Trump MAGAthread VI

[Conserative Morality]

His policies so far haven't been that bad some of them arnt great but at least he's attempting to deal with illegals and preventing terrorist from entering the country.

"Let's ban countries that terrorists haven't come to the US through while allowing countries that have had nationals commit terrorist attacks on US soil through!"

Great job 10/10 not retarded and counterproductive at all

[Hittanryan]

That's precisely why the left opposes Trump. His policies thus far have been policies of exclusion, of indifference, and of corrupt self-interest.

His policies so far haven't been that bad some of them arnt great but at least he's attempting to deal with illegals and preventing terrorist from entering the country.

I'm going to lose my health coverage thanks to Trumpcare. I have every right to oppose his policies.

Most illegal immigrants fly into the country and overstay their visas. The wall will do nothing. Try again.

The Muslim ban excluded Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 9/11 hijackers came from. Try again.

[Genivaria]

When you read all these pages and just see all the trump bashing. Would you of rather Clinton won? Both sucked trump just sucked least.

Aw, poor Trump, getting criticized for being a man-child. "Please stop reminding me of the failures of the man I voted in =((((("

A politician being mocked, jesus christ how horrifying.

[Conserative Morality]

The reactions of NATO world leaders while Trump lectured them on spending. Priceless.

What's wrong here?

Now, Trump does actually have a point here. Technically, all NATO states are supposed to spend at least 2 percent of GDP on their defense budget — but only five of NATO’s 28 members hit the target. This is an issue that past US presidents, including Barack Obama, have raised at NATO summits before.

But Trump has repeatedly questioned the value of NATO in the past two years, once threatening to not defend allies that didn’t pay enough money — something past US presidents never did, as it calls into question the foundation of the alliance itself. In this speech, Trump pointedly did not mention Article 5 — the provision of the NATO treaty that declares an attack on one to be an attack on all — underscoring the worry that his talk about not paying NATO allies’ debts creates.

[Ghategen]

His policies so far haven't been that bad some of them arnt great but at least he's attempting to deal with illegals and preventing terrorist from entering the country.

"Let's ban countries that terrorists haven't come to the US through while allowing countries that have had nationals commit terrorist attacks on US soil through!"

Great job 10/10 not retarded and counterproductive at all

Your right we should just fully close borders that would fix alot of current issues including the illegals down in mexico. Make sure the dems put that on their list next election.

[Corrian]

When you read all these pages and just see all the trump bashing. Would you of rather Clinton won? Both sucked trump just sucked least.

Yes, yes, I would have preferred Clinton. Every day wouldn't be a ridiculous embarrassment.

And before you ask, no, she wasn't remotely my first pick. It took me until September to even decide I was going to vote for her.

[Conserative Morality]

Your right we should just fully close borders that would fix alot of current issues including the illegals down in mexico. Make sure the dems put that on their list next election.

The quality of my opposition has dropped so low these past few months I can't even tell if that suggestion is sarcastic.

[Uxupox]

What's wrong here?

Now, Trump does actually have a point here. Technically, all NATO states are supposed to spend at least 2 percent of GDP on their defense budget — but only five of NATO’s 28 members hit the target. This is an issue that past US presidents, including Barack Obama, have raised at NATO summits before.

But Trump has repeatedly questioned the value of NATO in the past two years, once threatening to not defend allies that didn’t pay enough money — something past US presidents never did, as it calls into question the foundation of the alliance itself. In this speech, Trump pointedly did not mention Article 5 — the provision of the NATO treaty that declares an attack on one to be an attack on all — underscoring the worry that his talk about not paying NATO allies’ debts creates.

Still don't understand what's wrong.

[Great Franconia and Verana]

When you read all these pages and just see all the trump bashing. Would you of rather Clinton won? Both sucked trump just sucked least.

Its reasonable to not like Clinton, I can understand how many people do.

However, the persistent idea that both Trump and Clinton are equally reprehensible is bullshit.

Would Clinton be taking away the healthcare of 23 million Americans?
Would Clinton be slashing environmental standards and rolling back climate change policies?
Would Clinton be alienating the US from its closest allies in a vain attempt to cozy up to an authoritarian douche?
Would Clinton have appointed the abhorrent Jeff Sessions as Attorney General?
Would Clinton have attempted to institute an immigration ban that is utterly useless and unconstitutional?
Would Clinton whine about how hard being President is?
Would Clinton have appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and ensured a conservative majority on the bench for the foreseeable future?

The list goes on, but the point is, Clinton may not be everyone's cup of political tea, but by practically every measure, she was light years ahead of Trump. I for sure had my disagreements with her politically, but my fellow progressives and liberals who subscribe to this fantasy where Trump and Clinton were equally horrible are being foolish.

[Ghategen]

Your right we should just fully close borders that would fix alot of current issues including the illegals down in mexico. Make sure the dems put that on their list next election.

The quality of my opposition has dropped so low these past few months I can't even tell if that suggestion is sarcastic.

My only suggestion is if you want to impeach trump give a legit reason for impeachment. YOu can't impeach someone because i don't like their policies. Otherwise everyone from Obama to Bush to Nixon and Eisenhower would of been impeached.

