Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Trump presidency

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sounds like much of the left, text dwellers, etc.
If you woke up one day to find that your house had been broken into by a long thought to be extinct sabre toothed tiger, and that it was savagely mauling you to death at that very moment, then rather than cry out in pain, or even exclaim about the incredibly low statistical and paleozoological probability of the unfolding event, I fully believe that you'd glumly bemoan how many amongst the left hadn't been the slightest bit interested in sabre-toothed tiger attacks and had instead spent far too long uselessly supporting donkey sanctuaries and the populist RSPB.
 
You are with Donald, yet you know nothing about the show? Perhaps the shows challenges the very things you claim to be worried about? Perhaps the shows focuses on what it's like to be Black and the issues facing Black people?

Rhetorical questions btw. I don't believe you actually give a shit.

No, I don't give a shit about what the makers were thinking, for me they fell flat when they came up with the title.
 
No, I don't give a shit about what the makers were thinking, for me they fell flat when they came up with the title.
Because you don't understand the premise of the show or how the title interacts with it.

Again, as I said, you don't give a shit.

Like Donald you can't bare anything that doesn't focus on you.
 
but as what they really didn't want is a defacto king, not too good for Trump
He won't be a straightforward Trump stooge. He will oppose attempts to ground interpretation of the constitution in today's world - that could work both ways, I guess.

In addition to originalism, his is also a textualist. His idea of what the law should be:

[judges should strive] to apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to text, structure, and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be—not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they believe might serve society best

I guess a lot of lawyers think like this - that we should serve the law, rather than the law serving us. Judgements shorn of compassion. Someone who'd send a good person to prison for the rest of their life if he felt the law told him to, and would sleep soundly that same night.
 
Yep, that must be the only answer possible.:facepalm:

You must really like that show. I did not mean to offend your enjoyment of it.

There.

Also I mis-spoke when I said "I'm with Trump on this one", I'd like to sidestep away from that statement now, if that's ok with everyone.
 
I've never watched the show actually. I do though do a bit of research before I comment on things I know nothing about. Your comments showed that you had neither seen it nor researched it and that led you to side with The Donald.
 
Surprise surprise, he managed to make Black History month all about him.

He has no fucking clue who Fredrick Douglass * was. :(

* In 4th grade, my teacher discouraged me from reading Autobiography of Fredrick Douglass for a book report because it meant she would have to read it and she thought it looked "boring." I insisted, she read it and realised it was good, so the whole class read it together. Pity it didn't stop them growing up into white supremacists. :(

cv009-douglass-400x618.jpg

Aaaaaand, we have his press secretary "clarifying" what Trump "meant" when he said he was, “an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job that is being recognized more and more, I notice.”

 
I've taken to watching the play again of Joy Reid's programme, so saw that. So smug, so disingenuous and so ignorant of how IUDs and the combined pill works. :(

I've actually had people tell me that a woman who has been raped can't get pregnant. To get pregnant a woman "had to have liked it." He believed that because his priest said so.
 
I've actually had people tell me that a woman who has been raped can't get pregnant. To get pregnant a woman "had to have liked it." He believed that because his priest said so.
Gah! Wasn't there a GOP politician who said something like that, that the body has a way of "shutting down?" Can't remember which one. All a shower of clowns as it goes.
 
In a 'humiliating' and 'threatening' tone, Trump lambasted Mexico's president during a phone call

During a phone call with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto on Friday, US President Donald Trump disparaged Mexico and threatened to use military force against the drug trade, according to Dolia Estevez, a journalist based in Washington, DC.

In an interview with the Mexican news outlet Aristegui Noticias, Estevez, who cited sources on both sides of the call, said, "It was a very offensive conversation where Trump humiliated Peña Nieto."

He's desperate to start a war, anywhere, just a war. :mad:
 
Point I've been pondering... some quarters of the media are murmuring that liberals are going over the top in calling Trump and co fascists and it's all self-righteous frothing and of course he's not Hitler. To me it seems better to be OTT critical than to normalise any of this, and I can't see a risk of something unintended consequence as a result of 'overreacting' to every shitty move this administration makes. Lots of people laughed at Hitler and probably thought he didn't mean everything he said; we often forget that Yugoslavia was a country trundling along in a very civilised fashion before groups of its citizen started killing one another, but still we think 'It can't happen there/here'

Also interested in the role of social media and interwebs - while it does make it easier to spread 'fake news', it also means a sphere of dissent that cannot be shut down no matter what he tries with the mainstream media. But very much a double-edged sword.
 
Point I've been pondering... some quarters of the media are murmuring that liberals are going over the top in calling Trump and co fascists and it's all self-righteous frothing and of course he's not Hitler. To me it seems better to be OTT critical than to normalise any of this, and I can't see a risk of something unintended consequence as a result of 'overreacting' to every shitty move this administration makes. Lots of people laughed at Hitler and probably thought he didn't mean everything he said; we often forget that Yugoslavia was a country trundling along in a very civilised fashion before groups of its citizen started killing one another, but still we think 'It can't happen there/here'

Also interested in the role of social media and interwebs - while it does make it easier to spread 'fake news', it also means a sphere of dissent that cannot be shut down no matter what he tries with the mainstream media. But very much a double-edged sword.
He's just made an essentially arbitrary list of countries and banned people from those countries from entering the US. I'm not quite sure what an overreaction to such a move looks like, tbh. I do know what an attempt to normalise it looks like. It looks like Theresa May.
 
I didn't realise they were doing two remakes of a handmaiden's tail in 2017.


Halfway through Atwoods third book in the MaddAddam series at the moment so her stuff's been on my mind lately, Trump's presidency is looking more and more like something out of her dark dystopian imagination by the week. There's a tevee series that's just come out recently called Incorporated that I'll get round to starting a thread about, very reminiscent of the pre-plague dystopia in MaddAddam... I mean yeah there's the standard issue Blade-Runner type corporatocracy but it's way more detailed, very well realized and... but that's another thread.
 
I've never watched the show actually. I do though do a bit of research before I comment on things I know nothing about. Your comments showed that you had neither seen it nor researched it and that led you to side with The Donald.

Actually I watched it once, didn't think much of it. It definitely did not redeem itself from the off-putting and kind of offensive in my view title. So it turns out I know more about the show than you do.
 
If you woke up one day to find that your house had been broken into by a long thought to be extinct sabre toothed tiger, and that it was savagely mauling you to death at that very moment, then rather than cry out in pain, or even exclaim about the incredibly low statistical and paleozoological probability of the unfolding event, I fully believe that you'd glumly bemoan how many amongst the left hadn't been the slightest bit interested in sabre-toothed tiger attacks and had instead spent far too long uselessly supporting donkey sanctuaries and the populist RSPB.
Touche. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom