(03-01-2017, 03:54 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]Well, looking at the 2016 Election, it is actually natural to question how far our voting franchise now extends. Way too many idiots are allowed to vote. Property ownership is probably not a good screen. But maybe there is a good screen that could be used. Open to suggestions on this one.
How about we not let Republicans vote?
/sarc
(03-01-2017, 03:54 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-28-2017, 11:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Steve Bannon has been a topic of conversation on a daily basis in the media, mostly because of his disturbing past and current actions. The Washington Post published a piece on Bannon, as did The Boston Globe, which brought some things to light that certainly doesn’t look good for Trump’s chief strategist.
Here are some things we learned from these two articles:
1) Some close to Bannon say he isn’t really racist, he’s just exploiting business opportunities. Ben Shapiro, the editor-in-chief of Dailywire.com, also previously worked as an editor at Breitbart. He believes Bannon has exploited the far right for political purposes, according to the NYT article.
Bannon’s classmates from Harvard told the Globe that they think their former colleague has been exploiting a business opportunity, profiting off the neglected demographic of poor, white-working class Americans. One of them told the Globe: “There’s a strong argument to be made that he was doing whatever any good business leader would do, which is serving his customers and providing a product.”
2) He draws inspiration from a Nazi propagandist. Bannon has said that he gets inspiration from Nazi propagandist and filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl. She directed “Triumph of the Will,” a propaganda film commissioned by Adolf Hitler in 1933 that portrays Germany as a country returning to world power.Bannon and Breitbart News have been denounced by civil rights groups for promoting racist views. The SPLC has called Breitbart a “white ethno-nationalist propaganda mill.”
3) He has troubling views on voting rights. One film colleague of Bannon’s told the Times that he had once said that voting rights should be limited to those who own property like in the early decades of US history.
“I said, ‘That would exclude a lot of African-Americans,’” Ms. Jones recalled. “He said, ‘Maybe that’s not such a bad thing.’ I said, ‘But what about Wendy?’” referring to Mr. Bannon’s executive assistant. “He said, ‘She’s different. She’s family.’
This man appears to be a greedy, exploitative, hate-mongering racist and he’s going to be calling a lot of the shots in the presidential administration. If that’s not scary to you, then you’re probably a Trump voter.
http://www.bluedotdaily.com/steve-bannon...bad-thing/
Well, looking at the 2016 Election, it is actually natural to question how far our voting franchise now extends. Way too many idiots are allowed to vote. Property ownership is probably not a good screen. But maybe there is a good screen that could be used. Open to suggestions on this one.
In an ideal world I would be OK with some kind of "civic literacy" test, but history shows that this country cannot be trusted to not twist it into a vehicle for racial discrimination.
Well, turns out Jeff Sessions committed perjury in front of the Senate by lying about contact with the Russian government. Time for Al Franken to grill his ass, again.
(03-02-2017, 08:03 AM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ]Well, turns out Jeff Sessions committed perjury in front of the Senate by lying about contact with the Russian government. Time for Al Franken to grill his ass, again.
Amazing isn't it. Trump actually managed to give a speech that sounded sane, then this blows-up.
This is a much bigger story than just Sessions. We'll be discussing the Trump-Russia connection all summer, maybe longer. Debbie Stabenow has made an issue of getting Trump's tax returns. Between the drip-drip-drip from the intelligence community and the bombshells in his taxes, count on this being entertaining at the very least. I'm starting to think that self preservation may drive the GOP House and Senate to act. They went after Hillary's emails for months. This is a whole lot juicier than that, and a lot more serious to boot.
It's political survival for Republicans. -- and perhaps more critically in the House of Representatives. All Republicans (and Democrats, of course) are up for re-election in 2018. Connections to a party with a major scandal are not good for winning re-election.
What is this hoopla regarding Sessions about? He spoke to the Russian Ambassador while a sitting Senator? Is there something else I'm missing?
(03-02-2017, 03:16 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]What is this hoopla regarding Sessions about? He spoke to the Russian Ambassador while a sitting Senator? Is there something else I'm missing?
