President Donald J. Trump

[PB the Deplorable]

I know news doesn't happen outside the USA, but around about the late eighties, early nineties, the Berlin wall fell and Germany was reunified. A byproduct of that was Angela Merkel who grew up in the former Deutsche Demokratische Republik (but was anything but) decided that living under the soul destroying murderous tyranny that fell was not what she wanted for her, or her fellow Germans. Her place of birth is happenstance, the same as Trump admiring dictators is something he can't help, he only relates to perceived strength...

She was actually born in West Germany, but grew up in the East.  Growing up there is not happenstance, her instincts are undemocratic and she is a shill for the unelected Brussels Fascists.

[Yorkshire pud]

She was actually born in West Germany, but grew up in the East.  Growing up there is not happenstance, her instincts are undemocratic and she is a shill for the unelected Brussels Fascists.

You're being silly now. Her parents moved because her father took a pastorate in what was then EG (she was three months old, maybe they could have left her?)  She's a shining light, especially if you try and compare her unfavourably with Trump.

[Dr. MD MD]

You're being silly now. Her parents moved because her father took a pastorate in what was then EG (she was three months old, maybe they could have left her?)  She's a shining light, especially if you try and compare her unfavourably with Trump.

An shinning light?! 

Well, maybe...if it's a neon sign saying, Welcome, Muslim Terrorists! 

[PB the Deplorable]

An shinning light?! 

Well, maybe...if it's a neon sign saying, Welcome, Muslim Terrorists! 

Yeah, more like a beacon

[PB the Deplorable]

Paper*Boy is often entertaining, unlike the Cro-Magnons usually grazing on this thread.

For example, he'll give you laugh-out-loud moments like conservatives built California, and the West...

Oh right, you're one of the ''you didn't build that'' O-bots

[PB the Deplorable]

Indeed they do. Indeed they do...

Now that Pud found out the Portland killer is a Hilary voter he's not quite as strident in responding to posts about him.

[paladin1991]

Oh? So the fact he's a white supremicist, has a history of violence and participation in same, together with his admiration of Nazis is irrelevant? Interesting.

Is it irrelevant that you are a  Britcuck, have bad teeth, suck cock by choice and are a submissive?  I argue, that much like your country, you are, in fact, irrelevant. 

[Meister_000]

PB, your brain gas been thoroughly rotted by decades over-consumption of nothing but Ultra-Conservative propaganda, i.e. the real, classic, and original "Fake Media" which came into being during the Nixon era c.1972.

For God's sake read a book, this one book, which will give you (or anyone; Left, Right, or Center) a much-needed and now manditory overview of the first 30 years (1972-2002) of the development of the active, deliberate, organized, well-funded, MASSIVE networked Conservative Propaganda machine. You have no, as in zero, fucking idea what you've been bloviating about when it comes to all things media in this country. You and all of your bros here have been parroting verbatim the same tripe _invented_ by Far Right-Wing Propagandists 45 fucking years ago! It's time to get WOKE -- you're making a complete ass of yourself here every single day because of your total ignorance of this key bit of contemporary American Politics and it's history.

If nothing else, as a motive to read it:  the Right-Wingers here will rejoice to realize the stunning amount of media power the Right has now amassed and conversely the proof of the deep trouble the Left is in now if it doesn't rise to counter it. We are way behind the Right in this department.

This book is available as physical, Kindle, or/and Audible formats (narration/recorded).

Book:
David Brock 2004
“The Republican Noise Machine”: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy

Amazon
https://www.amazon.com/Republican-Noise-Machine-Right-Wing-Democracy-ebook/dp/B000FC1N04/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

[3OctaveFart]

Oh right, you're one of the ''you didn't build that'' O-bots

Conservatives did not build and populate the great American West. The idea is preposterous.

And I was not a fan of the last president. Ever. It's a shame this childish retort is constantly raised in defense of the current bad president.

[Yorkshire pud]

Now that Pud found out the Portland killer is a Hilary voter he's not quite as strident in responding to posts about him.

I don't give a shit who he voted for. He's still a murdering twat.

[Yorkshire pud]

Is it irrelevant that you are a  Britcuck, have bad teeth, suck cock by choice and are a submissive?  I argue, that much like your country, you are, in fact, irrelevant.

That's a lot of things to consider for an ex marine without slides and crib sheets. Now....breath....

