What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[LaCroix]

also if anyone's wondering bannon used to be the ceo of an internet marketplace (a sort of internet wall street if you will). some have called his company a world of warcraft gold mining operation

not that this has any relevance whatsoever to his current position, but I figured I'd present the fact and the rumor before anyone posted it and tried to make it seem like something it wasn't

[CountDeMoney]

He also made shitty apocalyptic movies and a ton of money off Seinfeld.  Big fucking deal.

[LaCroix]

It's rare only because typically the party requests promptly in an appropriate case.

yeah, that's the whole point

[Admiral Yi]

For Ms. Warren's supporters, it was the latest and most visceral example of a woman muzzled by men who seemed unwilling to listen.

what? out of nowhere it comes out with this accusation of sexism.

That's not an accusation.  That's a characterization of the point of view of her supporters. You can critique it for accuracy (do you know her supporters well enough to say that's not a true statement) but it's not an example of editorial bias.

I like you Dakota.  I'm not entirely sure how sincere you are, but you're willing to stand up and take your knocks.  Keep doing what you're doing.

[LaCroix]

in essence, it becomes an accusation when it's speaking to the audience through its claims that her supporters (how many? it's a vague statement) believe it. I touched on this in my post.

it reminds me of sorta, kinda cross-examination. the purpose of cross is for the attorney to speak to the jury. the difference here is that the author is both asserting something and using the evidence, even if flimsy, to support his own assertion. the flimsy nature of the evidence is what damns the accuracy, because the flimsier it is, the less accurate it is and the more the author is just making evidence conform to his view

[Syt]

Abe and Trump shaking hands for 19 seconds. I love Abe's expression when they stop: http://www.politico.com/video/2017/02/abe-and-trump-shake-hands-for-19-seconds-062214

[LaCroix]

means nothing. abe's facial change says nothing except raise a mere possibility. at the very least, it's equally possible he was transitioning from staring at the cameras to seeking out his assistant. and the handshake's length means nothing, either. a ten second google search shows some random article that discusses an 82-second handshake: http://time.com/4104494/china-taiwan-relations-summit/. these handshakes occur for the cameras, and the longer the handshake means the more pictures the photographers produce.

but this has become an internet meme. and because it's a meme and generates attention, media focus on it. at least politico merely hosts the video and nothing more. other companies go as far as to actually publish an article on it

[grumbler]

Anyone who replies to the troll or tries to reason with him is lowering themselves down to his level of idiocy.

Just saying.

But you can inform the general audience.  Trolls will never themselves be convinced, I agree.  Even the ones not so arrogant that they don't deign to use punctuation.

La Croix doesn't even do a good job. He's a so-called Troll. Gives Trolls a bad name. Sad

You forgot "failing."

"Failing La Croix doesn't even do a good job. He's a so-called Troll. Gives Trolls a bad name. Sad"

[DontSayBanana]

You forgot "failing."

"Failing La Croix doesn't even do a good job. He's a so-called Troll. Gives Trolls a bad name. Sad"

And you're missing an exclamation mark there, buddy.

"Failing LaCroix doesn't even do a good job. He's a so-called Troll. Gives Trolls a bad name. Sad!"

[mongers]

because he took US secrets and cut a deal with powers at odds with US interests

Enough about Trump all-right.

[mongers]

Abe and Trump shaking hands for 19 seconds. I love Abe's expression when they stop: http://www.politico.com/video/2017/02/abe-and-trump-shake-hands-for-19-seconds-062214

The plaintive "Look at me" from Abe was quite amusing. 

edit:

Also this photo on board Marine one, provide your own title:

[viper37]

I haven't read the rule, but I can safely say not punishing her is legit

that's the problem with people like you, you are clearly in a post truth era.
Facts?  No, my convictions are stronger.
Truth?  I have Faith.

And you wonder, posting shit like that, why you keep getting banned by a trigger happy mod?

[viper37]

lol hey minsky

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/09/the-9th-circuits-dangerous-and-unprecedented-use-of-campaign-statements-to-block-presidential-policy/?utm_term=.5f8d04e917cd

The 9th Circuit fairly disingenuously cites several Supreme Court cases that show "that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims." But the cases it mentions do nothing more than look at legislative history — the formal process of adopting the relevant measure. That itself goes too far for textualists, but it provides absolutely no support for looking before the start of the formal deliberations on the measure to the political process of electing its proponents.

Indeed, a brief examination of cases suggests the idea has been too wild to suggest. For example, the 10th Circuit has rejected the use of a district attorney's campaign statements against certain viewpoints to show that a prosecution he commenced a few days after office was "bad faith or harassment." As the court explained, even looking at such statements would "chill debate during campaign." If campaign statements can be policed, the court concluded, it would in short undermine democracy: "the political process for selecting prosecutors should reflect the public's judgment as to the proper enforcement of the criminal laws." Phelps v. Hamilton, 59 F.3d 1058, 1068 (10th Cir. 1995).

There are sound policy reasons for ignoring campaign statements or promises to shed light on subsequent official action. For one, campaign promises are often insincere, designed to appeal to voters. Indeed, they are explicitly instrumental, and their goal is not policy outputs, but election. Moreover, implemented laws or policies are often substantially different from promises, as is the case here.

when a judge rule, he as to give credibility to the statements by all parties.

If some guys keeps saying he wants to kill muslims, and then when on trial for shooting muslims he says in his defense that he has nothing against muslims, his previous speech should be held against him to determine the truthfullness of his testimony.

[viper37]

because he took US secrets and cut a deal with powers at odds with US interests

No, he didn't.  He gave US secrets to Russia, and they are not at odds with US interests, it's all a lie spread by fake news and failed intelligence agencies that couldn't find any WMD in Iraq.  How can you believe them over what your President says?  Shouldn't you be a good patriot and stand by your President, no matter how idiotic he sounds?  That's what you keep saying, at least...  But now, you're just making a bold lie.  Or your President is lying.  But you can't both be true.

[Eddie Teach]

I haven't read the rule, but I can safely say not punishing her is legit

that's the problem with people like you, you are clearly in a post truth era.
Facts?  No, my convictions are stronger.
Truth?  I have Faith.

And you wonder, posting shit like that, why you keep getting banned by a trigger happy mod?

If this refers to Conways product endorsement, it's legit on the basis of "who gives a fuck?"