RE: Republicans slowly realize Trump may be worst president ever (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Made2Obey -> RE: Republicans slowly realize Trump may be worst president ever (8/14/2017 2:09:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Made2Obey

So you think this involved only four people?

The killed and injured made a conscious choice to attend a controversial event.
Sometimes when you attend such events you get hurt. You know that going in.
I was clubbed and beaten at an anti-Vietnam war rally in DC in the late 60s.
I understood that might happen when I chose to go.


You seem to lack an understanding that that is illegal and that as a citizen you have a reasonable expectation of safe passage.

There would have been no one to be injured by that driver had everyone been home watching TV.
No innocents were involved.

The boston massacre would never have occurred and crispus attuks would not have died if as you and john adams point out "if that shiftless nigger had been at work this would never have happened."



Of couse I had a legal expectation of safe passage, but others didn't agree, same as with the marchers in Charlottesville. They had just as much right to safe passage, but again, others didn't agree.

As for the Boston massacre, it's apples and oranges and not comparable events. In Boston, everyone but two radicalized brothers was there to peacefully assemble to watch the marathon. The injured at that event truly were innocent.
I have blamed no particular race, the counter protesters in Charlottesville were a mixed group of no single race, however, every one of them was consciously there to up the tension. No innocents in that venue.
And please do not try to marginalize me by trying to make it seem that I use the N word, that was your quote, not mine.




BoscoX -> RE: Republicans slowly realize Trump may be worst president ever (8/14/2017 2:12:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

That you're unable to discern the weight due news reporting from people posting comments is hardly surprising.




Careful, your pompous, elitist, flatulence-filled head might explode over outrage that regular people with whom you disagree might actually have their voices heard





Nnanji -> RE: Republicans slowly realize Trump may be worst president ever (8/14/2017 2:26:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

That you're unable to discern the weight due news reporting from people posting comments is hardly surprising.



Apparently you're unable to discern more than one fact at a time.




thompsonx -> RE: Republicans slowly realize Trump may be worst president ever (8/14/2017 3:02:00 PM)

ORIGINAL: Made2Obey
ORIGINAL: thompsonx


So you think this involved only four people?

The killed and injured made a conscious choice to attend a controversial event.
Sometimes when you attend such events you get hurt. You know that going in.
I was clubbed and beaten at an anti-Vietnam war rally in DC in the late 60s.
I understood that might happen when I chose to go.


You seem to lack an understanding that that is illegal and that as a citizen you have a reasonable expectation of safe passage.

There would have been no one to be injured by that driver had everyone been home watching TV.
No innocents were involved.

The boston massacre would never have occurred and crispus attuks would not have died if as you and john adams point out "if that shiftless nigger had been at work this would never have happened."



Of couse I had a legal expectation of safe passage, but others didn't agree, same as with the marchers in Charlottesville. They had just as much right to safe passage, but again, others didn't agree.

the facts are that the klan/Nazis had a permit to use the park and no place else ,so please do not try to include what is not fact.

As for the Boston massacre, it's apples and oranges and not comparable events. In Boston, everyone but two radicalized brothers was there to peacefully assemble to watch the marathon. The injured at that event truly were innocent.


Please try to read what I write. My reference was to the original boston massacre which was the beginning of the amerikan revolution. The "nigger " quote is from john adam's summation at the trial of the britt soldiers who were charged with murder in the incident. Yes john adams the second president of amerika was the defense attorney for the men charged with killing the first man to die in the amerikan revolutionary war.

I have blamed no particular race, the counter protesters in Charlottesville were a mixed group of no single race,


Where as all of the klan/nazi were of what race? Whose purpose was the denigration of the amerikan constitution.

however, every one of them was consciously there to up the tension.

Standing up for the constitution is "upping the tension" only in the mind of a fascist. Yes I do suppose the constitution would generally piss off klansmen and Nazis as much as it does you.

No innocents in that venue.

