few roles for men, maybe?