w any media critical of the current president is labelled "fake news" and given hostile treatment by the White House. Not exactly the free press were supposed to have
Compared to a press that doesn't investigate the White House and never questions the presidents narrative or position? Either the press is doing the job and the White House don't like it (which is good) or the press weren't doing their job and the White House liked it (which is bad).
She was an idiot that leaked classified information when she saw some buzzwords that tickled her Russian conspiracy fancy because she hates Trump and would do anything to put an end to him.
Again the closest thing to "trying to rule like a king" is the "declared he could pardon himself". If that is all there is that isn't even close to "trying". It's just rhetoric or stupid comments that have no action behind them (yet at least). Obama's "I have a pen and a phone" to bypass congress is action that he did use! Did you complain that Obama was actually acting like a king instead of trying with stupid statements?
I honestly do not see how that statement, stupid or otherwise, is "trying to act like a king" considering what our past presidents have done. You have an odd definition of "trying to act like a king".
How has the 17th amendment solved the issues it was originally set up to fix? Few elections were challenged with allegations of impropriety despite the perception of corruption. That perception still exists today and extends to the House. Deadlock was a minor issue that forced state legislatures to have some experience in agreement and compromise.
All it's done is ensure that Congress campaigns more than it legislates, Senators can't be the anchor to passion dominated by the House, Senators can't take a detached view of issues, the state legislatures don't have representation in the federal government, the federal government now is more partisan and divided because of the fast changing popular opinions that are more fickle than the wind, and the Senate favors the federal government over the states and delegates more power to the federal government.
There have been some good things to come out of it but for the last century bicameral has become meaningless.
Yea, the States are made up of people but the States and people sometimes have different needs and wants. A group need compared to a individual need. Many times there are overlap but many times there is not. Foreign relations and trade are an example. Sometimes it's good for the individual but sometimes its necessary to do an unpopular thing for the greater good. That's not justifying fascism but recognizing that one body of the government should be able to handle unpopular things without worrying about the next campaign. Congress spends far too much time campaigning as it is.
Right now because the Senate is elected by half the state, it's a problem that outside money can swing the election making your premise somewhat true for the current set up. The original intent to keep the Senate out of political elections (or at least one step away) so that they could try to keep some level of autonomy and independence without worrying about campaigning or the next election cycle. We already have the House that is like that.
Also, the people are not experts in everything. Right now fake news is a problem because it's so easy to convince enough people that wrong/bad idea is right or that a lie is truth or that narratives are not biased. When everyone can't find the truth or even understand all the aspects to the truth because laymen we get more partisan talking points and further divide.
Honestly, it is nearly the same reason why I don't like elected judges. Seeing a judge campaign on how they would judge is nauseating.
And that's terrible, as the long history of marijuana criminalization has caused a great deal of harm, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't warrant being shot dead.
Nothing happens in a vacuum and while there have been abuses it's only one factor for this case.
how is it irrational to tell a cop you're NOT reaching... The cop is the one who didn't listen
when you are still reaching when he says to stop is irrational. Actions speak louder than words.
How was the cop supposed to know what he was reaching for?
How am I supposed to know the cop didn't just claim he was reaching for a gun, even though he wasn't, in order to justify the shooting?...his girlfriend says he's not
How am I supposed to know his girlfriend didn't lie because she is grieving and it is common for memory to be faulty during intense moments?
You are assuming that Philando was acting irrational and that his state of intoxication was impairing his judgment. No evidence of that has been presented.
No, I linked to it. He was driving with THC in his system and pot in the car in a state that outlawed it while armed. Do you think that stress could affect his judgment? That he could be arrested when pulled over? How was the cop supposed to predict his behavior when it was likely during the stop that Philando already broke the law? The initial reason for the stop could be bad but that doesn't change the fact that the stop occured and there was enough evidence to suggest philando was breaking the law with pot. Then when he found out he was armed disobeyed orders. You can argue about whether pot should be legal or not but as it stands it's illegal so my sympathy is limited.
The reason why the cop wasn't convicted because it's understandable that his judgment and action was normal considering the circumstance. Yes, it's sad and I have sympathy for the family but I also recognize that the cop acted in a sad but justifiable way.
but it's right there, in this thread. That's the assertion
I don't care what the original assertion was. I quoted your lie and I corrected your lie. I don't care what the gp said. I care that you lied. You keep lying and seem smug about it. BLM is a joke because of lying pieces of shit like you.
I can agree that marijuana has been wrongly stigmatized but that doesn't change the fact that it is a drug and drugs make people act in irrational ways.