The defense of my constitution makes the defenders innocent.

And please do not try to marginalize me by trying to make it seem that I use the N word, that was your quote, not mine.


Your post marginalize you. I need do nothing but point out the ignorance of your posts.




Made2Obey -> RE: Republicans slowly realize Trump may be worst president ever (8/14/2017 3:22:21 PM)

The marchers had a permit, their opposition did not, facts are facts.

The trial of which you speak has no relationship with the events in Charlottesville. Bringing in other issues is a form of deflection.

The purpose of the marchers was to defend a statue of a real American historical figure. You can't alter history by hiding or removing the evidence if it. How do you manage to twist that into the denigration of the constitution? That's a pretty far out there connection to make.

In fact it was the counter protestors who were trying to usurp the constitution by denying the marchers their 1st Amendment rights. You've got it backwards.

Again, you don't stand up for the constitution by trying to deny its protections to others.

The defense of "your" constitution makes unlawful gatherings, and suppression of the rights of others innocent. Too bad your constitution is not the one signed by our country's founders.

I do not agree with the message of the marchers or their philosophy in general, but I will defend their right to be there and speak their piece, because that IS in the American Constitution.




masmiss -> RE: Republicans slowly realize Trump may be worst president ever (8/14/2017 4:38:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: BoscoX


According to your howler propaganda sources, sure

In the real world, even the Amazon Post admits that the opposite is true:

In Alabama ad war, a race to embrace Trump (and reject McConnell ...


Alabama????
Roflmfao



Alabama
The state where Ancestry.com and Eharmony.com are the same website.



Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha




thompsonx -> RE: Republicans slowly realize Trump may be worst president ever (8/14/2017 6:16:30 PM)

ORIGINAL: Made2Obey

The marchers had a permit, their opposition did not, facts are facts.

It would appear that your facts have been extracted from some place where the sun does not shine. Perhaps you might post for us a copy of the klan/Nazi permit to march.


http://www.nbc29.com/story/36099395/city-of-charlottesville-grants-two-permits-for-counterprotests-of-unite-the-right

The trial of which you speak has no relationship with the events in Charlottesville.


Hmmmm.....the very basis for the existence of amerika and you claim it is not relevant. Freedom of association...freedom of expression....this is usually in history text written for those beyond the fifth grade.

Bringing in other issues is a form of deflection.

The purpose of the marchers was to defend a statue of a real American historical figure.


General benedict arnold and general james wilkerson are also real amerikan historical figures...traitors just like lee. If there are no statues to them why should there
be one to lee?




You can't alter history by hiding or removing the evidence if it.


I have no problem with a "holocaust" type museum to showcase that scum but in a pubic park and venerated as a hero not so much.


How do you manage to twist that into the denigration of the constitution? That's a pretty far out there connection to make.

Let me see if I can bring you up to speed. The constitution and the declaration of independence speak directly to the equality of all mankind.
Now if memory serves me, one of the primary tenants of Nazi/klan mythology is the superiority of white people to all others.



In fact it was the counter protestors who were trying to usurp the constitution by denying the marchers their 1st Amendment rights. You've got it backwards.

Has anyone the 'right' to threaten your life? You have already admitted that the counter demonstrators knew that their lives might be at risk. How did they know
this? Is it because the klan/nazi is well known?



Again, you don't stand up for the constitution by trying to deny its protections to others.

There is no constitutional protection for you to threaten anyone.

The defense of "your" constitution makes unlawful gatherings, and suppression of the rights of others innocent. Too bad your constitution is not the one signed by our
country's founders.

That is a construct that you have extracted from someplace where the sun does not shine because I never said any such thing.


I do not agree with the message of the marchers or their philosophy in general,


Which message of the marchers are you referencing?

but I will defend their right to be there and speak their piece, because that IS in the American Constitution.

Show me where the constitution sanctions incitement to genocide?




