Is the US President supposed to represent all the people?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

No, you can't take it. I wouldn't have minded at all, in fact homosexuals often have better relationships with their mothers than heteros. ...

That sounds like a bit of a stereotype.

OMG. Ummm. It also happens to be true, fool! Note the word 'often'??????????????? The absence of the word 'always'?????????????
Shove your PCness, bloody British git! Now you can report me for 'hate speech'.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/05/han ... -pronouns/

[Arising_uk]

Which bit of "bit" don't you get? I've met gay guys whose mothers were not happy with them being gay so that's true as well.

No idea why you are so up yourself about 'political correctness'? You really want to go back to the days of people yelling coon and n*****-lover at those walking with black friends, queer-hate and all the other lovely 'rights to free speech' that the bigots want back in the open.

So what if we invent new pronouns? Don't like 'em don't use 'em.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Which bit of "bit" don't you get? I've met gay guys whose mothers were not happy with them being gay so that's true as well.

No idea why you are so up yourself about 'political correctness'? You really want to go back to the days of people yelling coon and n*****-lover at those walking with black friends, queer-hate and all the other lovely 'rights to free speech' that the bigots want back in the open.

So what if we invent new pronouns? Don't like 'em don't use 'em.

If you can't work out the difference between human rights and political correctness then that's not my problem. I don't think that getting offended 'on behalf of' those who might not in reality be offended at all, is helpful to anyone, not to mention patronising. Sometimes I see something described as 'offensive to women'. Oh really? That's strange. I wasn't offended by it. Did I miss something?
There's a world of difference between simply being polite and empathetic (I haven't seen much evidence of that in the PC either. Ask Richard Dawkins, after he was crucified by rabid feminazis for a pretty mild comment about one of them--which happened to be true), and being a fanatical lunatic who doesn't have any genuine empathy, so they overcompensate by looking for racism, sexism, islamophobia, transphobia, homophobia etc. etc. in the most inane and harmless comments. Presumably this is to show how 'enlightened and tolerant' they are. They do tend to be hypocrites. I've noticed how these fanatical islam-defenders nearly always hate Israel (Jews). I've also noticed that they more often than not live as far as possible from the 'multicultural melting-pots' they claim to love so much.

''So what if we invent new pronouns? Don't like 'em don't use 'em.''
That would be fine, except that it's illegal not to use them in some places now.
''TORONTO, November 15, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — Refusing to use a transgendered person’s chosen name, preferred pronoun such as “ze” or “xer,” or “purposely misgendering” them is discrimination and could be liable to fines, says Ontario Human Rights Commission chief commissioner Renu Mandhane.''
You don't find that just a teensy bit over the top? Is not doing this really going to result in the murder and suicide of 'alternatively gendered persons'?

[SpheresOfBalance]

I ask because I just listened to the Trumpette say those lying sick in alleyways are not republicans so not his problem?

Arising, I'm sure you're aware by now that the guy is an idiot, right? Of course I'm assuming you've been paying attention to the things he's been saying since he started his campaign. As my son said, 'he shouldn't do too much damage in 4 years, because he surely will never be elected for a second term.' I'm sure that he shall be remembered as the worst US president ever.

[Walker]

Shared bigotry and whining about the mean man does not an argument make.

Trump says he was bugged.

One of his first calls as POTUS was to Australia. The possibly purported content of his conversation, over the official and secure phone of the president, was leaked to the press not long after the call. The leaker’s ID is currently not proven.

Also, his home was bugged when he was a private citizen.
Maybe it was bugged by the same Rooskies who somehow snatched Hillary's victory.
Maybe it was Spectre.

Trump has the law on his side but he's threatening the big house of cards that's built on self-preservation of the functionaries.

He has already clearly declared that his intent is to represent the people.

The question is, what is his take on the meaning of enemy and war.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Shared bigotry and whining about the mean man does not an argument make.

Trump says he was bugged.

One of his first calls as POTUS was to Australia. The possibly purported content of his conversation, over the official and secure phone of the president, was leaked to the press not long after the call. The leaker’s ID is currently not proven.

Also, his home was bugged when he was a private citizen.
Maybe it was bugged by the same Rooskies who somehow snatched Hillary's victory.
Maybe it was Spectre.

Trump has the law on his side but he's threatening the big house of cards that's built on self-preservation of the functionaries.

He has already clearly declared that his intent is to represent the people.

The question is, what is his take on the meaning of enemy and war.

You are confusing two distinct issues.
1) The call to Australia, was leaked by a member of Trumps own team, during his own administration.
2) The alleged bugging. Trump has offered ZERO evidence, but made a complet fool of himself like the twittering loon he is by trying to blame Obama.

[Walker]

It looks pretty obvious that he bugged him all right. What’s in doubt is whether or not it was legal.

Team Obama issued a carefully worded response that legally parsed by stressing that the White House did not order the bugging.

