US Politics - Trump cancels summit having to do with North Korea

Squinty wrote:I just read an article on ten things that are mentioned in the book. Some of them are funny. Others paint the picture of a deeply unhappy man who never expected to be elected.

captain red dog wrote:So stupid to try and shut Bannon down at this point, all it does is add legitimacy to the allegations.

It will be interesting to see where the Alt Right go from here. Milo Yiannopolus had been making noises to move away from supporting Trump a few months ago and I can see a larger alt right move away from Trump now Breitbart will be turning against him.

Peter Crisp wrote:

Squinty wrote:I just read an article on ten things that are mentioned in the book. Some of them are funny. Others paint the picture of a deeply unhappy man who never expected to be elected.

I think it's quite possible that what we see in public is just a show and the real Trump is a shell of a man who will be destroyed by being pushed out of office and maybe even into prison. He will finally have to deal with failure actually having a consequence and I just don't think he can handle it.

Partridge Iciclebubbles wrote:

captain red dog wrote:So stupid to try and shut Bannon down at this point, all it does is add legitimacy to the allegations.

It will be interesting to see where the Alt Right go from here. Milo Yiannopolus had been making noises to move away from supporting Trump a few months ago and I can see a larger alt right move away from Trump now Breitbart will be turning against him.

Hopefully they will fracture, some will stay loyal to the Breitbart crowd, some will stay loyal to Trump and the whole movement will be weakened.

You would think that all of this would weaken the support of both camps, but supporters of the alt-right are usually a bunch of thick banana splits so I doubt they’ll ever even notice that they have been had.

Tell Karl his brother is dead wrote:

$ilva $hadow wrote:I'm just not bothered in trying to explain to you that you can't be an extremist bhuddhist because in bhuddist literature, there is nothing that calls for violence, so when you try to compare 'violent' bhuddhists against known terrorists and islamic speakers who directly quote the quran and then blow themselves up, or encourage others to do so, you look like severely ignorant to people who actually research this gooseberry fool.

An extremist bhuddist can never draw from his/her religion, a verse that supports violence. The mechanism for bhuddists renounce this behaviour as unbhuddist like is there, but this is not the case with islam.

To me, you're clearly uneducated on the mechanisms these religions have for justifying violence, if you're seriously trying to compare an 'extremist' bhuddist to an extremist christian or muslim. There is nowhere for bhuddists to point to violent texts in bhuddism that could exonerate anyone for crimes against humanity, unlike christianity and islam. You didn't present any evidence at all, not a single bit of evidence, it was all garbage, trying to compare non religious violence to religious violence.

I'm trying to not be condescending, but don't throw that gooseberry fool at me and then cry to the mods and ask for gooseberry fool be banned/locked or closed. If you want to have a civilised debate, be civilised yourself and then expect others to follow suit, just like bhuddism expects you to meet violence with non violence.

Evidence and knowledge even a quick google and a small bit of thinking would let anyone know you can't compare bhuddism to islam or christianity.

Why do you believe this total nonsense? Here's Theravāda Buddhism on ethnic cleansing:

And thereon the king said again to them: 'How shall there be any comfort for me, O venerable sirs, since by me was caused the slaughter of a great host numbering millions?'
'From this deed arises no hindrance in thy way to heaven. Only one and a half human beings have been slain here by thee, O lord of men. The one had come unto the (three) refuges, the other had taken on himself the five precepts. Unbelievers and men of evil life were the rest, not more to be esteemed than beasts. But as for thee, thou wilt bring glory to the doctrine of the Buddha in manifold ways; therefore cast away care from thy heart, O ruler of men!' Mahāvamsa 25:108-111.

Wow, so pacifistic. And that passage and others like it are being used to justify violence today.

There are passages just like that in every religion. Saying "I think religious people who justify their violence with their beliefs are mental and should be punished" is obviously completely reasonable. Saying "...And them Muslims are the worst because Islam is the most evil!!!" is unsupported by reason and at best quite ignorant.

If you love rationalism, up your game and reconsider your silly opinions.

“She often described the mechanics behind it to friends: an absolutely clean pate — a contained island after scalp-reduction surgery — surrounded by a furry circle of hair around the sides and front, from which all ends are drawn up to meet in the centre and then swept back and secured by a stiffening spray,” journalist Michael Wolff writes in the book, out January 9.

“The colour, she would point out to comical effect, was from a product called Just for Men — the longer it was left on, the darker it got. Impatience resulted in Trump’s orange-blond hair colour.”

US publisher Henry Holt is understood to be in discussions to move forward publication of the book after receiving the cease-and-desist letter from Trump’s lawyers. About 250,000 copies of the book have already been shipped, but they are supposed to be held under strict embargo until Tuesday.

Although lifting the embargo is complicated, the publisher could now direct booksellers to immediately place the book on sale, a source with knowledge of discussions said.

Wolff, who was unavailable for comment today, is due on NBC’s Today show on Friday morning, in his first on-the-record interview.

Since the Guardian first published details from the book, major US publications including the New York Times and Wall Street Journal have received copies freed from embargo, the Guardian understands.

$ilva $hadow wrote:

Tell Karl his brother is dead wrote:

$ilva $hadow wrote:I'm just not bothered in trying to explain to you that you can't be an extremist bhuddhist because in bhuddist literature, there is nothing that calls for violence, so when you try to compare 'violent' bhuddhists against known terrorists and islamic speakers who directly quote the quran and then blow themselves up, or encourage others to do so, you look like severely ignorant to people who actually research this gooseberry fool.

An extremist bhuddist can never draw from his/her religion, a verse that supports violence. The mechanism for bhuddists renounce this behaviour as unbhuddist like is there, but this is not the case with islam.

To me, you're clearly uneducated on the mechanisms these religions have for justifying violence, if you're seriously trying to compare an 'extremist' bhuddist to an extremist christian or muslim. There is nowhere for bhuddists to point to violent texts in bhuddism that could exonerate anyone for crimes against humanity, unlike christianity and islam. You didn't present any evidence at all, not a single bit of evidence, it was all garbage, trying to compare non religious violence to religious violence.

I'm trying to not be condescending, but don't throw that gooseberry fool at me and then cry to the mods and ask for gooseberry fool be banned/locked or closed. If you want to have a civilised debate, be civilised yourself and then expect others to follow suit, just like bhuddism expects you to meet violence with non violence.

Evidence and knowledge even a quick google and a small bit of thinking would let anyone know you can't compare bhuddism to islam or christianity.

Why do you believe this total nonsense? Here's Theravāda Buddhism on ethnic cleansing:

And thereon the king said again to them: 'How shall there be any comfort for me, O venerable sirs, since by me was caused the slaughter of a great host numbering millions?'
'From this deed arises no hindrance in thy way to heaven. Only one and a half human beings have been slain here by thee, O lord of men. The one had come unto the (three) refuges, the other had taken on himself the five precepts. Unbelievers and men of evil life were the rest, not more to be esteemed than beasts. But as for thee, thou wilt bring glory to the doctrine of the Buddha in manifold ways; therefore cast away care from thy heart, O ruler of men!' Mahāvamsa 25:108-111.

Wow, so pacifistic. And that passage and others like it are being used to justify violence today.

There are passages just like that in every religion. Saying "I think religious people who justify their violence with their beliefs are mental and should be punished" is obviously completely reasonable. Saying "...And them Muslims are the worst because Islam is the most evil!!!" is unsupported by reason and at best quite ignorant.

If you love rationalism, up your game and reconsider your silly opinions.

You know what? I was actually ignorant to those passages and didn't find those. I was wrong on that, but islam is still worse. I will definitely look into it. Thanks for that.

I'm still sticking to religion is dogshit, and any religion that has those kinds of passages are dogshit. There are degrees of dogshit, and islam is by far worse than bhuddism.


So now that you found those passages used by bhuddists to enable violence, I can drop the whole bhuddism is peaceful and move on to Jainism. Let's try comparing bhuddhist and islamic gooseberry fool, to jainism, those guys wear cloths over their mouths to prevent killing small lifeforms like flies.

Whatever religion has texts that justify violence is bollocks. Again, islam is by far one of the worst, up there with christianity and judaism. If a religion has no texts of violence, then you cannot be that religion and still be violent.

“Here’s the deal,” a close Trump associate told Priebus. “In an hour meeting with him, you’re going to hear 54 minutes of stories, and they’re going to be the same stories over and over again. So you have to have one point to make, and you pepper it in whenever you can.”

Wolff recounts near the end of the book that, five months after Comey’s firing, Bannon was predicting the collapse of Trump’s Presidency. Speaking in Breitbart’s headquarters, which Bannon refers to as the Breitbart Embassy, Bannon told people there was a 33.3-per-cent-chance that the Mueller investigation would lead to Trump’s impeachment, a 33.3 per-cent-chance that Trump would resign, “perhaps in the wake of a threat by the cabinet to act on the Twenty-Fifth Amendment,” and a 33.3-per-cent chance that he would “limp to the end of his term. In any event, there would certainly not be a second term, or even an attempt at one. ‘He's not going to make it,’ said Bannon at the Breitbart Embassy. ‘He’s lost his stuff.’ ”

Please also send immediately an electronic copy of the full text of the Book, in searchable form, and send via messenger a hard copy of the Book to my office address at the top of this letter, so that we can fully assess all of the statements in the Book.

Trump tells GOP senators that 2,200-mile border wall not needed in immigration deal

President Trump on Thursday laid out his demands for an immigration deal to Republican senators, making clear he doesn't expect Congress to build a physical 2,200-mile concrete wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Instead, the president wants Congress to increase security along the border by ratcheting up patrols, surveillance and fencing, in return for relief for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program recipients in an immigration deal that could be tied to the 2018 spending bill.

“People want to paint that it’s some 2,000-mile long, 30-foot-high wall of concrete. That’s not what he means and not what he tries to say,” said Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), who met with Trump at the White House Thursday.

“There’s going to be border fencing in some areas, there’s going to be vehicular barricades, there’s going to be technology, there’s going to be greater manpower in some areas,” he added.

Lankford said Trump has been clear “in private.”

Government funding runs out on Jan. 19, and Congress has until March 5 to come up with a solution to protect "Dreamers" from deportation.

twitter.com/DEADLINE/status/949025676392214528

twitter.com/ErikWemple/status/949007647948275718

twitter.com/WSJ/status/949027676056104961

twitter.com/JackSmithIV/status/949044324259463169

Everybody was painfully aware of the increasing pace of his repetitions. It used to be inside of 30 minutes he'd repeat, word-for-word and expression-for-expression, the same three stories — now it was within 10 minutes. Indeed, many of his tweets were the product of his repetitions — he just couldn't stop saying something.

At Mar-a-Lago, just before the new year, a heavily made-up Trump failed to recognize a succession of old friends.