Musicmystery -> RE: Republicans slowly realize Trump may be worst president ever (8/14/2017 6:49:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

That you're unable to discern the weight due news reporting from people posting comments is hardly surprising.




Careful, your pompous, elitist, flatulence-filled head might explode over outrage that regular people with whom you disagree might actually have their voices heard



You weren't able to find a student newspaper that covered it?

Elitist relative to you is anyone competent.




Made2Obey -> RE: Republicans slowly realize Trump may be worst president ever (8/15/2017 12:26:00 AM)

You are aware that Lee served the US Army in war with Mexico, that at the time he served under Winfield Scott, the first commander of the Union Army, who praised Lee in his army record.
As an Army Corps of Engineers officer he settled a disputed boundary line between Michigan and Ohio. He engineered St. Louis harbor, and did work on the Mississippi and Missouri rivers to enable steam boat traffic.
He surveyed and mapped large areas of Florida. He was superintendent of West Point. He was commander of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Texas and fought to protect settlers.
Most of all, were you aware that he was the first officer that Lincoln asked to command the Union army, before either Scott or Grant? He only didn't take the offer because he felt allegiance to his home state of Virginia in a time when state governments had more direct influence over citizens than the federal government.
He didn't even want to command the Confederate Army, but took the job reluctantly after Jefferson Davis practically begged Lee to.
During the Mexican-American war Lee and Grant served together and they remained friends after the Civil War.
Lee would have been a historic figure even if the Civil War never happened.
The idea that he was a traitor shows great ignorance of the political situation at the time. Everyone put their state before the Federal government in the time before the Civil War.
In that sense Lee was no different than anyone else who fought in that war. I personally had ancestors who fought in that war on both sides. Some of them were still alive when I was a child and I know from speaking to them, that no one on either side wanted to fight, but all saw it as their duty.
It wasn't until after that war that the federal government gained great powers. That worked out well for us in WWI and WWII, but was not practical prior to the Civil War.
Never forget that Grant and Sherman did not beat Lee with tactics, they won because the North was industrialized and the South was agrarian and simply lacked the manufacturing capacity for a sustained war. Many in the South know that and still see Lee as a hero because of that. As for Lee being a symbol of slavery, then you would have to call everything in the South a symbol of slavery. You can't erase slavery by leveling the South, and removing historic statues won't do that either.
You could remove everything that existed in the South before and during the war, and it wouldn't end racism. It wouldn't solve any minority issues at all. Pulling down statues just makes the problem worse as we have just seen. If the statue had been left as is, there would have been no Charlottesville. No one on any side would have been out on the streets, with or without weapons. No fanatic from Ohio would have driven down there, and three more people would be alive.
Anyone who can't understand that is missing the point.




thompsonx -> RE: Republicans slowly realize Trump may be worst president ever (8/15/2017 5:28:00 AM)


ORIGINAL: Made2Obey

You are aware that Lee served the US Army in war with Mexico,


So what?

that at the time he served under Winfield Scott, the first commander of the Union Army, who praised Lee in his army record.


So what?

As an Army Corps of Engineers officer he settled a disputed boundary line between Michigan and Ohio.


So what?

He engineered St. Louis harbor, and did work on the Mississippi and Missouri rivers to enable steam boat traffic.


So what?

He surveyed and mapped large areas of Florida.

So what?

He was superintendent of West Point.

So what?

He was commander of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Texas and fought to protect settlers.


So What?


Most of all, were you aware that he was the first officer that Lincoln asked to command the Union army, before either Scott or Grant?


So what?

He only didn't take the offer because he felt allegiance to his home state of Virginia in a time when state governments had more direct influence over citizens than the federal government.


The fact that he was a slave owner and the articles of secession for virginia guaranteed his right to remain so had nothing to do with it????Roflmfao

He didn't even want to command the Confederate Army, but took the job reluctantly after Jefferson Davis practically begged Lee to.


Roflmfao

During the Mexican-American war Lee and Grant served together and they remained friends after the Civil War.


So what?


Lee would have been a historic figure even if the Civil War never happened.


Just like benedict arnold and james Wilkerson who had distinguished carrears before becoming traitors.


The idea that he was a traitor shows great ignorance of the political situation at the time. Everyone put their state before the Federal government in the time before the Civil War.


Perhaps you should not have left high school at 13. Your knowledge of history is non existent.


In that sense Lee was no different than anyone else who fought in that war.


Logic would consider those who fought for the preservation of the union were different since they were fighting for the union and not their state.


I personally had ancestors who fought in that war on both sides. Some of them were still alive when I was a child and I know from speaking to them,


Your profile says you are 64 which would have you being born in 1953 which would be 98 years after the civil war ended. If you spoke with a 'drummer boy'
who would have to be 112 years old when you were still taking liquid nourishment?????
Your credibility is suspect.



that no one on either side wanted to fight, but all saw it as their duty.


Is that why both north and south had to devote significant resources to 'round up' deserters and those who would not 'volunteer'?

It wasn't until after that war that the federal government gained great powers. That worked out well for us in WWI and WWII,


The 'dick' act comes nearly fifty years after the civil war.



Never forget that Grant and Sherman did not beat Lee with tactics, they won because the North was industrialized and the South was agrarian and simply lacked the manufacturing capacity for a sustained war.

Bruce caton would disagree with your pedestrian assessment.


Many in the South know that and still see Lee as a hero because of that.


That is because they are terminally stupid. Perhaps you should read longstreet's assessment of lee.

As for Lee being a symbol of slavery, then you would have to call everything in the South a symbol of slavery.


A false premis will always lead to a false conclusion.

You can't erase slavery by leveling the South, and removing historic statues won't do that either.


If you are going to put up statues to traitors then why not statues for wilkerson, arnold or the rosenbergs?


You could remove everything that existed in the South before and during the war, and it wouldn't end racism.


It would end the praise of it which is step one.

It wouldn't solve any minority issues at all. Pulling down statues just makes the problem worse as we have just seen.


The issue is caused by those who would preserve the 'glorification' of slavery

If the statue had been left as is, there would have been no Charlottesville. No one on any side would have been out on the streets, with or without weapons. No fanatic from Ohio would have driven down there, and three more people would be alive.
Anyone who can't understand that is missing the point.


You are clearly missing the point through your willful ignorance. Wasn't the statue scheduled to be removed? Why don't you know this? Why are you in a discussion without
knowing the issue?





Musicmystery -> RE: Republicans slowly realize Trump may be worst president ever (8/15/2017 10:10:58 AM)

You know, I'm continually struck by the (either) inability or unwillingness (or both) of Trump apologists to focus their defense around his accomplishments and contributions. Instead, it's deflect and derail -- what about these guys, what about that person, what about anything except the president.

Whatever happened to Truman's "The buck stops here?"

Now it's "anyone's fault but Trump."

Can they not see how silly and weak it makes him look?




stef -> RE: Republicans slowly realize Trump may be worst president ever (8/15/2017 12:07:33 PM)

It's pretty sad when you realize that the 1996 version of Bob Dole has more of a spine than Cheeto Hitler ever will.

Bob Dole, in his 1996 presidential nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in San Diego, was even more direct.

"If there is anyone who has mistakenly attached themselves to our party in the belief that we're not open to citizens of every race and religion, then let me remind you, tonight this hall belongs to the party of Lincoln and the exits, which are clearly marked, are for you to walk out of as I stand this ground without compromise," he said.





tamaka -> RE: Republicans slowly realize Trump may be worst president ever (8/15/2017 12:37:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You know, I'm continually struck by the (either) inability or unwillingness (or both) of Trump apologists to focus their defense around his accomplishments and contributions. Instead, it's deflect and derail -- what about these guys, what about that person, what about anything except the president.

