Moderator: General Forums Moderators
I'm getting pretty tired of seeing this boring, irrelevant phrase.uzurpator wrote:Politicized butthurt
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."Chrill wrote:I confess, I do not fully know the US Constitution, but I sincerely believe that a FUNDAMENTAL freedom is the freedom of religion. Then how can a law banning people from Muslim countries be seen as anything other than unconstitutional?
Dave wrote:I can't imagine the maelstrom of turd from the right wing if the election had gone the other way - would you have dismissed that as "butthurt" as well?
This isn't Facebook or Twitter - try responding maturely.
Well, that's it - Or is it ? Among the first videos he uploaded, seems to be a perfect 180° turn... He never fully went against some entity (like the people who went against him).uzurpator wrote:Ironically, Thunderf00t is, let me put it nicely, not really a fan of muslims. I haven't followed him for some time tho.
The link is where everyone hasn't seen one. It's just a caution so far.uzurpator wrote:Anyhow. This is a red herring. Just because someone somewhere, unrelated to the discussed map, pushed a narrative does not invalidate the map, unless I miss a link somewhere.
If a threat is detected, why not prevent the attack before it happens? This was something that G.W. Bush was (rightly) criticized for.I might add that the 7 countries selected have never carried out terrorist attacks on American soil.
It's not Trump's list of countries, it's Obama's. I would certainly be in favor of expanding it to the countries you listed (with maybe the exception of Egypt because I'm a big fan of al-Sisi). To your point about Constitutionality: Trump is exercising the same power that most presidents have exercised in the past 50 years, including Carter and Obama.Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, Jordan, and Kuwaiti citizens have done it. None of these countries are on his list!
You missed a bit;Train<In>Vain wrote:Here's what you get when you have an actual leader as opposed to a community organizer (not that there's anything wrong with that)...
Lockheed Martin, Pentagon announce F-35 contract deal that shaves $728 million in costs
The Pentagon and Lockheed Martin announced on Friday a contract deal for the next batch of 90 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets that shaves $728 million off the total cost of the program and brings the per-plane cost of the stealth plane below $95 million for the first time.
The contract is “a good and fair deal for the taxpayers, the U.S. Government, allies, and Industry,” F-35 Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan said in a statement. “We continue to work with Industry to drive costs out of the program.”
The announcement brings an end to months of unusually public negotiations between the Trump administration and Lockheed Martin, which manufactures the plane.
In late December the president took to Twitter to criticize the program for being too expensive. He even went so far as to ask one of Lockheed’s competitors, Boeing, to “price out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet,” as an alternative to the F-35. The Pentagon subsequently said the F-18 would be considered as an alternative to the F-35C, a more expensive variant that accounts for a very small portion of the overall program.
On Monday, Trump took credit for squeezing costs out the program, which he estimated at the time would be about $600 million.
“President Trump’s personal involvement in the F-35 program accelerated the negotiations and sharpened our focus on driving down the price,” Lockheed Martin spokesman Bill Phelps said in a statement Thursday. “The agreement was reached in a matter of weeks and represents significant savings over previous contracts.”
For comparison, the development cost of F-15SE is estimated at $100m each.
Emphasis mine.“This is both a substantial price reduction and an expected one. [Joint Program Manager] Bogdan talked about these kind of broad expectations last year,” said Mackenzie Eaglen, a military analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank.
Eaglen said the president’s intervention probably sped the negotiation toward a conclusion, but said the cost-reductions were already part of the plan.
“The company is going to let him think that this was due to his intervention. … They have no reason not to do that,” Eaglen said. “But I have a feeling the uncertainty he injected spurred a deal much more quickly.”
Fair enough. Allow me to rephrase:Drury wrote:Considering social media is a new phenomenon, I'd be surprised.
This from a tweet earlier today (source: NYT)Any negative polls are fake news, just like the CNN, ABC, NBC polls in the election. Sorry, people want border security and extreme vetting.
Perhaps in the office room, yes.Chrill wrote:Fair enough. Allow me to rephrase:Drury wrote:Considering social media is a new phenomenon, I'd be surprised.
A President crying in the media about judges doing their job in accordance to the law of his nation... Has that ever before existed?
You would think that that the rest of the world would show their disapproval of Trump by refusing to travel to the USA, but you'd be wrong, at least when it comes to the "7 Muslim nations"Drury wrote:Considering social media is a new phenomenon, I'd be surprised.
Still, Trump is on his way to become the least popular POTUS of all time. Presidents' approval ratings are generally at their highest when they enter office, in Trump's case the bar is extremely low and lowering.
What's more amusing though, DNC is still super dense. They just refuse to admit they blew it. Warren knows. Sanders knows. But they still keep on denying it.
/Warren is super funny now considering she endorsed Hillary
Funny you would say that. I read a quote from the leading Swedish website in international flight reservations claiming that their worldwide searches for trips to USA is down by about 50%. That's half of all searches. Now this doesn't DIRECTLY translate to hotels booked, and therefore journeys made, but it's a definitive reduction and can surely be replicated in other nations.Train<In>Vain wrote:You would think that that the rest of the world would show their disapproval of Trump by refusing to travel to the USA, but you'd be wrong, at least when it comes to the "7 Muslim nations"
I can very much see a similar thing happening in the UK. I was considering going to the US before Trump took over, as were several family members and friends, however, the majority of these people (myself included) no longer feel the states is a good place to visit with him in power.Chrill wrote:And yes, I do believe Swedes are more sensitive to Trump's antics than many other countries. Then again, if Swedish visits are down by 50%, one can assume that tourists from other countries will also choose not to visit the United States. Even a 10% reduction in international travels would be absolutely devastating to the American tourism industry.
I don't think gender has a part to play in Clinton's misdemeanors, nor does it in Trump's (with the exception of harassment/misogyny comments, obviously).Train<In>Vain wrote:tell your daughter
Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 1 guest