He has tried to pass rules without respect for the law
I must have missed all those rules that he forced by ignoring the courts. Or were those the rules that the courts upheld that did indeed "respect" the law.
, actively called for the removal of a member of the judiciary who ruled against him
You mean the Mexican judge debacle? Understandable considering the point of a judge is impartiality and unbiased. Or do you mean the 9th circuit? Understandable considering they have been overstepping their judiciary role.
is actively doing everything to force is attorney general to quit because the guy (Sessions) properly recused himself from the Russian investigation
So what? Russian investigation is a nothingburger and he is the boss of the A.G. He has the right to fire him.
interfered in the FBI investigation first by trying to get the director to go easy, then firing him (reminiscent of Nixon).
You say interfered but that is a fine line that I am not sure was crossed. He can fire the director of the FBI for any reason and it was suggested by other members of the DoJ.
president would be easy. Now he's found out that it's hard
It's also his first political office he held. So what?
He's also said that he could pardon himself. Only someone who has lost touch with reality and thinks his power is limitless would believe that the country would accept that
This is the closest thing you have said to "act like a king" but nothing has come of it besides asking legal advice and some tweets. I am not sure if that really constitutes acting like a king.
I think you have let your emotion get the better of you. Your hatred is palpable with every post or thread that mentions Trump. I think it's very hard to honest look and conversation about politics when someone lets emotion get the better of them.
I guess I am confused when "trying to rule like a king" hasn't tried to perform the functions of the other branches of government. You know, because that is what "ruling like a king" is. Why would allow the courts to stop his E.O.s if tried to rule like a king? Why would he allow congress to write the wanna-be health care law he if tried to rule like a king?
I guess my real question, how has he tried to rule like a king?
So are the psycho-actives my shrink insists on. I'm literally never off them. I act irrationally off drugs.
Yes, some people are like that. Drugs change the chemistry of the brain. When you have a chemical imbalance in the brain the treatment are drugs to correct that imbalance. All your saying is that drugs affecting the brain can be good in controlled situations. However, taking alcohol or marijuana for recreation isn't to account for an imbalance but rather to feel the effects it has on our body and brain. Those effects do influence behavior and sometimes the result is bad and irrational behavior.
Didn't mean to say that it was. But I'm more comfortable with a habitual THC user on a "two-drink" equivalent than a driver blowing a 0.07 BAC.
To each their own. I would rather not drive anywhere with any intoxicant. I like the comfort of my home and knowing I don't have to be on the road. That's just me.
I don't have a problem with marijuana but I do recognize that it is a drug and people act irrationally on drugs. There is nothing amazing about it.
It's not like the guy was drinking.
Let's not pretend that just because pot isn't as intoxicating as alcohol that it doesn't affect motor skills or cognitive function. Driving while stoned isn't a good idea.
Oh no, you're saying that the assault was second-hand smoke?
You're an idiot. Pot is illegal in Minnesota. Drugs makes people act irrationally.
. Philando said he wasn't reaching for a gun, the cop kept shouting, and ended up firing his gun seven times.
Oh, ok. I'm reaching but say I not reaching for it. That makes it ok? Sorry that is a stupid thing to do. He wasn't listening to the cop and with his irrational behavior put the cop in a situation that was threatening. How was the cop supposed to know what he was reaching for? You are assuming Philando was acting rational and it is known that he was high on drugs. People on drugs don't act rationally.
I watched the video multiple times and the cop gave plenty of time for Philando to stop reaching but he kept reaching and disobeyed the cop.
assertion made was that the police were attacked.
No. The assertion was that Philando was disobeying the orders of the cop to STOP REACHING FOR THE DAMN GUN. The gun was in the glove box where he was reaching. How was the cop supposed to know? Philando was high on drugs, acting irrationally, and disobeying the orders of an officer while armed. That is a recipe for disaster no matter who you are or what color of skin you have.
we have a fearful police officer who fired his weapon after merely being informed by the man itself that he had a weapon.
No you are a liar. The cop was calm up until Philando disobeyed the orders to STOP REACHING multiple times. Philando said i'm armed. Coped said "Ok, don't reach for it." Cop was calm. "Don't pull it out." Calm but louder and faster. "Don't pull it out." Louder almost shouting and then the shots were fired. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
Philando Castile, merely warned the police officer that he had a gun in the glove compartment.
You are a liar. Not only did the cop smell pot, it was found in the car, and there was THC found in the blood from the autopsy. But also that Philando kept reaching toward the gun when the cop kept saying "stop reaching". Watch the video again and see how many times the cop says "stop reaching for it". The cop didn't know where the gun was didn't know what Philando was reaching for.