[21st Century Man]

PB, your brain gas been thoroughly rotted by decades over-consumption of nothing but Ultra-Conservative propaganda, i.e. the real, classic, and original "Fake Media" which came into being during the Nixon era c.1972.

For God's sake read a book, this one book, which will give you (or anyone; Left, Right, or Center) a much-needed and now manditory overview of the first 30 years (1972-2002) of the development of the active, deliberate, organized, well-funded, MASSIVE networked Conservative Propaganda machine. You have no, as in zero, fucking idea what you've been bloviating about when it comes to all things media in this country. You and all of your bros here have been parroting verbatim the same tripe _invented_ by Far Right-Wing Propagandists 45 fucking years ago! It's time to get WOKE -- you're making a complete ass of yourself here every single day because of your total ignorance of this key bit of contemporary American Politics and it's history.

If nothing else, as a motive to read it:  the Right-Wingers here will rejoice to realize the stunning amount of media power the Right has now amassed and conversely the proof of the deep trouble the Left is in now if it doesn't rise to counter it. We are way behind the Right in this department.

This book is available as physical, Kindle, or/and Audible formats (narration/recorded).

Book:
David Brock 2004
“The Republican Noise Machine”: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy

Amazon
https://www.amazon.com/Republican-Noise-Machine-Right-Wing-Democracy-ebook/dp/B000FC1N04/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

[PB the Deplorable]

PB, your brain gas been thoroughly rotted by decades over-consumption of nothing but Ultra-Conservative propaganda, i.e. the real, classic, and original "Fake Media" which came into being during the Nixon era c.1972...

Well, I'm not sure what brain gas is, but as far as anything David Brock has to say - not interested, but thanks anyway.

For starters, I don't need to read a book on the subject, I lived through it. The thing left-wing kooks don't understand is Rush didn't become popular because he talked people into becoming Conservatives, he became popular because he was voicing what they already believed, and brought them information and news the so-called mainstream media ignored, downplayed, or lied about.  And he's funny and insightful while doing it.

Reading the Amazon review on the page you linked, like a good Lib he's equating Conservatives and Republicans.  They are not the same thing, so there goes his credibility on that.  He goes on to mention ''bigotry, ignorance, and emotional manipulation'' - the usual hollow garbage we get from all of you when you're losing arguments.  He includes a few sentences on how the ''right wing'' media ''... disregards journalistic ethics and universal standards of fairness and accuracy, manufacturing "news" that is often bought and paid for by a tight network of corporate-backed foundations and old family fortunes''. 

Well, its true that Conservatives finance much of it by advertising, but so what, that's how the business end of media is funded.  Left out is the fact that he's describing the so-called ''main stream media'' and their lack of journalistic integrity more than he is the Conservative media, and that description is why they are losing readers, viewers, and advertisers.  But not David Brock - he's found a fervent, albeit deluded, readership.

[PB the Deplorable]

Oh? So the fact he's a white supremicist, has a history of violence and participation in same, together with his admiration of Nazis is irrelevant? Interesting.

I don't give a shit who he voted for. He's still a murdering twat.

[21st Century Man]

Um, I'm the one pointing out where rule of law, and separation of powers are being undermined and ignored.  I'm the one pointing out criminal and unconstitutional actions by people like Obama and Hilary Clinton, and court decisions based on ''Progressive'' policy rather than the law. 

I'm for a free press.  But what I mostly see is the propaganda arm of the ''Progressive'' wing of the Democratic party posing as one.  I'm just pointing it out, not calling for their abolishment.


What should we do with dangerous court decisions with no basis in law whatsoever?  Why wouldn't it be a good thing for Trump to pick two or three and take his case to the citizens of this country, instead of sitting around hoping the Supreme Court will overturn them in a few months?  The Great Divider, Obama himself, certainly didn't let the law, the Constitution, or court decisions stand in his way.  I'm suggesting we return to the rule of law.

I realize pointing out how the Left is destroying our nation is not acceptable to the easily led sock puppets.  We're never going to get through to them.  But the rest of us can remove their handlers from power, then ignore them.  We should do so.

Well-said, Paperboy.

[21st Century Man]

Well, I'm not sure what brain gas is, but as far as anything David Brock has to say - not interested, but thanks anyway.

For starters, I don't need to read a book on the subject, I lived through it. The thing left-wing kooks don't understand is Rush didn't become popular because he talked people into becoming Conservatives, he became popular because he was voicing what they already believed, and brought them information and news the so-called mainstream media ignored, downplayed, or lied about.  And he's funny and insightful while doing it.