Whatever happened to Truman's "The buck stops here?"

Now it's "anyone's fault but Trump."

Can they not see how silly and weak it makes him look?


He has kept everyone focused on him.




WhoreMods -> RE: Republicans slowly realize Trump may be worst president ever (8/15/2017 1:34:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You know, I'm continually struck by the (either) inability or unwillingness (or both) of Trump apologists to focus their defense around his accomplishments and contributions. Instead, it's deflect and derail -- what about these guys, what about that person, what about anything except the president.

Whatever happened to Truman's "The buck stops here?"

Now it's "anyone's fault but Trump."

Can they not see how silly and weak it makes him look?


He has kept everyone focused on him.


And focussing the debate on anything they can besides el presidente makes their support of him look a little less embarrassing(at least to themselves). The whole thing's like a domestic version of the "he may be a shit but he's our shit and he's against our enemies so he has to be our shit as well" the republicans spent the whole of the '80s trotting out to justify spending foreign aid on arming shits like Hussein and Portacarero, so it's not like they haven't practiced this approach before.




Musicmystery -> RE: Republicans slowly realize Trump may be worst president ever (8/15/2017 2:11:29 PM)

Maybe to themselves. I think it makes him look more embarrassing.




WhoreMods -> RE: Republicans slowly realize Trump may be worst president ever (8/16/2017 4:31:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Maybe to themselves. I think it makes him look more embarrassing.

Hey, I didn't say it was an approach that worked, just that it's the only one they have at the moment.




Musicmystery -> RE: Republicans slowly realize Trump may be worst president ever (8/16/2017 6:08:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stef

It's pretty sad when you realize that the 1996 version of Bob Dole has more of a spine than Cheeto Hitler ever will.

Bob Dole, in his 1996 presidential nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in San Diego, was even more direct.

"If there is anyone who has mistakenly attached themselves to our party in the belief that we're not open to citizens of every race and religion, then let me remind you, tonight this hall belongs to the party of Lincoln and the exits, which are clearly marked, are for you to walk out of as I stand this ground without compromise," he said.



. . . and that in 2002, the GOP had spine enough to stand up to white nationalist rhetoric:

The US senate majority leader, Trent Lott, bowed to the politically inevitable today and resigned his post as US senate majority leader, two weeks after praising the segregationist 1948 presidential campaign of Strom Thurmond.

Republicans, Democrats and many media outlets have been calling for Mr Lott's head since his comments at a 100th birthday party for Mr Thurmond. Yesterday the country's most prominent black Republican, Colin Powell, went on record as "deploring the sentiments" expressed by Mr Lott at the now infamous party. The president's brother, Florida governor Jeb Bush, also signalled that he though Mr Lott should step down.

Mr Lott released a written statement today saying: "In the interest of pursuing the best possible agenda for the future of our country, I will not seek to remain as majority leader of the United States Senate for the 108th Congress, effective January 6 2003. To all those who offered me their friendship, support and prayers, I will be eternally grateful. I will continue to serve the people of Mississippi in the United States Senate."

The nub of the controversy was his comment that "we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years" if Mr Thurmond, who ran a campaign to keep blacks out of white schools and neighbourhoods, had won the presidency in 1948. Mainstream media did not immediately pick up the story, but after a number of weblogs publicised the comments and explained their significance, a backlash built up against Mr Lott's leadership.

With the White House backing away and fellow Republicans openly considering successors, Mr Lott's hard-fought campaign to sit out the controversy appeared doomed. His various apologies failed to convince the public that his comment was simply a slip of the tongue, rather than the expression of deeply held beliefs.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/dec/20/usa.sarahleft

Simply, this is not the same party. What happened in 15 years, FFS?

Now it's any evil for a vote.

But I think (and, OK, I hope) that in 2018 and 2020, they're going to find that their extended tantrum because they can't get over that a black man led the country for 8 years is going to cause a considerable backlash. There ARE people who remember American values.

