Fatty Liver Posted January 26, 2017 Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said: This is pretty cool. From 2012 but still relevant... Chris Chelios is supposedly in there somewhere, but I couldn't spot him. Maybe he's the dude with the wild hair and beard at the end of the bar at 1:15? Would have been hilarious if he was the "bride" in the gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted January 26, 2017 Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 Is Trump an idiot or is his strategy actually to flat out lie and to what end? I suppose if he makes everyone think everything is terrible then he can claim an improvement in a year. How can you take a guy seriously who just flat out makes things up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted January 26, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 The Unknown Poster and johnzo 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted January 26, 2017 Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 What are the odds 7.5 years from now trump comes up with a reason to suspend the election and remain President. He will then abolish the senate and form an American Empire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardCoreBlue Posted January 26, 2017 Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 5 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said: Is Trump an idiot or is his strategy actually to flat out lie and to what end? I suppose if he makes everyone think everything is terrible then he can claim an improvement in a year. How can you take a guy seriously who just flat out makes things up And imho, from a respectful conversational point of view and regardless one's political and social beliefs, it's high time we all try to get away from the 'yea, but that person/those people are worse' response. I'm sure I've been guilty of this tactic over my lifetime, but I'm trying to improve on not taking that approach. It's counter productive. We need to address the issue at hand that was raised, whatever the side of the fence it's coming from. Once we do, then move on and address any counter claims on their own. As my mom always said to me, two wrongs don't make it right. End rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted January 26, 2017 Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 20 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said: And imho, from a respectful conversational point of view and regardless one's political and social beliefs, it's high time we all try to get away from the 'yea, but that person/those people are worse' response. I'm sure I've been guilty of this tactic over my lifetime, but I'm trying to improve on not taking that approach. It's counter productive. We need to address the issue at hand that was raised, whatever the side of the fence it's coming from. Once we do, then move on and address any counter claims on their own. As my mom always said to me, two wrongs don't make it right. End rant. Um ok, the issue is the President of the United States makes up demonstrably false "facts" and pretends they are true. A by-product of that issue is motivation & cause. ie. Is he motivated by an inability to tell the truth or is the cause his lack of intelligence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted January 26, 2017 Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 1 hour ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said: Chris Chelios is supposedly in there somewhere, but I couldn't spot him. Maybe he's the dude with the wild hair and beard at the end of the bar at 1:15? Would have been hilarious if he was the "bride" in the gay marriage. I looked through as well and can't spot him. If he isn't the guy with the wild hair then I don't know where he would be. I thought he might be in the group protesting but no one looks like him that I can see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted January 26, 2017 Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 38 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said: What are the odds 7.5 years from now trump comes up with a reason to suspend the election and remain President. He will then abolish the senate and form an American Empire. how would he do that? There are checks and balances in place to prevent this from happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardCoreBlue Posted January 26, 2017 Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 17 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said: Um ok, the issue is the President of the United States makes up demonstrably false "facts" and pretends they are true. A by-product of that issue is motivation & cause. ie. Is he motivated by an inability to tell the truth or is the cause his lack of intelligence? I'm with you on that explanation, my post had nothing to do with you and what you posted here, sorry if you assumed that. I was just talking in general, like if someone responds to that post by saying 'look at that other person, they are worse'. Doesn't make the original post content any less impactful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted January 26, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 1 minute ago, kelownabomberfan said: how would he do that? There are checks and balances in place to prevent this from happening. Yeah I don't think he can easily turn the US away from democracy or extend his presidency. People have been making a big deal of the executive orders that Trump has signed his first few days in office, and I was curious what they exactly mean. Here is an interesting article on what they can and can't do. Basically, my understanding is they can't contradict any laws, they can't make new laws (those check and balances are in place). They are basically a means to dictate policy to government agencies, and they are easily revoked and overturned by the next president. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/23/politics/donald-trump-executive-orders-executive-actions/ There is an interesting info graphic in there about executive orders each president has done that I can't get to paste in here, the last few are: Obama - 277 George W. Bush - 291 Clinton - 364 George H. Bush - 166 Reagan - 381 Etc. Then there is Roosevelt who had 3,721. kelownabomberfan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted January 26, 2017 Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 5 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said: I'm with you on that explanation, my post had nothing to do with you and what you posted here, sorry if you assumed that. I was just talking in general, like if someone responds to that post by saying 'look at that other person, they are worse'. Doesn't make the original post content any less impactful. Oh I agree with that. That's the usual liberal response (lol - Im sure it works both ways). Like if we complain about Trudeau the response is "yeah but Harper...". if you complain about Trump its "Hilary is evil". Regardless of someone else's job performance or actions, we can judge and discuss other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted January 26, 2017 Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 14 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said: how would he do that? There are checks and balances in place to prevent this from happening. Being facetious. It was an argument