Jump to content
"Thank goodness a majority of States elected Trump President and a majority of voters elected a GOP Congress..."
Try again; 3.7M more votes were cast for Democrats in the Senate. Granted, Texas didn't have a Senate race this cycle, but that doesn't make your statement factual.
"Elections have consequences..."
I'm tired of hearing such hypocrisy from those who supported NOT holding hearings on Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court.
In my experience, you just never know how someone's going to handle a Presidential appointment. Heck, ask Obama about Comey... or Reagan's ghost about O'Connor. Is Rex Tillerson professional enough to tailor his knowledge, experience, and expertise to serving We the People as opposed to the shareholders of a public corporation? I think yes, he's just the sort of non-ideological professional who's capable of rising to the responsibilities of his office. I also feel that way about Ryan Zinke -- these guys may turn out to be good choices for the nation.
Neil Gorsuch... maybe in a different reality, but not for a "stolen seat." If the GOP's (alleged) reasoning to not hold hearings on Merrick Garland was that Obama didn't have "enough time left in office" then heck yeah, the Democrats need to filibuster Gorsuch as a matter of principle. How much time before Trump has to be impeached even by a Republican majority, if there's fire causing all the smoke?
Our intelligence agencies are leaking like sieves right now. Tillerson's not that close to the action, but someone in Trump's inner circle, is seriously considered to be a Russian mole by our intelligence agencies? This includes the FBI, who were "in the bag" for Trump, and the CIA who likewise wanted Hillary? Apparently, they didn't (just) mean Flynn.
How long before even the GOP's had enough of Trump to impeach him, because like Truman said, the buck's gotta stop at the top? Even Trump's cellphone is a threat to national security. Frankly, I don't think he'll be in the Oval Office for even the year the GOP froze out Garland. If Mike Pence wants to go with Gorsuch, so be it, but the biggest fault I can find with him is he's TRUMP's nominee.
Which is really the only reason the GOP didn't want Garland -- he was OBAMA's nominee. Turnabout is fair play, let Pence decide, hopefully sooner rather than later. No, I'm not a big Pence fan either, but I'm already wistful for the non-scandalous eight years we got from Obama (aside from the manufactured Benghazi fracas, standard GOP vs. Clinton crap most of the country's fed up enough with for a minority of us to have voted for Trump in the first place).
"The scariest is Rex Tillerson for secretary of state. He recently was given the highest medal a citizen could be given — by Vladimir Putin. Vlad's on his speed dial. What could possibly be bad about that? Conflict of interest or compromising information as starters."
I'm giving Tillerson the benefit of the doubt, and reserving judgment. For starters, he's about the only cabinet appointee (despite the example being set by Trump) who divested his holdings and so on and so forth, thus actually setting the best ethical example of anyone in the new administration. Plus he's disagreed publicly with Trump on a couple of issues since being confirmed, so this is HARDLY surprising:
"When Trump decided over a dinner to approve a special forces counter-terrorist raid in Yemen, there was no one from the state department present who would normally have highlighted the dangers of civilian casualties from such operations for wider US interests in the region."
Was anyone at State "in the loop" when Trump handled a Korean missile test over dinner? Tillerson's being set up to fail. I'm not a big Elliot Abrams fan to say the least, but Trump's reason for micromanaging Tillerson's choice of deputy is absurdly weak (i.e. not sycophantic enough).
Tillerson may be the best Secretary of State we never had. How can we know, if he isn't allowed to do his job, by the President whose pleasure he serves at? Instead, we have Miller and Bannon making foreign-relations decisions purely based on ideology, which is even WORSE than an ex-Exxon CEO heading up a bureaucracy of career professionals who actually know what's up, imo.
Have to agree. Debbie Wasserman-Schulz is out as head of the DNC after all the cheating to freeze Bernie out of the nomination came to light, substituting the candidate most likely to defeat Trump, for the candidate least likely. Even after the biggest humiliation in the history of American politics, who's in charge?
Chuck Shumer and Nancy Pelosi? Talk about just not getting it!!! The Dems handed Trump the election on a silver platter, not because of anything to do with Hillary's candidacy, but for anointing Hillary their candidate in the first place. Although there's as yet no evidence this lesson has been learned.
Sore loser syndrome? Puuuhhleeeze.
Any rational American has to be more than a little concerned about a President who's now in charge of the investigations into his connections to Russia, won't release his tax returns, divest his business holdings into a blind trust, could care less about anti-nepotism laws, is in violation of his lease on the Old Post Office (not that Sessions will do his duty to the American people as our AG, the President has his own legal counsel, on that one), owes $300M to a bank recently fined $600M for laundering Russian money despite sanctions -- while remaining under investigation (also now controlled by President Trump) by the DOJ...