Exactly, I discovered Rush in '88 when I was in my early 20's.  It was refreshing to hear someone on radio and tv who shared my perspective on things.  He was a lot funnier and edgier back then.  I don't listen to him as much anymore but may check it out once a week.  He is still very good but I'm rather sick of politics these days and would rather focus my energies elsewhere.

[3OctaveFart]

P*B-

The framers did not intend for the Supreme Court to be this powerful. You might even say it was hoped that it would be the weakest of the three branches.

They certainly didn't intend for it to become the plaything of a mad emperor.

But I believe your proposal would horrify them, and they've seen a lot in 120 days to be horrified over.

[PB the Deplorable]

P*B-

The framers did not intend for the Supreme Court to be this powerful.

They certainly didn't intend for it to become the plaything of a mad emperor.

But I believe your proposal would horrify them, and they've seen a lot in 120 days to be horrified over.

Oh please. 

They'd be horrified at the size of the government and the size of the national debt.  They'd wonder why we choose such poor leaders, why we've given them this much power, and why we send this much of our wealth to DC .

They'd wonder why the states have not passed amendments under Article V, reigning it all in.  They'd wonder why Congress - which creates the federal courts other than the Supreme Court, and has power to determine what they can and cannot review - has not reigned them in.

They'd wonder why we have become entangled with other nations and why we intrude into their internal affairs, rather than just striving to be on good terms and trade with them.

They would wonder about the state of the media, academia, the entertainment industry, etc, and wonder why they've become so un-American.

They would wonder why there is an all out attack on Trump, why the lesser party is trying to overthrow the president, and why he doesn't shove it up their asses.

You are right they would be horrified, just wrong about what it is they would be horrified about.

[3OctaveFart]

You and many others greatly misunderstand the sort of contempt they had for 'the people'.

The balance of the founders would have been appalled by the ignorance of Trump voters. They reserved unique scorn for a rabble.

[PB the Deplorable]

You and many others greatly misunderstand the sort of contempt they had for 'the people'.

The balance of the founders would have been appalled by the ignorance of Trump voters. They reserved unique scorn for a rabble.

But not the Clinton voters?

[Meister_000]

Well, I'm not sure what brain gas is, but as far as anything David Brock has to say - not interested, but thanks anyway.

For starters, I don't need to read a book on the subject, I lived through it. The thing left-wing kooks don't understand is Rush didn't become popular because he talked people into becoming Conservatives, he became popular because he was voicing what they already believed, and brought them information and news the so-called mainstream media ignored, downplayed, or lied about.  And he's funny and insightful while doing it.

Reading the Amazon review on the page you linked, like a good Lib he's equating Conservatives and Republicans.  They are not the same thing, so there goes his credibility on that.  He goes on to mention ''bigotry, ignorance, and emotional manipulation'' - the usual hollow garbage we get from all of you when you're losing arguments.  He includes a few sentences on how the ''right wing'' media ''... disregards journalistic ethics and universal standards of fairness and accuracy, manufacturing "news" that is often bought and paid for by a tight network of corporate-backed foundations and old family fortunes''. 

Well, its true that Conservatives finance much of it by advertising, but so what, that's how the business end of media is funded.  Left out is the fact that he's describing the so-called ''main stream media'' and their lack of journalistic integrity more than he is the Conservative media, and that description is why they are losing readers, viewers, and advertisers.  But not David Brock - he's found a fervent, albeit deluded, readership.

You're a shameful ignorant idiot, and can not be taken seriously, ever!
"What is left out" is the fact that you did not read the book but only the publishers blurb and perhaps one of the reader's reviews. With your responce here you reveal the workings or a very mediocre mind. Massive Ignorance bolstered and amplified by massive arrogance. Better be careful PB, that's a classic discription of a typical Muslim mind and temperament. Most fundamentalist extremists, like yourself, display those very characteristics.

[PB the Deplorable]

P*B-

The framers did not intend for the Supreme Court to be this powerful. You might even say it was hoped that it would be the weakest of the three branches.

They certainly didn't intend for it to become the plaything of a mad emperor.

But I believe your proposal would horrify them, and they've seen a lot in 120 days to be horrified over.

One thing for you to understand loud and clear:  judges handing down decisions based on their personal preferences are illegitimate.  They deserve scorn, not reverence.

States requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, and valid ID when voting are not unconstitutional

The president banning individuals from certain countries from entering the country based on national security is not unconstitutional.  He is the president.  Its his call.  It doesn't matter if he's wrong, or if its bad policy, or if the judge somehow thinks he has ulterior motives.  It is his call.  Period.  *

And etc.


* The term ''checks and balances'' is not exactly accurate.  Our system is one of separation of powers.  ''Checks and balances'' infers another branch or another level of government can step in when they decide they don't approve of a certain policy or action. Not so.  Under separation of powers, each parties authority (and thus limits) is spelled out. 

As it turns out, if a president is determined to thumb his nose at the limits to his authority there is not much of a check on it other than impeachment and removal from office, or voting him out in the next election.  If we learned nothing else from the Obama years, we should have learned that.

[Dr. MD MD]

Exactly, I discovered Rush in '88 when I was in my early 20's.  It was refreshing to hear someone on radio and tv who shared my perspective on things.  He was a lot funnier and edgier back then.  I don't listen to him as much anymore but may check it out once a week.  He is still very good but I'm rather sick of politics these days and would rather focus my energies elsewhere.

Back then I wouldn't listen to him because I dismissed him as right-wing fodder, much the way many here are trying to persuade others to consider ANY conservative viewpoint. I guess I was a lot like today's liberal students, thinking I knew better, self-assured that I was one of the good guys. It was ignorant of me but I was ignorant of a good many things in my youth, as I guess we all are. However, even though I was young and ignorant in the 80s I'm scratching my head trying to come up with any mainstream journalist back then I would consider leftist. The majority all seemed pretty much in line with the Reagan administration, much to my dismay back then. I guess maybe the Iran Contra scandal started to shift the tides during his second term but even in all that I remember most of the mainstream media defending and lionizing Reagan. Again, maybe I was just too young and not paying attention to politics enough but I'm thinking maybe this left-wing dominance of the media that clearly exists now started with the Clinton administration. That's when Hillary first put forward her theory of the right-wing dominance of the media. The thing is I actually kinda bought it back then because, like I said, that's the way it seemed to me in the 80s. People love to wax nostalgic about Reagan (he was a personable and likable guy) and yes, there was some slight recovery in his first term but his second term ended with one of the then biggest financial market crashes in history followed by a full term of recession with Bush 1. No wonder people were willing to give Bubba a chance in spite of his shady past.

[PB the Deplorable]

You're a shameful ignorant idiot, and can not be taken seriously, ever!

Not even for restaurant or sightseeing recommendations?

[3OctaveFart]

I'm not a lawyer and don't give a shit about its vagaries in regard to the EO.

Sorry, the president may not just do whatever the fuck he wants. That's not how any of this was supposed to work.

From day one this has been a difficult executive that has not been willing to play in concert with the other branches. So now the dickhead dunce wants his own judges.

Like I said, not how any of this was supposed to work.

[GravitySucks]

Back then I wouldn't listen to him because I dismissed him as right-wing fodder, much the way many here are trying to persuade others to consider ANY conservative viewpoint. I guess I was a lot like today's liberal students, thinking I knew better, self-assured that I was one of the good guys. It was ignorant of me but I was ignorant of a good many things in my youth, as I guess we all are. However, even though I was young and ignorant in the 80s I'm scratching my head trying to come up with any mainstream journalist back then I would consider leftist. The majority all seemed pretty much in line with the Reagan administration, much to my dismay back then. I guess maybe the Iran Contra scandal started to shift the tides during his second term but even in all that I remember most of the mainstream media defending and lionizing Reagan. Again, maybe I was just too young and not paying attention to politics enough but I'm thinking maybe this left-wing dominance of the media that clearly exists now started with the Clinton administration. That's when Hillary first put forward her theory of the right-wing dominance of the media. The thing is I actually kinda bought it back then because, like I said, that's the way it seemed to me in the 80s. People love to wax nostalgic about Reagan (he was a personable and likable guy) and yes, there was some slight recovery in his first term but his second term ended with one of the then biggest financial market crashes in history followed by a full term of recession with Bush 1. No wonder people were willing to give Bubba a chance in spite of his shady past.

Bubba only got elected because of Perot. Bubba received less percentage of the popular vote than Trump did. Bush had a 90% approval rating after the first gulf war. The democrats controlled both houses and the economy was in the shitter. It wasn't until the republicans took back the house in 94 with the Contract for America did the economy and the deficit turn around.

Clinton would be a footnote in history if it wasn't for Perot.