Oligarchy isn't one of them. And neither is neo-Nazism or the KKK.




thompsonx -> RE: Republicans slowly realize Trump may be worst president ever (8/16/2017 6:20:38 AM)


ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Can they not see how silly and weak it makes him look?


In addition to looking weak and silly it also makes them quite visible. The story of putting the bell on the cats tail comes to mind.
In todays information age we now have ultra clear photos of members of the Nazis and the kkk. How many key strokes would it
take to find out who those people are through facial recognition software? How many keystrokes to find out if they own a firearm or
hold a security clearance?





Musicmystery -> RE: Republicans slowly realize Trump may be worst president ever (8/16/2017 6:21:11 AM)

Six more business leaders stepped down from presidential advisory councils citing values as the primary motivation for distancing themselves from Trump.

The chief executive of Walmart, the world’s largest retailer, criticized President Trump in front of his 1.5 million American employees, widening a rift between the White House and the business community that has been growing since the weekend’s violence in Charlottesville, Va.

“As we watched the events and the response from President Trump over the weekend, we too felt that he missed a critical opportunity to help bring our country together by unequivocally rejecting the appalling actions of white supremacists,” Douglas McMillon, the Walmart C.E.O., wrote in a letter to employees late Monday.

The rebuke from Mr. McMillon came as six other business leaders stepped down from presidential advisory councils — including two late on Monday, the C.E.O.s of Intel and Under Armour — citing their own values as the primary motivation for distancing themselves from Mr. Trump.

The president hit back at his critics in the business world during a news conference at Trump Tower Tuesday. He spent several minutes lashing out at some of the most prominent executives in the country, saying that those who left his councils were “not taking their jobs seriously” and were “leaving out of embarrassment.”

The departures represent a rare spectacle in which prominent executives are looking for ways to pull back from an American president who campaigned, and won, partly on the strength of his pro-business stance. This has created an unusual calculus: Whether or not to stay on as advisers to a president, a role that traditionally is a coveted position with little to no attendant risk.

The exodus began Monday, when Merck’s chief executive said he was resigning from Mr. Trump’s manufacturing council, citing the president’s tepid early statement on the violence in Charlottesville, where white nationalists staged a weekend march that turned violent. On Tuesday, the leaders of a labor group and a nonprofit business alliance resigned from the same panel. Mr. McMillon of Walmart has chosen to remain on the president’s economic advisory council, despite his criticisms.

Having come into office boasting of his business bona fides, Mr. Trump was quick to forge ties with the corporate world. Central to these efforts was the formation of the business advisory groups made up of executives who would help shape policy discussions.

Dozens of prominent business leaders joined the panels, and in the first weeks of Mr. Trump’s presidency, numerous meetings were held at the White House. Yet the early momentum dissipated and few meetings of the advisory groups have been held since.

For the chief executive of Intel, who stepped down from the manufacturing council on Monday, the journey from engagement with the new president to a public breakup played out over the course of months.

Brian Krzanich, the Intel chief, was curious about the Trump movement and, during the campaign, planned to hold a fund-raiser for Mr. Trump at his home to hear his views — only to cancel it after an outcry in Silicon Valley. Nevertheless, when Intel decided to expand a plant in Arizona in February, Mr. Krzanich called Mr. Trump and joined the president to announce it at the White House, even though the long-planned project was initially announced with President Obama.

Yet Mr. Krzanich has publicly disagreed with Mr. Trump on key issues, like the president’s proposed immigration ban in January and the decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accords.

The president’s response to the weekend’s violence in Charlottesville, Va., was the final straw. In a thinly veiled reference to Mr. Trump, Mr. Krzanich wrote that he was disturbed by people in Washington who “seem more concerned with attacking anyone who disagrees with them.” In a nod to the protesters who challenged the white supremacists as well as to Kenneth C. Frazier, the chief executive of Merck, who quit the council early on Monday in protest of Mr. Trump’s actions, Mr. Krzanich added, “We should honor – not attack – those who have stood up for equality and other cherished American values.”