You're exactly right! Nothing to see here!!! Just the bitter taste of sour grapes from those "losers" who expect any President to abide by the Constitution and not be a puppet of Vlad Putin.
What could possibly go wrong?
"Calling, 'Fire' in a crowded space is illegal (look it up), so it never happens, is that right?"
Hahaha!!! Boston guy was arrested in the wee hours yesterday morning for pulling the fire alarm in the Steelers' hotel. Not free speech!!! ;)
"Considering that Whitney's comments focus on Women's Rights as Human Rights and it's already against the law to discriminate based on gender, can anyone offer a single example of a Right in 2017 that an American man has that an American woman does not?"
Howzabout the right to not get raped on campus at a public university?
Of course it's a controversial documentary, but the criticisms I've read of it don't discredit the facts surrounding it. Campus rape was starting to become an issue when I was in college, then it appeared to have been dealt with and gone away, but as it turns out that was kindof a buch o' BS and it was really being covered up for various reasons pertaining to fundraising, liability insurance, and prestigious enrollment opportunities.
Using Title IX to combat this, is ingenious. I may love watching Jameis Winston play QB, provided the Bucs are losing to the Broncos, but he seems to have roofied that classmate back in College and that's as reprehensible as it is every time it happens in a Steamboat bar. Because unless you're in an utter state of denial, yeah it does happen, and in the not-so-recent past all a gal had to do around here was convince Detective Mumboza that she wasn't just a slut.
Or have you forgotten, or conveniently decided to just not remember, any of that? Seriously dude, the evidence is staring you in the face on a daily basis even locally, so you must just choose not to see. Or maybe you think dudes get roofied in SS bars on a regular basis, like the gals. Not sure if you're in a state of denial, or suffering cognitive dissonance, or what?
I don't recall stories of SSPD officials making sexist comments about little boys... but thanks for asking your question, as if any disparaties are somehow "made up" despite recent, local precedent proving otherwise!
"I have two such young people living in my family and there are endless lists of people who would gladly take another child into their home should abortion be limited and thus have more children who could not reasonably remain with their mothers."
Because their mothers died in childbirth, knowing full well that would be the outcome, but abortion was a choice forbidden to them? How is that "pro-life" when foster care's already just a darn mess with too many unwanted children? Unless you solve the problem of not enough families out there happy to take another child into their home, how do you propose society warehouse the rest? And what kind of existence is that, in exchange for a dead woman who might just have contributed to society if she hadn't been forced to carry to term knowing full well it'd be the end of her? How that's somehow YOUR decision to make for HER is what befuddles me.
"Reply" failed me (again) so here's pt. 2 of my post waaaay up above:
Or fewer abortions? The lesser of two evils, in my book. Pass enough restrictions and you'll drive your official State abortion numbers down, eventually, by driving women out-of-state unless Roe v Wade gets dismantled in which case even the blue states will suffer... point being, at this particular time, we have the knowledge, experience, and statistics to prove (for those who even give a crap about the real facts vs. the "alternative" facts anymore) that the best ways to reduce abortions, are not restricting abortions, and subsidizing birth control.
Just sayin' I understand why the Women's March wasn't inclusive of the "pro-life" minority. "If you get pregnant, you must have a baby OR ELSE!!!" couldn't be further from the message being expressed around the globe, in response to Donald Trump being inaugurated, last Saturday. The only hypocrites I see, are the ones who insist on being referred to as "pro-life" rather than "anti-abortion" and even anti-birth-control, when their policy solutions lead to the deaths of not only more mothers, but also more aborted babies? Because they can't begin to compromise even on birth control?
If the Women's March doesn't want to fade into irrelevancy i.e. Occupy, then they must claim the "Pro-Life" branding mantle for themselves, with plenty of justification. IMHO, IANAW lol.
Yeah, gals, I get the pink-knit-hat thing, OK? Whatever my religious/moral views may be, which I'm scrupulously keeping out of this, they're on the "list of things" you want me to keep up out from up your uteruses without your say-so. Got it!
Even if I feel inclined to bring up my one misogynistic belief in rebuttal:
The exclusion of the anti-abortion crowd from the Women's March smacks of the cliquey, you-can't-sit-with-us teenage girl behavior I just hated growing up, even if I was captain of the Swim Team and later a Frat Boy who as Social Chairman just always struck out with a coupla campus sororities who were just too snobby for me & my brothers. We didn't let it bother us, or ever have any allegations of any improprieties while Chi Phi even existed at CU-Boulder.
But in this case, yeah, I get it. Telling the anti-abortion gals "you can't sit with us" makes all kinds of sense to me. Nutshell, it'd maybe make more sense to others if y'all would please appropriate the "Pro-Life" branding moniker unto your cause. Because abstinence-only, beg for contraceptives, no-abortions visions of America are demonstrably Anti-Life.
Last login: Thursday, February 23, 2017
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2017 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |