Anyone here think Pruitt did a good job as head of the EPA? Does anyone dare defend what is possibly the worst appointment of a string of horrible appointments by you-know-who? Corrupt, incompetent and imbecilic. Have I missed anything?
No. Iâm glad to see him go.
1 Like
Pruitt overstayed his office by months. Dead administrator walking since his Morocco trip last December.
Trump has shown a U.S. Grant-level of (misplaced) trust in many of his appointees.
[smiling]
âBut letâs say Iâm debating Pocahontas, Iâll do this,â Trump said during a rally in Great Falls, Mont. âPocahontas, they always want me to apologize for saying it. You know those little kits you see on television for $2 - learn your heritage - we will very carefully take that kit, since weâre in the #MeToo generation, weâve got to be very gentle, we will gently take that kit and we will slowly toss it, hoping it doesnât hit her and injure her arm, even though it only weighs probably 2 oz.,â Trump said.
âAnd we will say, 'I will give you a million dollars, paid for by Trump, to your favorite charity if you take the test and it shows youâre an Indian,â Trump said. âAnd weâll see what she does. I have a feeling she will say no but we will hold it for the debates.â
%%%
To be fair, here is her reply.
2 Likes
I love the Pocahontas skewering.
This is a problem of her own making. It blew up in her face in 2012 when the Boston Herald reported that in the late 90s Harvard Law School had promoted Warren as a Native American faculty member.
When confronted by reporters, Warren stated that she didnât know how Harvard came to list her as Native American.
A law professor at George Mason University later showed that starting in the mid-1980s, when she was at Penn Law School, Warren had put herself on the âMinority Law Teacherâ list in the faculty directory of the Association of American Law Schools. She was somehow dropped from that list when she gained tenure at Harvard in 1995.
When confronted again Warren claimed she listed herself as Native American merely because she wanted to meet other Native Americans.
Yeah. Anyway, she was busted, Trump found out about it, and now he wonât let it go.
I do think his Pocahontas jokes are so painful for most Democrats that it will be several more years before theyâre appreciated. Trump is doing the country a great service by gently teasing Warren by referring to her as Pocahontas.
2 Likes
But that doesnât explain how it works in your analogy, which is
If the question is, if a madman hijacks a locomotive and has it running at breakneck speed with the breaks disabled, is it a good idea to stand on the tracks waving a LGBT flag, my advise would be that doesnât seem the wisest course of action.
You make it sound like Justinâs stubborn refusal to yield to the Don on the issue of tariffs â an impending train wreck â is centered around the LGBT issue. Logical extrapolation: he is preoccupied with frivolous, airy-fairy, utopian ideals that only rich countries can afford to spend time discussing, ignoring the harsh economic reality of the situation. Sounds more PRC than American or British. 
And what is in said chapter?
Do you have more information than that? The article doesnât even mention LGBT. Iâm having trouble finding details because this is barely a thing.
Redoing NAFTA was a pillar of Donnieâs campaign, so in a sense, Justin is giving Donnie what he asked for. 
Also, Justin wants to outdo Conservative feminist Kellie Leitch in this field:
(Kellie led the first womenâs trade mission in 2015.)
Note that these are old articles. Theyâre not about retaliatory tariffs or trade wars. The ârunaway train vs. LGBT flagâ analogy works about as well as an one that goes something like is it a good idea to stand on the tracks and give a speech about a war that ended 200+ years ago?
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/148784/trump-not-entirely-wrong-war-1812
As CNN reports, Trudeau objected to the idea that Canada was a ânational securityâ problem (the legal justification for the tariffs Trump was introducing). Trump responded, âDidnât you guys burn down the White House?â Trump was referring to the famous burning of Washington conducted during the War of 1812.
Presumably, he meant it as a joke. But then again, he originally meant his whole campaign as a joke, so⌠
Still doesnât take away from the fact that Trudeau is a mambo = male bimbo.
That should totally be the theme song for his re-election campaign.
It should also start to play in the background while people read this topic, automatically switching on the sound in case a device is on mute.
This is excellence. 
Long Live The Donald
God Emperor
Slayer of Commies
Master of Deals
Unstumpable
I want that t-shirt. I want to be the official vendor of that t-shirt.