Sorry, someone acting irrationally while high on drugs isn't a good defense. Reaching and disobeying orders to an officer when he knows your armed is a stupid thing to do. It's not the cops fault that Philando was high, disobeying orders, and reaching toward his gun with his family.
Scroll to the bottom to get the facts like always with NYTimes hiding important information at the bottom after they crafted their narrative. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
I'm not going through your entire list but that one example is enough to dismiss it because you are lying. "merely" my ass.
Because the Senate represents the interests of the States not the people. They have longer terms and equal power regardless of the population they represent. When the constitution was drafted one of the concerns was "excessive democracy" as James Madison put it. The idea was that people were fickle and the Senate would be stable compared to the whims of popular passions dominating the House. Considering how people act today when they 'lose' it's easy to see that people let their passions get the better of them. There are always complaints that "the average voter" or "Joe six pack" is an idiot so it makes you wonder why you would give them more power in the federal government to decide on policy they have little understanding or experience with? The people already had the House and it was supposed to keep their needs in mind while the Senate was to be a bulwark and keep their States in mind (California has different needs than Montana and each their citizens have different needs and wants that may be different than the state they reside).
However, that is all secondary to the idea that the federal government was supposed to have little impact on the daily lives of people and that it was ultimately the responsibility of the states and local governments to tend to the needs of their citizens. The people are close and better able to change the local and state government then the federal government..
I think a lot of people like the drama. Same reason why reality TV was so popular but instead of watching vicariously you can directly participate in all the glorious E-drama you can handle. It's the only thing that makes sense to me why someone would stay on Twitter.
Well, maybe there are a few good handles to follow but those seem few and far between.
Not if there are bot followers to buy. The horror has just begun! He'll be talking to himself and mindless automatons... Ok, so no change, you're right. Carry on.
Slashdot Mirror
What you are saying is legitimately scary. I hope one day you can see beyond Trump to see why this is a very bad thing.
Dragnet spying on Americans not suspected of a crime is a bad thing especially when FISA ignores court orders
The rights of American's should never be determined by a special secret court (FISA).
We'll see. I have still yet to hear why the individual States can't do it on their own and why it must be the federal government.
w any media critical of the current president is labelled "fake news" and given hostile treatment by the White House. Not exactly the free press were supposed to have
Compared to a press that doesn't investigate the White House and never questions the presidents narrative or position? Either the press is doing the job and the White House don't like it (which is good) or the press weren't doing their job and the White House liked it (which is bad).
She was an idiot that leaked classified information when she saw some buzzwords that tickled her Russian conspiracy fancy because she hates Trump and would do anything to put an end to him.
What you are saying is that you want parallel construction. That is a very dangerous direction friend.
Compromise is hard even with people you tend to agree with. The ACA had similar problems being passed ("you have to pass it to read it" Pelosi).
That's not a feature of one party.
Again the closest thing to "trying to rule like a king" is the "declared he could pardon himself". If that is all there is that isn't even close to "trying". It's just rhetoric or stupid comments that have no action behind them (yet at least). Obama's "I have a pen and a phone" to bypass congress is action that he did use! Did you complain that Obama was actually acting like a king instead of trying with stupid statements?
I honestly do not see how that statement, stupid or otherwise, is "trying to act like a king" considering what our past presidents have done. You have an odd definition of "trying to act like a king".
How has the 17th amendment solved the issues it was originally set up to fix? Few elections were challenged with allegations of impropriety despite the perception of corruption. That perception still exists today and extends to the House. Deadlock was a minor issue that forced state legislatures to have some experience in agreement and compromise.
All it's done is ensure that Congress campaigns more than it legislates, Senators can't be the anchor to passion dominated by the House, Senators can't take a detached view of issues, the state legislatures don't have representation in the federal government, the federal government now is more partisan and divided because of the fast changing popular opinions that are more fickle than the wind, and the Senate favors the federal government over the states and delegates more power to the federal government.
There have been some good things to come out of it but for the last century bicameral has become meaningless.
tl;dr
Yea, the States are made up of people but the States and people sometimes have different needs and wants. A group need compared to a individual need. Many times there are overlap but many times there is not. Foreign relations and trade are an example. Sometimes it's good for the individual but sometimes its necessary to do an unpopular thing for the greater good. That's not justifying fascism but recognizing that one body of the government should be able to handle unpopular things without worrying about the next campaign. Congress spends far too much time campaigning as it is.
