Red Mosquito

washing machine wrote:

pepperwhiteMFC wrote:

washing machine wrote:Can't disagree with any of that, pepperman.

Let's impeach the orange bastard before his wife's arsenic finally kills him.

Whether he's thrown out of office or not isn't the important part. Going to court to face criminal charges might take the wind out of his sail a little bit.

I thought this was a joke, but apparently they really were watching Finding Dory at the White House today...while the rest of the world was busy talking about the White House.

Spoiler: show

For some reason, I immediately thought

He totally ruined it for brother Jeb.

Finding Dory? Oh man. Meanwhile a trifecta of illegitimacy is on the horizon. http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/20 ... egitimacy/

Should have watched Secret Life of Pets.

Not sure if I have posted this here or not? Anyways, it can't hurt to serve as a reminder:

115th Congress - 1st session

H. R. 193 - To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... l/193/text

BurtReynolds wrote:http://www.wouldisurviveanuke.com/

I'm at the foot of Norad - and surrounding me to the northeast are defunct Titan missile silos. I can only hope that N. Korea's intelligence reports are up-to-date. Never forget me, Burt.

290,000 individual donations to ACLU since Saturday morning, totaling $19.4 million.

This is a pretty back asswards approach to making America great again, but

pepperwhiteMFC wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:http://www.wouldisurviveanuke.com/

I'm at the foot of Norad - and surrounding me to the northeast are defunct Titan missile silos. I can only hope that N. Korea's intelligence reports are up-to-date. Never forget me, Burt.

I would die a slow death from radiation burns.

pepperwhiteMFC wrote:Not sure if I have posted this here or not? Anyways, it can't hurt to serve as a reminder:

115th Congress - 1st session

H. R. 193 - To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... l/193/text

While I didn't post your link, I posted this news pages and pages ago.

Thanks for the link.

McParadigm wrote:

4/5 wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:This National Review piece is very good: Trump’s Executive Order on Refugees — Separating Fact from Hysteria

fair and balanced headline, I expect a cool, detached, disinterested article to follow.

I'll check it out, be back in a few.

It may well actually be a fine article. There IS, after all, quite a lot of talk going on about something most people have minimal understanding of.

However, there ARE very problematic aspects of this order, as a statement of fact, and the biggest part of the story going forward will be:

1. The disastrous rollout
2. The human drama

I mean the article was a fine argument regarding what the executive order specifically changes, and importantly doesn't, change about policy. It also dismisses out of hand any criticism of the order as being hysterical.

I'd just add that you can't separate the order from the rhetoric, from the fact that it is becoming very obvious exactly who has the president's ear, that he has every intention of fulfilling 18 months of promises of division, and that the administration will clearly make policy first and worry about practical issues later. Oh, and that they have every intention of ruling by decree instead of going through the typical policy-making channels or at least including congressional leadership in these decisions. And this at a time when Congress is controlled by the same party. It all seems to bode poorly for checks and balances and thoughtful, measured policy during this term.

There is definitely legitimate cause for concern that goes well beyond simple policy disagreement.

4/5 wrote:I'd just add that you can't separate the order from the rhetoric

I'm at work now and won't have time to really engage with this until later but, perhaps predictably, I really disagree.

I was wrong
Trump vs the federal court system will be on the list as well.

Birds in Hell wrote:

4/5 wrote:I'd just add that you can't separate the order from the rhetoric

I'm at work now and won't have time to really engage with this until later but, perhaps predictably, I really disagree.

I'm sure you do. I'd argue that based on everything Mr. Trump and the people closest to him have said and are saying even as this order is issued, it's very reasonable to view this as the beginning of new policy, not the end itself.

better one: http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap

weird that there is only fallout on a ground impact but not airburst. Good thing nukes are detonated in the air.

4/5 wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

4/5 wrote:I'd just add that you can't separate the order from the rhetoric

I'm at work now and won't have time to really engage with this until later but, perhaps predictably, I really disagree.

I'm sure you do. I'd argue that based on everything Mr. Trump and the people closest to him have said and are saying even as this order is issued, it's very reasonable to view this as the beginning of new policy, not the end itself.

The National Review also kind of papers over the fact that this executive order stems from a policy proposal Trump made in which he proposed a bar on Muslims, straight up. It's entirely reasonable to view this as a way of achieving a similar end through more palatable means, which is basically what Giuliani said was the intention behind the action.

BurtReynolds wrote:

pepperwhiteMFC wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:http://www.wouldisurviveanuke.com/

I'm at the foot of Norad - and surrounding me to the northeast are defunct Titan missile silos. I can only hope that N. Korea's intelligence reports are up-to-date. Never forget me, Burt.

I would die a slow death from radiation burns.

That actually sounds worse. I would need to moved to Larkspur, at least, in order to feel your pain.

BurtReynolds wrote:http://www.wouldisurviveanuke.com/

"Survive-but I wish I was dead because the internet is knocked out."

digster wrote:The National Review also kind of papers over the fact that this executive order stems from a policy proposal Trump made in which he proposed a bar on Muslims, straight up. It's entirely reasonable to view this as a way achieving a similar end through more palatable means, which is basically what Giuliani said was the intention behind the action.

It doesn't paper over it so much as ignore it, rightly, because it's completely irrelevant.