1 Like
If you become one of Bernieâs billionaires, please send some shekels to the guy who made that video. He was banned from bandcamp because of his political views -__-
It seems like just yesterday that the Republican Party was the uncool party, the party of Mitt Romney, the party of rich old country club douchebags. The tide of the culture war is finally turning, and itâs a glorious thing to witness.
2 Likes
I remember someone on this forum wrote a comment to celebrate the âbrave and amazingâ people wearing vagina hats at a âfeminist marchâ, it was something like:âThings are changing! Maybe not in the way youâd like them to change, but theyâre changing nonetheless!â.
They are changing indeed.
In this going back and forth with you I am reminded of a quote by David Mamet, âin order for genuine liberals to continue their illogical belief systems they have to pretend not to know a lot of thingsâ.
I donât want to make this a very long post, so I am going to make just a few salient points and you either get it or you donât.
Canada has chosen to push social progressive ideology into trade deals, not just with USA, they did so with China as well, who also rejected such proposals.
Whilst not knowing all the details of what was in and what was not in those chapters, we can see social progressive ideology that Justin Trudeau used to form his cabinet. i.e. it was necessary to create a 50% men to 50% women ratio of cabinet members. This is called equality of outcome .
I believe in equality of opportunity for all, including of course LGBT people, as well as every other minority, regardless of sex, race, sexual orientation, religion or political affiliation. Yet in itâs pursuit of equality of outcome you need to peruse racist, sexist, bigoted practices.
You donât get to pick and choose who your favorite groups are and then discriminate against the ones you donât like if the goal is equality for all.
The worst of it is, to enforce the social progressive ideology, you need to do so by authoritarian means, like a law recently passed in Canada making it illegal to use the wrong pronoun. Which gets into the realm of free speech, which liberals used to understand what it meant, but now go with âhate speech is not free speechâ. Except it seems they get to decide when its ok to denigrate and generalize negatively about races or religions when they want to, yet no one can do the same about the ones they say canât be.
1 Like
The problem with using ideological purity tests against your opponents is that itâs too easy to make them fail for one reason or another, so you can declare a quick victory and move on. We all do this sometimes. I try to avoid doing it.
Western countries in general âpush social progressive ideologyâ by one definition or another. They need to do that to appease constituents, because standards are generally lower in less developed countries, so they ask for wage standards, health & safety standards, and even anti-discrimination clauses. The US is no stranger to this. How meaningful it really is, in practice, is another question.
Whilst not knowing all the details of what was in and what was not in those chapters, we can see social progressive ideology that Justin Trudeau used to form his cabinet. i.e. it was necessary to create a 50% men to 50% women ratio of cabinet members. This is called equality of outcome .
Yet in itâs pursuit of equality of outcome you need to peruse racist, sexist, bigoted practices.
You donât get to pick and choose who your favorite groups are and then discriminate against the ones you donât like if the goal is equality for all.
âDiscriminationâ in cabinet appointments, oh my. What has the world come to?
Of all the reasons to criticize a cabinet, why pick the gender ratio first? The PM chooses his own cabinet according to his own whim. If we make the rule thou shalt use thine own whim but not if thy whim be gender-based 
isnât that more repressive than the current set-up, which is just pure and simple whim? Why not go after âpatronageâ i.e. what some people call legalized bribery? Oh no, these cabinet positions are honest jobs that hard working working class men desperately need, so they can put food on the table for their sprawling families⌠
Some people complain that there are too many Sikhs in the cabinet. Itâs true that Sikhs are over-represented, statistically speaking. Are they better educated than other groups? Is it part of a conspiracy? Who knows? I donât spend much time worrying about it. If it were some other religion or ethnicity, people would complain about that instead, and the same thing is true in the US (maybe not for Sikhs but certainly for one group or another). You canât please everyone.
Seriously, affirmative action is a complex topic. I believe the concept has some merit, but I do not take an absolutist line on it. One size does not fit all.
And cabinet appointments are political compromises anyway, like geographical representation in the Supreme Court, or the practice of alternating between francophones and anglophones for the Governor General, or even the expectation that the PM should be fluently bilingual. Even geographical representation in the legislature (in any country) is discriminatory, if you think about it. âWhy are you giving preference to people from region X when there are highly qualified candidates in region Y who arenât allowed on the region X ballot?â These are all discriminatory practices by one standard or another, yet somehow they work.
In the US, the states get priority over the total (voting) population, which in practice means certain states get preferential treatment, and the result is there for all to see. 
Bottom line: just as you canât entirely eliminate negative discrimination, you canât entirely eliminate positive discrimination. 
The worst of it is, to enforce the social progressive ideology, you need to do so by authoritarian means,
âŚyeah, âauthoritarianâ means like letting the leader choose his own cabinet⌠
like a law recently passed in Canada making it illegal to use the wrong pronoun.
Oh, this again. Did you miss the other threads about it?
Show me one person rotting in a Canadian jail for refusing to say ze or not knowing how to pronounce zir. You canât, because itâs hot air.
Which gets into the realm of free speech, which liberals used to understand what it meant, but now go with âhate speech is not free speechâ. Except it seems they get to decide when its ok to denigrate and generalize negatively about races or religions when they want to, yet no one can do the same about the ones they say canât be.
I could get into a debate about Muslims and Satanists and other interesting stuff if I had time, but unfortunately I donât, so Iâll just leave that. 
I still see as much relevance in your runaway train vs. LGBT flag analogy as in my War of 1812 analogy, but whatever. My worthless self wishes Honorable Mick a pleasant day. 
There isnât opponents in such discussions, there are perspectives. I get yours, 100%, the failure here is for those who push a progressive social agenda to understand or even try to interact with many perspectives from many groups that disagree with them. (Actually I give you great respect and props for trying yyy)
Including, feminists both left and right leaning, if they promote the progressive social feminist agenda, they do not represent the left, they do not represent feminists overall. They are far left extremists and even liberals will be critical. As soon as they label their critics as Alt-right, many of whom are liberals, they are pushing away their own supporters.
Look, I get you are not getting any of this. Bottom line is we all need to get along, we all should be trying to make the lives of everyone easier. Those that propagate hate will find themselves on the wrong side of history. The progressive liberals and their social programs may feel like they are on the side of righteousness right now, enough people I would suggest will stand up and take the time, be it 10 or 20 years to explain why they are wrong.
2 Likes
Iâve just found myself wondering how we got from how 'bout that trade war? to feminazis are (still) destroying civilization, so I reread the relevant posts. Hereâs a summary, one line per post:
Thatâs how it boils down in my view. How about yours?
I get lots of things but donât necessarily care.
For example, I get that the Newspeak definition of progress is radical extremism. I choose to stay with Oldspeak, mostly.
Before we leave the tyranny of gender balanced cabinets, Iâd like to ask people, especially Americans, what they think of the other forms of progressive tyranny found â or not found â in cabinets around the world and why none of this mattered until 2015.
while there are no legal qualifications of the potential ministers, there are a number of conventions that are expected be followed. For instance, there is typically a minister from each province in Canada,
ministers from visible minority groups,
female ministers
Efforts are further made to indulge interest groups
that support
with Cabinet positions sometimes being a reward for loyal party members.
[emphasis and emojification not in original]
The corresponding articles on the US and UK cabinets seem to say nothing about regional representation. Is it that unusual?
In any case, I agree that weâll all be in a better position in the 2030âs to judge both the social movements of the 2010âs and the Trump I and Trudeau II administrations.
1 Like
Killing ethanol was excellent. But the guy didnât have the chops to survive.
More proof that if not for her wealth, sheâd be a bag lady:
If she were smart, she wouldnât draw attention to the jobs thingie.
If she were my mother, Iâd tell the nursing home staff to change her meds.
Related:
Also, CNBC goes full retard, and gets mocked by⌠whatâs left of the New Republic:
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/149644/rising-wages-horrify-cnbc-delight-everyone-else
They always used to cry wolf about manpower shortages to get more cheap labor from overseas, so⌠screw `em. Okay, thatâs a little too harsh. After all, without employers, there would be few jobs. Letâs just say: they need to quit whining and take their medicine.