Right now because the Senate is elected by half the state, it's a problem that outside money can swing the election making your premise somewhat true for the current set up. The original intent to keep the Senate out of political elections (or at least one step away) so that they could try to keep some level of autonomy and independence without worrying about campaigning or the next election cycle. We already have the House that is like that.
Also, the people are not experts in everything. Right now fake news is a problem because it's so easy to convince enough people that wrong/bad idea is right or that a lie is truth or that narratives are not biased. When everyone can't find the truth or even understand all the aspects to the truth because laymen we get more partisan talking points and further divide.
Honestly, it is nearly the same reason why I don't like elected judges. Seeing a judge campaign on how they would judge is nauseating.
And that's terrible, as the long history of marijuana criminalization has caused a great deal of harm, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't warrant being shot dead.
Nothing happens in a vacuum and while there have been abuses it's only one factor for this case.
how is it irrational to tell a cop you're NOT reaching... The cop is the one who didn't listen
when you are still reaching when he says to stop is irrational. Actions speak louder than words.
How was the cop supposed to know what he was reaching for?
How am I supposed to know the cop didn't just claim he was reaching for a gun, even though he wasn't, in order to justify the shooting? ...his girlfriend says he's not
How am I supposed to know his girlfriend didn't lie because she is grieving and it is common for memory to be faulty during intense moments?
You are assuming that Philando was acting irrational and that his state of intoxication was impairing his judgment.
No evidence of that has been presented.
No, I linked to it. He was driving with THC in his system and pot in the car in a state that outlawed it while armed. Do you think that stress could affect his judgment? That he could be arrested when pulled over? How was the cop supposed to predict his behavior when it was likely during the stop that Philando already broke the law? The initial reason for the stop could be bad but that doesn't change the fact that the stop occured and there was enough evidence to suggest philando was breaking the law with pot. Then when he found out he was armed disobeyed orders. You can argue about whether pot should be legal or not but as it stands it's illegal so my sympathy is limited.
The reason why the cop wasn't convicted because it's understandable that his judgment and action was normal considering the circumstance. Yes, it's sad and I have sympathy for the family but I also recognize that the cop acted in a sad but justifiable way.
but it's right there, in this thread. That's the assertion
I don't care what the original assertion was. I quoted your lie and I corrected your lie. I don't care what the gp said. I care that you lied. You keep lying and seem smug about it. BLM is a joke because of lying pieces of shit like you.
I can agree that marijuana has been wrongly stigmatized but that doesn't change the fact that it is a drug and drugs make people act in irrational ways.
He has tried to pass rules without respect for the law
I must have missed all those rules that he forced by ignoring the courts. Or were those the rules that the courts upheld that did indeed "respect" the law.
, actively called for the removal of a member of the judiciary who ruled against him
You mean the Mexican judge debacle? Understandable considering the point of a judge is impartiality and unbiased. Or do you mean the 9th circuit? Understandable considering they have been overstepping their judiciary role.
is actively doing everything to force is attorney general to quit because the guy (Sessions) properly recused himself from the Russian investigation
So what? Russian investigation is a nothingburger and he is the boss of the A.G. He has the right to fire him.
interfered in the FBI investigation first by trying to get the director to go easy, then firing him (reminiscent of Nixon).
You say interfered but that is a fine line that I am not sure was crossed. He can fire the director of the FBI for any reason and it was suggested by other members of the DoJ.
president would be easy. Now he's found out that it's hard
It's also his first political office he held. So what?
He's also said that he could pardon himself. Only someone who has lost touch with reality and thinks his power is limitless would believe that the country would accept that
This is the closest thing you have said to "act like a king" but nothing has come of it besides asking legal advice and some tweets. I am not sure if that really constitutes acting like a king.
I think you have let your emotion get the better of you. Your hatred is palpable with every post or thread that mentions Trump. I think it's very hard to honest look and conversation about politics when someone lets emotion get the better of them.
I guess I am confused when "trying to rule like a king" hasn't tried to perform the functions of the other branches of government. You know, because that is what "ruling like a king" is. Why would allow the courts to stop his E.O.s if tried to rule like a king? Why would he allow congress to write the wanna-be health care law he if tried to rule like a king?
I guess my real question, how has he tried to rule like a king?
So are the psycho-actives my shrink insists on. I'm literally never off them. I act irrationally off drugs.
Yes, some people are like that. Drugs change the chemistry of the brain. When you have a chemical imbalance in the brain the treatment are drugs to correct that imbalance. All your saying is that drugs affecting the brain can be good in controlled situations. However, taking alcohol or marijuana for recreation isn't to account for an imbalance but rather to feel the effects it has on our body and brain. Those effects do influence behavior and sometimes the result is bad and irrational behavior.