[The East Marches II]

What's wrong here?

Now, Trump does actually have a point here. Technically, all NATO states are supposed to spend at least 2 percent of GDP on their defense budget — but only five of NATO’s 28 members hit the target. This is an issue that past US presidents, including Barack Obama, have raised at NATO summits before.

But Trump has repeatedly questioned the value of NATO in the past two years, once threatening to not defend allies that didn’t pay enough money — something past US presidents never did, as it calls into question the foundation of the alliance itself. In this speech, Trump pointedly did not mention Article 5 — the provision of the NATO treaty that declares an attack on one to be an attack on all — underscoring the worry that his talk about not paying NATO allies’ debts creates.

Those parasites should pay up. He is right on that front.

[Ghategen]

When you read all these pages and just see all the trump bashing. Would you of rather Clinton won? Both sucked trump just sucked least.

Its reasonable to not like Clinton, I can understand how many people do.

However, the persistent idea that both Trump and Clinton are equally reprehensible is bullshit.

Would Clinton be taking away the healthcare of 23 million Americans?
Would Clinton be slashing environmental standards and rolling back climate change policies?
Would Clinton be alienating the US from its closest allies in a vain attempt to cozy up to an authoritarian douche?
Would Clinton have appointed the abhorrent Jeff Sessions as Attorney General?
Would Clinton have attempted to institute an immigration ban that is utterly useless and unconstitutional?
Would Clinton whine about how hard being President is?
Would Clinton have appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and ensured a conservative majority on the bench for the foreseeable future?

The list goes on, but the point is, Clinton may not be everyone's cup of political tea, but by practically every measure, she was light years ahead of Trump. I for sure had my disagreements with her politically, but my fellow progressives and liberals who subscribe to this fantasy where Trump and Clinton were equally horrible are being foolish.

Can you back up any of these claims to facts or are these your personal opinions? As for the last one it would of just been a democrat majority so your point is what?

[Minzerland II]

Could it be because the underlying agendas they all seem to have?

The only journalist I personally hate was that douchey woman in CNN that attacked the navy seals man.

She makes a great case study for journalism, tbh.

Could it be because the underlying agendas they all seem to have?

Lemme guess, you watch ones yourself with agendas.

I don't have anything specific.

Could it be because the underlying agendas they all seem to have?

...generalization much?

That is to be expected, especially when the public is incessantly bombarded by the agendas of Journalists everyday. There is good reason to consider journalism to a bad, bad joke.

[Hittanryan]

The quality of my opposition has dropped so low these past few months I can't even tell if that suggestion is sarcastic.

My only suggestion is if you want to impeach trump give a legit reason for impeachment. YOu can't impeach someone because i don't like their policies. Otherwise everyone from Obama to Bush to Nixon and Eisenhower would of been impeached.

Nixon was about to be impeached for obstruction of justice. Guess what Trump may have done?

[Corrian]

The quality of my opposition has dropped so low these past few months I can't even tell if that suggestion is sarcastic.

My only suggestion is if you want to impeach trump give a legit reason for impeachment. YOu can't impeach someone because i don't like their policies. Otherwise everyone from Obama to Bush to Nixon and Eisenhower would of been impeached.

We HAVE many legitimate reasons already. From day one actually, since conflicts of interest were all over the place from the get go.

[Great Franconia and Verana]

That's precisely why the left opposes Trump. His policies thus far have been policies of exclusion, of indifference, and of corrupt self-interest.

His policies so far haven't been that bad some of them arnt great but at least he's attempting to deal with illegals and preventing terrorist from entering the country.

I take it you are not one of the 23 million Americans going to lose Health insurance if the Senate passes Trump care?

[Thermodolia]

The quality of my opposition has dropped so low these past few months I can't even tell if that suggestion is sarcastic.

My only suggestion is if you want to impeach trump give a legit reason for impeachment. YOu can't impeach someone because i don't like their policies. Otherwise everyone from Obama to Bush to Nixon and Eisenhower would of been impeached.

Obstruction of justice. Telling the FBI to drop an investigation, and telling the NSA and the CIA to interfere with that investigation counts as such

[Conserative Morality]

Still don't understand what's wrong.

But Trump has repeatedly questioned the value of NATO in the past two years, once threatening to not defend allies that didn’t pay enough money — something past US presidents never did, as it calls into question the foundation of the alliance itself. In this speech, Trump pointedly did not mention Article 5 — the provision of the NATO treaty that declares an attack on one to be an attack on all — underscoring the worry that his talk about not paying NATO allies’ debts creates.

Trump: "Hurr hurr I either don't understand or don't support the very basis of this alliance but I want you all to pay more towards it"

Macron, who was elected in part on a platform to bring France's defense spending to NATO recommendations: "ヽ(￣д￣;)ノ"

[Camicon]

My only suggestion is if you want to impeach trump give a legit reason for impeachment. YOu can't impeach someone because i don't like their policies. Otherwise everyone from Obama to Bush to Nixon and Eisenhower would of been impeached.

Obstruction of justice. Telling the FBI to drop an investigation, and telling the NSA and the CIA to interfere with that investigation counts as such

And, as Corrian said, violation of the emoluments clause from Day One.

[Great Franconia and Verana]

Its reasonable to not like Clinton, I can understand how many people do.

However, the persistent idea that both Trump and Clinton are equally reprehensible is bullshit.

Would Clinton be taking away the healthcare of 23 million Americans?
Would Clinton be slashing environmental standards and rolling back climate change policies?
Would Clinton be alienating the US from its closest allies in a vain attempt to cozy up to an authoritarian douche?
Would Clinton have appointed the abhorrent Jeff Sessions as Attorney General?
Would Clinton have attempted to institute an immigration ban that is utterly useless and unconstitutional?
Would Clinton whine about how hard being President is?
Would Clinton have appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and ensured a conservative majority on the bench for the foreseeable future?

The list goes on, but the point is, Clinton may not be everyone's cup of political tea, but by practically every measure, she was light years ahead of Trump. I for sure had my disagreements with her politically, but my fellow progressives and liberals who subscribe to this fantasy where Trump and Clinton were equally horrible are being foolish.

Can you back up any of these claims to facts or are these your personal opinions? As for the last one it would of just been a democrat majority so your point is what?

These are all awful things Trump has done, that Clinton would not have done. Thats the point.
A liberal court, something we have not seen in years, would be much more acceptable to, hmm, idk, LIBERALS, than the current/previous 5-4 split.

[Uxupox]

Still don't understand what's wrong.

But Trump has repeatedly questioned the value of NATO in the past two years, once threatening to not defend allies that didn’t pay enough money — something past US presidents never did, as it calls into question the foundation of the alliance itself. In this speech, Trump pointedly did not mention Article 5 — the provision of the NATO treaty that declares an attack on one to be an attack on all — underscoring the worry that his talk about not paying NATO allies’ debts creates.

Trump: "Hurr hurr I either don't understand or don't support the very basis of this alliance but I want you all to pay more towards it"

Macron, who was elected in part on a platform to bring France's defense spending to NATO recommendations: "ヽ(￣д￣;)ノ"

You mean not defending some parasites allies that can't even meet the recommendations of the organization? What's wrong here?

[Corrian]

Can you back up any of these claims to facts or are these your personal opinions? As for the last one it would of just been a democrat majority so your point is what?

Its a bunch of stuff that's pretty easy to know if you actually payed attention over the last few months.

[Conserative Morality]

My only suggestion is if you want to impeach trump give a legit reason for impeachment. YOu can't impeach someone because i don't like their policies. Otherwise everyone from Obama to Bush to Nixon and Eisenhower would of been impeached.

Violation of the Emoluments Clause

(Possible) Collaboration with foreign powers to subvert American elections

Obstruction of Justice

Pick one. Any one.

[Proctopeo]

That's a direct quote from a Wikipedia article that links the Swedish penal code; now, of course, these links are dead, so I found a relatively up-to-date version, in the original Swedish.

The relevant part, that is, Chapter 16 Section 8, roughly translated to this:



So, no, it's not inaccurate. Hate speech laws in Sweden do include the "expression of contempt".

It's inaccurate because you're ignoring the written, stated intentions of the lawmakers, an important source for interpreting Swedish laws. You're also ignoring how the law has been interpreted by the Swedish Supreme Court and is used by the Swedish criminal courts. In addition, you didn't mention the European Convention of Human Rights, which further limits it's application.

In short, far from all "expressions of contempt" fall under the law. Hence, inaccurate.

Alla uttalanden av nedsättande eller förnedrande natur omfattas dock inte. Uttalanden som inte kan anses överskrida gränserna för en saklig kritik av vissa grupper faller utanför det straffbara området. För straffbarhet krävs att det är fullt klart att uttalandet överskrider gränsen för en saklig och vederhäftig diskussion rörande gruppen i fråga. Hänsyn till opinionsfriheten och kritikrätten får visserligen inte åberopas som skydd för uttalanden som uttrycker missaktning mot en hel folkgrupp på grund av att den t.ex. tillhör en viss nationalitet och av denna anledning skulle vara mindre värd. (Se prop. 1970:87 s. 130, jfr prop. 2001/02:59 s. 14 f. och 37 f.) Det straffbara området skall dock inte sträckas så långt att det kommer att omfatta även en saklig diskussion om eller kritik av homosexualitet. Kriminaliseringen skall inte utgöra hinder mot opinionsfriheten eller ett hot mot den fria åsiktsbildningen. Vidare skall vetenskapens frihet bevaras. I det sagda ligger att också sådana påståenden som bäst bemöts eller tillrättaläggs i en fri och öppen debatt inte skall omfattas av kriminaliseringen. (Prop. 2001/ 02:59 s. 35 f.)

https://lagen.nu/dom/nja/2005s805

I never said "all". I said that they "include" that. Grav, I'm pretty sure you're better than this.

[Improved werpland]

That is to be expected, especially when the public is incessantly bombarded by the agendas of Journalists everyday. There is good reason to consider journalism to a bad, bad joke.

So do you just not like opinion piece writers or?

Mind the joke, I am actually curious.