After deliberating over the weekend and on Monday with senior executives and other advisers, Mr. Krzanich notified the council of his decision in writing on Monday night and published a blog post explaining it.

The willingness of Mr. Krzanich and other C.E.O.s to walk away from the advisory panels highlights an uncomfortable reality for Mr. Trump: He billed himself as the businessman-president, but some executives no longer want to work with him.

“This should be his strong suit: courting C.E.O.s,” said Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian at Rice University. “Instead, Trump finds himself with C.E.O.s not wanting to be in a photo op with the president. What should have been an honor has become an albatross.”

On Monday, Mr. Frazier of Merck, Kevin Plank of Under Armour and Mr. Krzanich of Intel stepped down from the manufacturing council. And Tuesday morning, Scott Paul, the president of the American Alliance for Manufacturing, a nonprofit group, said on Twitter that he, too, was stepping down from the manufacturing council “because it’s the right thing for me to do.”

After Mr. Trump on Tuesday equivocated in his criticism of far-right hate groups, Richard Trumka, the president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., and Thea Lee, the deputy chief of staff, also stepped down.

“We cannot sit on a council for a president who tolerates bigotry and domestic terrorism,” Mr. Trumka said. “President Trump’s remarks today repudiate his forced remarks yesterday about the KKK and neo-Nazis. We must resign on behalf of America’s working people, who reject all notions of legitimacy of these bigoted groups.”

“The risk calculus has changed dramatically,” said Scott Galloway, a professor at New York University Business School, who sits on several corporate boards. “Yes, you may risk a tweet from Trump. But his tweets are increasingly flaccid.”

More: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/business/trump-councils-ceos.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news




Musicmystery -> RE: Republicans slowly realize Trump may be worst president ever (8/16/2017 7:29:57 PM)

Republican mayor who didn't vote for Trump won House primary in Utah

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — A Utah mayor overcame nearly $1 million in attacks from out-of-state groups to win a three-way Republican primary in a race to fill a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives vacated by Jason Chaffetz.

Tuesday's win puts Provo Mayor John Curtis on an easy path toward victory in the November special election. Republicans outnumber Democrats 5-to-1 in Utah's 3rd Congressional District. Chaffetz represented the district until he abruptly resigned in June, citing a desire to spend more time with family.

Utah's special election is one of seven this year to fill vacancies in the U.S. House and Senate, five of which opened up when elected officials took posts in President Donald Trump's administration.

Chaffetz, a five-term Republican, carved out a reputation for using the House Oversight committee he chaired to run aggressive investigations of Hillary Clinton before the 2016 presidential elections. He's since taken a role as a Fox News commentator.

His departure opened up a congressional seat in an area that stretches from the Salt Lake City suburbs and several ski towns southeast to Provo and coal country.

The three Republicans running to replace him carved out nuanced stances toward Trump that were emblematic of the divisions roiling the GOP under the president.

Curtis, who drew support from the GOP's more moderate flank, was the only candidate who didn't vote for Trump, saying he had significant moral concerns about supporting the billionaire businessman.

Unofficial results show Curtis as the victor after his opponents split support from more conservative Republicans.

The 57-year-old used his victory speech Tuesday to decry the heavy outside spending, which usually isn't seen in primary races in overwhelmingly Republican Utah.

"I've got a message to those PACs in Washington, D.C. and those special interests: This is my town, this is my district. Go home. You wasted your money," Curtis said.

As supporters erupted into cheers at his Provo election night party, Curtis said in a phone interview with The Associated Press that his victory showed that voters liked his positive campaign.

"It was Utah-based, Utah-principled, Utah-endorsed. That's what they want," Curtis said. "They didn't like the negativity."

http://www.businessinsider.com/john-curtis-house-jason-chaffetz-2017-8




Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.201172E-02