-- nope, just the same idiots spoiling for a war with Russia
still
(03-02-2017, 03:16 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]What is this hoopla regarding Sessions about? He spoke to the Russian Ambassador while a sitting Senator? Is there something else I'm missing?
During his AG hearing in the Senate, Al Franken asked him a direct question about anyone in the Trump camp speaking to Russian officials during the campaign, and he outright lied. Clinton did much less and got impeached.
The worst part of it: he actually added some detail to the response that exceeded the information asked, by calling himself a surrogate.
(03-02-2017, 03:49 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2017, 03:16 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]What is this hoopla regarding Sessions about? He spoke to the Russian Ambassador while a sitting Senator? Is there something else I'm missing?
-- nope, just the same idiots spoiling for a war with Russia still
Perjury under oath is a felony. Sessions crossed that line, and had to know he was doing it; he's a lawyer, after all.
(03-02-2017, 04:11 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2017, 03:16 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]What is this hoopla regarding Sessions about? He spoke to the Russian Ambassador while a sitting Senator? Is there something else I'm missing?
During his AG hearing in the Senate, Al Franken asked him a direct question about anyone in the Trump camp speaking to Russian officials during the campaign, and he outright lied. Clinton did much less and got impeached.
The worst part of it: he actually added some detail to the response that exceeded the information asked, by calling himself a surrogate.
Wasn't Sessions a sitting Senator at the time? Was he discussing the election, on behalf of the Trump campaign?
These really aren't even rhetorical questions.
(03-02-2017, 04:16 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2017, 04:11 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2017, 03:16 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]What is this hoopla regarding Sessions about? He spoke to the Russian Ambassador while a sitting Senator? Is there something else I'm missing?
During his AG hearing in the Senate, Al Franken asked him a direct question about anyone in the Trump camp speaking to Russian officials during the campaign, and he outright lied. Clinton did much less and got impeached.
The worst part of it: he actually added some detail to the response that exceeded the information asked, by calling himself a surrogate.
Wasn't Sessions a sitting Senator at the time? Was he discussing the election, on behalf of the Trump campaign?
These really aren't even rhetorical questions.
He was asked what he would do if “there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign.” Sessions responded, “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I didn’t have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.”
The question was broad, and included any communication, and he lied about it. When you are under oath, that's perjury. He met with the Ambassador twice. It may have been innocent, but that's not what he said. If he had answered honestly, I doubt he would have been confirmed.
(03-02-2017, 04:31 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2017, 04:16 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2017, 04:11 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2017, 03:16 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]What is this hoopla regarding Sessions about? He spoke to the Russian Ambassador while a sitting Senator? Is there something else I'm missing?
During his AG hearing in the Senate, Al Franken asked him a direct question about anyone in the Trump camp speaking to Russian officials during the campaign, and he outright lied. Clinton did much less and got impeached.
The worst part of it: he actually added some detail to the response that exceeded the information asked, by calling himself a surrogate.
Wasn't Sessions a sitting Senator at the time? Was he discussing the election, on behalf of the Trump campaign?
These really aren't even rhetorical questions.
He was asked what he would do if “there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign.” Sessions responded, “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I didn’t have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.”
The question was broad, and included any communication, and he lied about it. When you are under oath, that's perjury. He met with the Ambassador twice. It may have been innocent, but that's not what he said. If he had answered honestly, I doubt he would have been confirmed.
So, is the panic over perjury, or over meeting with the Russian Ambassador in general?
(03-02-2017, 04:37 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2017, 04:31 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2017, 04:16 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2017, 04:11 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2017, 03:16 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]What is this hoopla regarding Sessions about? He spoke to the Russian Ambassador while a sitting Senator? Is there something else I'm missing?
During his AG hearing in the Senate, Al Franken asked him a direct question about anyone in the Trump camp speaking to Russian officials during the campaign, and he outright lied. Clinton did much less and got impeached.
The worst part of it: he actually added some detail to the response that exceeded the information asked, by calling himself a surrogate.
