Another foreign policy adviser on the transition team gone http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/16/us...tics&smtyp=cur In another sign of disarray, a transition official said on Tuesday that Mr. Trump had removed a second senior defense and foreign policy official from his transition team, Matthew Freedman, who runs a Washington consulting firm that advises foreign governments and companies seeking to do business with the United States government. Mr. Freedman, who had been in charge of coordinating Mr. Trump’s calls to world leaders after his election, is a former business associate of Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s former campaign manager, who once worked on the re-election bid of Ferdinand E. Marcos, the Filipino dictator ousted in the 1980s.
I can see America regressing into a 1950's style McCarthyist country, with witch-hunts of Minority leaders and the Liberal Left. Kobach was the guy that joked about Obama not having a birth certificate, right?
He is sort of a racist-for-hire. If you want write a law that restricts the voting rights of minorities, or discriminates against them then you hire him. He will draft a law for you. The law will be unconstitutional and will be struck down. But you can take some solace that during the hassle and delay you ****ed some non-whites over. What he does takes very little skill and he is actually quite **** at it. But, racists are typically unreliable and most other people have some slight levels of morality so he is useful. The fact that he has been hired so many times gives him a sheen of respectability where the far right can claim he is qualified. And the fact that his laws are so brazen and his failures so public make him somewhat of a cult hero to the fringe. Everyone hates him. Even people fairly far to the right, but know what they are doing hate him. Because they prefer their dirty deeds done under the table. But he is very useful in situations just like this where you need to appease a far right base with a splashy racist. And then it buys you time to find someone better and then you can just cut him loose. When you are only thinking one-two years ahead and who cares if the everything blows up afterwards, he's your man. It would not surprise me if McConnell opts to keep the filibuster option in the Senate and allows the Democrats to stall his nomination. No one wants him around, but the Democrats will take the heat for obstructing Trump, which is useful to the GOP. And could be useful to Trump as well as he can then appoint someone else who is better at whatever goal he has in mind whether it is appeasing the middle or appeasing the right. Kobach won't mind. Creating chaos and fear and then slinking away is his job.
I watch CNN and BBC and CH4. I am well aware that the right wing media is incredibly right wing biased but it isn't that which makes me moan about the mainstream media. The right wing media is purposefully biased. It is pretty obvious. The reason is that the MSM despite its selective bias and interpretation bias is not as bad as things like the DM or Breitbart. Anyone who only uses Breitbart or the Mail as a news source will be less informed but how many actually do that? People are inundated with facebook and Google's choice of "unbiased", all the MSM TV channels are the same. Most people will see much more of this left leaning stuff than a select few that are in right wing echo chambers.
How did he let them in? He made sure that they only got 1 seat in parliament despite Labour being in disarray. Brexit might be a success for people with UKIP ideas but they still only have 1 seat. If they get more than 1 seat next time round it will be because of Labour unless the Tories fudge Brexit when they'll both be licking their wounds and the Tories scrabbling around looking for a coalition partner again.
Ukip have fulfilled their agenda. They were and are a single issue party, which is why they are now in disarray. Whether they can have a future as a nationalist group to the right of the Tories, scooping up disaffected Labour voters, remains to be seen. History would seem to suggest that the British electorate is sceptical of extremism, so I doubt they have much of a future; but I'm not making any confident predictions in this era of shifting tectonic plates. In the meantime, they got what they wanted and Cameron handed it to them.
Am I the victim of a homophobic SNP hate crime? http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/search-trumps-alleged-homophobia-continues/
**** article. Trump personally probably isn't homophobic. Or maybe he is, but he doesn't care too much about it. That's not the case with Pence and many other members of his proposed cabinet.
But she attacked Trump by offering "anecdotal" and someone else's views as the evidence. Then pointed out that she herself held views contrary (be definition of her implication on Mike Pence) until she decided there was more chance of success on the other side of politics.
The government has prepared a short three-line bill to begin the Brexit process - so Theresa May can meet her March deadline, it is understood. Sources say they believe the legislation is so tightly drawn it will be difficult for critical MPs to amend. Ministers have drawn up the legislation in case they lose their appeal to the Supreme Court - which would force them to consult Parliament. The High Court ruled against the government earlier this month. Sources say the government would plan to introduce the bill in the Commons immediately after the Supreme Court ruling. The hope would be to push the bill through the Commons in two weeks. It would then go to the House of Lords where it is understood the government hopes peers would back down. They believe peers would not dare defy MPs - if the Commons had approved the legislation. Sources say they have devised the bill to be "bomb-proof" to amendments. This would mean Mrs May could meet her March deadline for triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which begins the formal negotiation process. Sources say although they looked at allowing Parliament a vote through "a substantive motion" rather than legislation, they decided this would leave them vulnerable to further legal challenge. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37986591
No, he wrote an article the other day on "is Trump really a fascist?" countering each argument with examples of why he isn't. The original article was asking if Trump himself believed these things saying that someone else's reaction (which I accept will be representative of many others) proved that he was homophobic which is wrong. It only proves that the LGBT community fears that he is. That is not evidence. It is as weak as the "anti-semite" assertions from the media to an article which happened to be written by a Jewish journalist as branding Trump an "anti-semite" when his daughter and many of those around him are Jewish. Were all those around Obama "of the right way of thinking" on everything? Those around Hillary? Around any leader?
Which was also idiotic. And again, an attack on the messenger. Defending Trump as not being personally a literal fascist does not at all answer any of the concerns about Trump's Presidency.
You can say this about all parties everywhere though. People here are always singling out single or multiple issues with politicians within each party. In the UK we have many differing viewpoints in the ministerial jobs as well as the non ministerial jobs. People are different and have different views to each other.
Well we live in a world that talks of liberalism yet we have masses of rules and then rules to make sure we follow the rules then other rules from within society so that we have to follow the rules or we'll be told we're not following the rules. Then we have this "Stop funding Hate" nonsense. Now I am not a Daily Mail reader and the times I have clicked on a link it takes me to a site full of celebs showing their skin or partying but to pressure corporations to starve a publication of advertising revenue is the contradiction of the age. Liberalists are using social shaming tactics by getting rich celebs on board to pressure capitalist corporations to stop advertising in a publication because they don't like what that publication says. It is quite the opposite of liberalism. It is the opposite of the "freedom of speech" they so love. We are less free than we ever were and are forced to conform as people. And if you are a newspaper "don't write things we don't like or we'll try and close you down?"
This is all hysterical nonsense. Freedom of Speech is the freedom from the GOVERNMENT censoring your views. Everyone else is allowed to support whatever products they want and dislike whatever views they like. My tolerance does not have to include your intolerance. Deal with it.
And there lies the problem. The (supposed to be) liberals are the ones preaching tolerance yet being intolerant