[21st Century Man]

Back then I wouldn't listen to him because I dismissed him as right-wing fodder, much the way many here are trying to persuade others to consider ANY conservative viewpoint. I guess I was a lot like today's liberal students, thinking I knew better, self-assured that I was one of the good guys. It was ignorant of me but I was ignorant of a good many things in my youth, as I guess we all are. However, even though I was young and ignorant in the 80s I'm scratching my head trying to come up with any mainstream journalist back then I would consider leftist. The majority all seemed pretty much in line with the Reagan administration, much to my dismay back then. I guess maybe the Iran Contra scandal started to shift the tides during his second term but even in all that I remember most of the mainstream media defending and lionizing Reagan. Again, maybe I was just too young and not paying attention to politics enough but I'm thinking maybe this left-wing dominance of the media that clearly exists now started with the Clinton administration. That's when Hillary first put forward her theory of the right-wing dominance of the media. The thing is I actually kinda bought it back then because, like I said, that's the way it seemed to me in the 80s. People love to wax nostalgic about Reagan (he was a personable and likable guy) and yes, there was some slight recovery in his first term but his second term ended with one of the then biggest financial market crashes in history followed by a full term of recession with Bush 1. No wonder people were willing to give Bubba a chance in spite of his shady past.

The media outlets were far less biased in their news coverage back then.  I would say most of the major press outlets were still  tilted to the left but not as blatant as they are today.  I watched ABC news and 60 minutes a lot back then without getting pissed.  I was as conservative in my youth as I am now so I haven't changed much.  I thought most Democrats were clowns back then and have only recently come to the same conclusion about most Republicans.

The colleges though were bastions of leftism even back then.  I had a literature professor at the University of GA who really liked me but she had to put down Reagan at every chance.  I kept my opinions to myself as that was one of the few classes that I really enjoyed at the time and I didn't want to ruin my grades.

[PB the Deplorable]

Back then I wouldn't listen to him because I dismissed him as right-wing fodder, much the way many here are trying to persuade others to consider ANY conservative viewpoint. I guess I was a lot like today's liberal students, thinking I knew better, self-assured that I was one of the good guys. It was ignorant of me but I was ignorant of a good many things in my youth, as I guess we all are. However, even though I was young and ignorant in the 80s I'm scratching my head trying to come up with any mainstream journalist back then I would consider leftist. The majority all seemed pretty much in line with the Reagan administration, much to my dismay back then. I guess maybe the Iran Contra scandal started to shift the tides during his second term but even in all that I remember most of the mainstream media defending and lionizing Reagan. Again, maybe I was just too young and not paying attention to politics enough but I'm thinking maybe this left-wing dominance of the media that clearly exists now started with the Clinton administration. That's when Hillary first put forward her theory of the right-wing dominance of the media. The thing is I actually kinda bought it back then because, like I said, that's the way it seemed to me in the 80s. People love to wax nostalgic about Reagan (he was a personable and likable guy) and yes, there was some slight recovery in his first term but his second term ended with one of the then biggest financial market crashes in history followed by a full term of recession with Bush 1. No wonder people were willing to give Bubba a chance in spite of his shady past.

The media wanted to be seen as supporting Reagan, as he was immensely popular, the economy was in recovery, and foreign policy was successful.  As opposed to the Carter years.  The media and the Ds were Liberal, but nothing like now.

Nominal GDP 1980:  $2.863 trillion
Nominal GDP 1984:  $4.041
Nominal GDP 1988:  $5.253

So the recovery was a bit more than slight.

Nominal GDP 1992:  $6.539

The recession under Bush The First was exaggerated.  While there are going to be recessions from time to time, the Reagan recovery was still rolling along.  By election day we were already in recovery, although recoveries are easier to spot in hindsight (the accepted definition is two straight quarters of economic growth).  Bush was fired for going back on his 'No New Taxes' pledge.

I believe the real shift in the Democrats, and the media, came when Hilary, as First Lady, made comments about taking people's guns, and setting up a national healthcare system.  The Ds lost pretty much every marginal House and Senate seat, losing control of the House for the first time in 50 years.  All that remained were the hard-core far-left kooks in the party.  From there they rebuilt a ''Progressive'' party.  The media followed suit.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Sorry, the president may not just do whatever the fuck he wants. That's not how any of this was supposed to work...

Well, it is for certain things, not for others.  Go back and re-read your copy of the Constitution.  It isn't very long.

[pate]

You're being silly now...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb0Jmy-JYbA


M'[wot:?}