Wasn't Sessions a sitting Senator at the time? Was he discussing the election, on behalf of the Trump campaign?
These really aren't even rhetorical questions.
He was asked what he would do if “there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign.” Sessions responded, “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I didn’t have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.”
The question was broad, and included any communication, and he lied about it. When you are under oath, that's perjury. He met with the Ambassador twice. It may have been innocent, but that's not what he said. If he had answered honestly, I doubt he would have been confirmed.
So, is the panic over perjury, or over meeting with the Russian Ambassador in general?
It's always the cover-up that gets them in trouble. Watergate was a two-bit burglary until Nixon lied about it. Clinton getting a blowjob was juicy but petty. He also lied, and that was the basis for this impeachment.
We'll see if that's the direction they choose to go with it. Looking at the news, they seem to be playing up the Manchurian (Siberian?) Candidate angle instead, which is more concerning.
(03-02-2017, 04:37 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2017, 04:31 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2017, 04:16 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2017, 04:11 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2017, 03:16 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]What is this hoopla regarding Sessions about? He spoke to the Russian Ambassador while a sitting Senator? Is there something else I'm missing?
During his AG hearing in the Senate, Al Franken asked him a direct question about anyone in the Trump camp speaking to Russian officials during the campaign, and he outright lied. Clinton did much less and got impeached.
The worst part of it: he actually added some detail to the response that exceeded the information asked, by calling himself a surrogate.
Wasn't Sessions a sitting Senator at the time? Was he discussing the election, on behalf of the Trump campaign?
These really aren't even rhetorical questions.
He was asked what he would do if “there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign.” Sessions responded, “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I didn’t have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.”
The question was broad, and included any communication, and he lied about it. When you are under oath, that's perjury. He met with the Ambassador twice. It may have been innocent, but that's not what he said. If he had answered honestly, I doubt he would have been confirmed.
So, is the panic over perjury, or over meeting with the Russian Ambassador in general?
Both! Sessions! What a snake. He's wrong on absolutely everything. He is a racist. He ought to resign and of course should never have been nominated. His nomination helped prove Trump is a snake too. An alligator in the swamp. He was a major advisor in the campaign. Consorting with the Russians about how to get them elected and screw over American interests. I say, speak up, and get him out now!
(03-02-2017, 08:43 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2017, 07:19 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2017, 06:53 PM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2017, 03:49 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2017, 03:16 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]What is this hoopla regarding Sessions about? He spoke to the Russian Ambassador while a sitting Senator? Is there something else I'm missing?
-- nope, just the same idiots spoiling for a war with Russia still
You can't can't "spoil for a war" that Russia already started, but keep your head stuck in the anti-American fringe-leftist sand. 
Define "American" in this context.
-- hell, define war for that matter. What war?
Yes, that's a detail as well. The word, "war" has been fuzzied up a lot. I mean, like other post, how does "war" apply to inanimate substances?
(03-02-2017, 04:37 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2017, 04:31 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2017, 04:16 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2017, 04:11 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2017, 03:16 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]What is this hoopla regarding Sessions about? He spoke to the Russian Ambassador while a sitting Senator? Is there something else I'm missing?
During his AG hearing in the Senate, Al Franken asked him a direct question about anyone in the Trump camp speaking to Russian officials during the campaign, and he outright lied. Clinton did much less and got impeached.
The worst part of it: he actually added some detail to the response that exceeded the information asked, by calling himself a surrogate.
Wasn't Sessions a sitting Senator at the time? Was he discussing the election, on behalf of the Trump campaign?
These really aren't even rhetorical questions.
He was asked what he would do if “there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign.” Sessions responded, “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I didn’t have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.”
The question was broad, and included any communication, and he lied about it. When you are under oath, that's perjury. He met with the Ambassador twice. It may have been innocent, but that's not what he said. If he had answered honestly, I doubt he would have been confirmed.
So, is the panic over perjury, or over meeting with the Russian Ambassador in general?
Its about a patter of behavior of Trump surrogates trying to negotiate foreign policy before Trump was actually sworn in, and then lying about it and trying to hide it.