“If the stories are correct, Obama or his officials might even face prosecution. But, we are still early in all of this and there are a lot of rumors flying around so the key is if the reports are accurate. We just don’t know at this time. The stories currently are three-fold: first, that Obama’s team tried to get a warrant from a regular, Article III federal court on Trump, and was told no by someone along the way (maybe the FBI), as the evidence was that weak or non-existent; second, Obama’s team then tried to circumvent the federal judiciary’s independent role by trying to mislabel the issue one of “foreign agents,” and tried to obtain a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act “courts”, and were again turned down, when the court saw Trump named (an extremely rare act of FISA court refusal of the government, suggesting the evidence was truly non-existent against Trump); and so, third, Obama circumvented both the regular command of the FBI and the regularly appointed federal courts, by placing the entire case as a FISA case (and apparently under Sally Yates at DOJ) as a “foreign” case, and then omitted Trump’s name from a surveillance warrant submitted to the FISA court, which the FISA court unwittingly granted, which Obama then misused to spy on Trump and many connected to Trump. Are these allegations true? We don’t know yet, but if any part of them are than Obama and/or his officials could face serious trouble.”

Yes, There Could Be Serious Legal Problems if Obama Admin Involved in Illegal Surveillance
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/yes-oba ... veillance/

[Walker]

Obama has a history of such activity.

May 20, 2013

“The Justice Department spied extensively on Fox News reporter James Rosen in 2010, collecting his telephone records, tracking his movements in and out of the State Department and seizing two days of Rosen’s personal emails, the Washington Post reported on Monday.

“In a chilling move sure to rile defenders of civil liberties, an FBI agent also accused Rosen of breaking anti-espionage law with behavior that—as described in the agent's own affidavit—falls well inside the bounds of traditional news reporting. (Disclosure: This reporter counts Rosen among his friends.)”

Obama administration spied on Fox News reporter James Rosen: Report
https://www.yahoo.com/news/blogs/ticket ... 04299.html

[Hobbes' Choice]

It looks pretty obvious that he bugged him all right. What’s in doubt is whether or not it was legal.

No evidence.

[Walker]

Tip of the iceberg.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Tip of the iceberg.

No evidence is no evidence.

[Walker]

Since President Trump didn’t read about the evidence in the papers, his knowledge of the evidence is classified, and to reveal it would be breaking the law. If he did that, then that would immediately become the story, and let the impeachment begin. Any illegalities of the previous administration would simply be ignored. SOP.

The above link does mention that Obama’s surrogates did seek wiretaps on Trump, and they were denied, likely because they were unwarranted.

Maybe team Obama just said oh shucks, the legal branch says we can't so we can’t, so we better stop. Maybe that happened. Not likely though, since he defied federal judges while president.

Knowing that Obama bugged and he can’t say why, Trump simply tweeted it. He left no doubt for his loyal minions. Now, if Obama wants justice with some kind of legal proceeding, that will bring factual inquiry and evidence into play.

When he was almighty powerful, Obama is known to have ordered at least one American citizen assassinated without due process of law, so some little old law about wiretapping shouldn’t be much of a speed bump for him. Besides, deviation from his history of whoppers would be an anomaly.

Obama probably doesn’t want any factual legal examination. Most likely, he would prefer to play the public martyr wounded by the mean man, the big bully with the pulpit who really should be tending to more important things. He might make some wounded noises, file some papers or something, that’s about all.

I read that his puppeteer took the spare bedroom. Rather eccentric, what? Could be one of those fake new stories.

[Walker]

For your convenience during the sojourn of sincerely desiring to understand, here’s a pissed-off expert using public, non-classified information to logically explain why President Trump is the victim of police-state tactics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91fNfGjZdM0

[Walker]

I ask because I just listened to the Trumpette say those lying sick in alleyways are not republicans so not his problem?

Arising, I'm sure you're aware by now that the guy is an idiot, right? Of course I'm assuming you've been paying attention to the things he's been saying since he started his campaign. As my son said, 'he shouldn't do too much damage in 4 years, because he surely will never be elected for a second term.' I'm sure that he shall be remembered as the worst US president ever.

“Whenever you see the Going Bonkers Edition of Trump, you know he is about to game the media, and win a political row.”



How Trump got the media to kill the Яussian meme
http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2017/03/h ... -meme.html

Funny and if true, that would put Trump deniers at least four rational moves behind in comprehending reality.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I ask because I just listened to the Trumpette say those lying sick in alleyways are not republicans so not his problem?

Arising, I'm sure you're aware by now that the guy is an idiot, right? Of course I'm assuming you've been paying attention to the things he's been saying since he started his campaign. As my son said, 'he shouldn't do too much damage in 4 years, because he surely will never be elected for a second term.' I'm sure that he shall be remembered as the worst US president ever.

“Whenever you see the Going Bonkers Edition of Trump, you know he is about to game the media, and win a political row.”



How Trump got the media to kill the Яussian meme
http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2017/03/h ... -meme.html

Funny and if true, that would put Trump deniers at least four rational moves behind in comprehending reality.

Poor yanks. Still not aware that the 'cold war' ended decades ago.
I don't suppose they are aware either of the extreme irony of American having a hissing fit at the thought of another country interfering with their election.