Didn't mean to say that it was. But I'm more comfortable with a habitual THC user on a "two-drink" equivalent than a driver blowing a 0.07 BAC.
To each their own. I would rather not drive anywhere with any intoxicant. I like the comfort of my home and knowing I don't have to be on the road. That's just me.
I don't have a problem with marijuana but I do recognize that it is a drug and people act irrationally on drugs. There is nothing amazing about it.
It's not like the guy was drinking.
Let's not pretend that just because pot isn't as intoxicating as alcohol that it doesn't affect motor skills or cognitive function. Driving while stoned isn't a good idea.
Oh no, you're saying that the assault was second-hand smoke?
You're an idiot. Pot is illegal in Minnesota. Drugs makes people act irrationally.
. Philando said he wasn't reaching for a gun, the cop kept shouting, and ended up firing his gun seven times.
Oh, ok. I'm reaching but say I not reaching for it. That makes it ok? Sorry that is a stupid thing to do. He wasn't listening to the cop and with his irrational behavior put the cop in a situation that was threatening. How was the cop supposed to know what he was reaching for? You are assuming Philando was acting rational and it is known that he was high on drugs. People on drugs don't act rationally.
I watched the video multiple times and the cop gave plenty of time for Philando to stop reaching but he kept reaching and disobeyed the cop.
assertion made was that the police were attacked.
No. The assertion was that Philando was disobeying the orders of the cop to STOP REACHING FOR THE DAMN GUN. The gun was in the glove box where he was reaching. How was the cop supposed to know? Philando was high on drugs, acting irrationally, and disobeying the orders of an officer while armed. That is a recipe for disaster no matter who you are or what color of skin you have.
we have a fearful police officer who fired his weapon after merely being informed by the man itself that he had a weapon.
No you are a liar. The cop was calm up until Philando disobeyed the orders to STOP REACHING multiple times.
Philando said i'm armed.
Coped said "Ok, don't reach for it." Cop was calm.
"Don't pull it out." Calm but louder and faster.
"Don't pull it out." Louder almost shouting and then the shots were fired.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
You are a lying sack of shit with your "merely".
Philando Castile, merely warned the police officer that he had a gun in the glove compartment.
You are a liar. Not only did the cop smell pot, it was found in the car, and there was THC found in the blood from the autopsy. But also that Philando kept reaching toward the gun when the cop kept saying "stop reaching". Watch the video again and see how many times the cop says "stop reaching for it". The cop didn't know where the gun was didn't know what Philando was reaching for.
Sorry, someone acting irrationally while high on drugs isn't a good defense. Reaching and disobeying orders to an officer when he knows your armed is a stupid thing to do. It's not the cops fault that Philando was high, disobeying orders, and reaching toward his gun with his family.
Scroll to the bottom to get the facts like always with NYTimes hiding important information at the bottom after they crafted their narrative.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
I'm not going through your entire list but that one example is enough to dismiss it because you are lying. "merely" my ass.
I remember hearing some years back that tweet propagated faster than an earthquake. And some quick googling found a source.
Because the Senate represents the interests of the States not the people. They have longer terms and equal power regardless of the population they represent. When the constitution was drafted one of the concerns was "excessive democracy" as James Madison put it. The idea was that people were fickle and the Senate would be stable compared to the whims of popular passions dominating the House. Considering how people act today when they 'lose' it's easy to see that people let their passions get the better of them. There are always complaints that "the average voter" or "Joe six pack" is an idiot so it makes you wonder why you would give them more power in the federal government to decide on policy they have little understanding or experience with? The people already had the House and it was supposed to keep their needs in mind while the Senate was to be a bulwark and keep their States in mind (California has different needs than Montana and each their citizens have different needs and wants that may be different than the state they reside).
However, that is all secondary to the idea that the federal government was supposed to have little impact on the daily lives of people and that it was ultimately the responsibility of the states and local governments to tend to the needs of their citizens. The people are close and better able to change the local and state government then the federal government..
Agreed and still very depressing.
He thought that being president was like being king,
You must be a mind reader. Do you have a crystal ball too?
Apparently ~300 million "users".
I think a lot of people like the drama. Same reason why reality TV was so popular but instead of watching vicariously you can directly participate in all the glorious E-drama you can handle. It's the only thing that makes sense to me why someone would stay on Twitter.
Well, maybe there are a few good handles to follow but those seem few and far between.
Not if there are bot followers to buy. The horror has just begun! He'll be talking to himself and mindless automatons... Ok, so no change, you're right. Carry on.