made by many anti-Bush people during his Presidency that 9/11 and the war were the first steps in declaring Martial Law and essentially remaining in power. But as I read, there are two acts by which a President can declare martial law. One requires approval from the State in which the law is being enacted and the other requires consent from Congress. There is no law that allows the President to dissolve congress. Further, an order to the military from the President that violates the constitution would be not be considered a lawful order and they'd be required to disobey it. In fact, if the President tried to use the mi,military to cease power, its actually a legal requirement of the military to fight against the oppressors and conspirators. So Im not worried it would happen. But that doesnt preclude the possibility of Trump floating the idea. Although I get the impression he's already bored with being President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted January 26, 2017 Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basslicker Posted January 26, 2017 Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said: how would he do that? There are checks and balances in place to prevent this from happening. The odds are statistically irrelevant. The U.S. is built so a President cannot do that. This is also why they need to protect the 2nd Amendment...actually that's exactly why they have that amendment. One of the first things tyrants try to (and many times succeed) do is seize all the guns so the populace cannot properly defend itself. (many examples of this) So really, Obama and Hillary were more likely to try and seize power. But neither would actually dare and try. 150million gun owners can defend a country. The Unknown Poster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCon Posted January 26, 2017 Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 5 minutes ago, basslicker said: The odds are statistically irrelevant. The U.S. is built so a President cannot do that. This is also why they need to protect the 2nd Amendment...actually that's exactly why they have that amendment. One of the first things tyrants try to (and many times succeed) do is seize all the guns so the populace cannot properly defend itself. (many examples of this) So really, Obama and Hillary were more likely to try and seize power. But neither would actually dare and try. 150million gun owners can defend a country. No, undermining the institutions and limiting free speach is the first thing they try to do. That way, when they do come for the guns, they get them without resistance. They've started that. Also notice that Obama didn't take everyone's guns or begin the Islamic revolution the right-wing nutjobs (or are they mainstream now?) always claimed. bearpants and Wanna-B-Fanboy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted January 26, 2017 Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 6 minutes ago, basslicker said: The odds are statistically irrelevant. The U.S. is built so a President cannot do that. This is also why they need to protect the 2nd Amendment...actually that's exactly why they have that amendment. One of the first things tyrants try to (and many times succeed) do is seize all the guns so the populace cannot properly defend itself. (many examples of this) So really, Obama and Hillary were more likely to try and seize power. But neither would actually dare and try. 150million gun owners can defend a country. I disagree. It's why the 2nd amendment was important 200 years ago. But if that's why the 2nd amendment is important then it's proof it's irrelevant now there is a standing military that is empowered to uphold the constitution. The people are not required to. And in fact unable to. The fact the military would not follow an unconstitutional order makes the idea of a well armed militia of average Joe's totally irrelevant. bearpants 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomic Posted January 26, 2017 Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 1 minute ago, The Unknown Poster said: I disagree. It's why the 2nd amendment was important 200 years ago. But if that's why the 2nd amendment is important then it's proof it's irrelevant now there is a standing military that is empowered to uphold the constitution. The people are not required to. And in fact unable to. The fact the military would not follow an unconstitutional order makes the idea of a well armed militia of average Joe's totally irrelevant. Who decides it's an unconstitutional order? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomic Posted January 26, 2017 Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 2 minutes ago, JCon said: No, undermining the institutions and limiting free speach is the first thing they try to do. That way, when they do come for the guns, they get them without resistance. They've started that. Also notice that Obama didn't take everyone's guns or begin the Islamic revolution the right-wing nutjobs (or are they mainstream now?) always claimed. Who's limiting free speech? Haven't seen that yet but I'd love to hear some examples, which I'm sure you have if you're making such a bold claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCon Posted January 26, 2017 Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 5 minutes ago, Atomic said: Who's limiting free speech? Haven't seen that yet but I'd love to hear some examples, which I'm sure you have if you're making such a bold claim. Undermining the institutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted January 26, 2017 Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/23/donald-trump-first-president-turn-postmodernism/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted January 26, 2017 Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 10 minutes ago, JCon said: Undermining the institutions. I would argue that those institutions did a lot to undermine themselves. But yeah, now that the election is over, it would be nice to see the media and Trump both stop acting like such immature children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IC Khari Posted January 26, 2017 Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 Mark F 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomic Posted January 26, 2017 Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 28 minutes ago, JCon said: Undermining the institutions. You said limiting free speech AND undermining the institutions. One does not necessarily imply the other. Undermining the media is not limiting free speech. He is undermining the institutions, yes, but not limiting free speech. Why lie and exaggerate to make your point? It just makes honest, intelligent liberals look bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted January 26, 2017 Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 The ending of this video is just priceless... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark F Posted January 26, 2017 Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 2 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said: how would he do that? There are checks and balances in place to prevent this from happening. more importantly, why bother ? That would destroy the illusion, mentioned by Rich, that they've painstakingly created. IC Khari and kelownabomberfan 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts