search results matching tag: White House

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.004 seconds

    Videos (524)     Sift Talk (30)     Blogs (42)     Comments (1000)   

Oprah For America! Really?

bobknight33 says...

Hillary won popular vote by 2.2% .

Trump won Electoral College Victory by 24% victory over Hillary.

And you thing Hillary should have won POTUS.
Hillary has a better chance of going to jail than the White House. Both slim to none.

newtboy said:

48.2% to 46.1%...landslide....for the one with 46.1%?
Keep dreaming. That's winning by technicality at best.
In 10 months, Trump becomes a lame duck president and we can all contain and ignore him. In 2 years and 10 months, we'll tear up his tax scam.
I, like you, hope that's not under president Winfrey.

Stephen Bites Into The Juicy New Trump Book

nanrod says...

If Trump eats so much McDonalds food, do they send for take out, does he have an official taster, or have they installed a McD's in the White House?

Donna Brazile: HRC controlled DNC and rigged the primary

notarobot says...

Not at all surprised by this.

This kind of corruption is going to keep happening as long as there is money in politics. The Moneyed Powers of Wall Street and Corporate America will continue to decide who sits in the White House.

Let Lawrence Lessig explain:


eric3579 (Member Profile)

radx says...

Politico has a long piece on Boehner. It includes this little gem:

On Sunday, July 17, it appeared they had a deal. Boehner and Virginia Representative Eric Cantor—whom the speaker had reluctantly brought into the negotiations, knowing the majority leader’s distrust of Obama could poison the talks—worked out some final details that morning at the White House. When the president returned from church, Boehner says, he invited them both into the Oval Office and shook their hands. Some fine-tuning remained, but in Boehner’s mind the so-called grand bargain was done. The framework included reforms to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security; $1.2 trillion in cuts to discretionary spending; and $800 billion in new revenue. “I was one happy son of a bitch,” Boehner tells me.

The next 48 hours changed everything. On Tuesday morning, the so-called Gang of Six—three senators from each party who had been discussing their own sweeping fiscal agreement—announced a briefing for their colleagues at the Capitol. They unveiled a separate framework, totally unaware of what Obama and Boehner had agreed to. This deal included significantly more revenue. Chambliss, by then a senator, was one of the GOP Gang members and had no idea—because Boehner had been negotiating with the president in private—that their announcement would kill the speaker’s deal with the White House. Obama saw that Republican senators were endorsing a deal that included far more revenue, and knew there was no way he could sell the grand bargain to his liberal base. When he came back with a counteroffer, seeking a higher revenue number, it validated Cantor’s warnings about not trusting the president. And by that point Boehner’s members had heard enough about the grand bargain to know they didn’t like it—with the $800 billion revenue figure, much less something higher.

So the deal fell apart, and the two sides peddled their competing versions of events: Boehner’s team said the White House moved the goal posts, while Obama’s allies said the speaker couldn’t sell his own members on the deal.

So the Grand Bargain was pretty much a done deal between Obama and Boehner.

Think about it: Bubba's plan to cut Social Security was foiled by Lewinsky, and Barry's plan to cut Social Security was foiled by the "Gang of Six". True Champions of the Plebs, both of them.

Bill Maher - Punching Nazis

ChaosEngine says...

"Yet it is how they were ultimately defeated."

Really? Here we are, 70 years after the biggest armed conflict the world has ever seen.... and yet we still have Nazis (hell, there's practically one in the white house). So no, they weren't ultimately defeated.

"When you express your support for nazis, you're not just saying you have an alternative viewpoint"

Woah, woah, woah! There's a pretty big difference between saying it's not ok to assault someone and expressing support for them. No-one here supports Nazis, but they do have a right to speak, even if what they have to say is abhorrent.

Of course, they don't have a right to be listened to, and we have the right to tell them to go fuck themselves.

"I can justify breaking the law to punch a nazi in the same way i can justify breaking the law to protest a fascist government. "

The law has nothing to do with it. It is unethical to assault someone simply for stating their beliefs.

I will grant you that if the Nazis ever get into power, an armed resistance would be moral. But there is a world of difference between expressing a thought (no matter how vile) and committing an action.

dannym3141 said:

quoted above

Art of Police Cover Up - Recorded Hiding Evidence

Drachen_Jager says...

This is the way of banana republics and the United States.

Practically every other industrialized country has better police oversight. This is why so many police interactions end in death. They do favors for the DA's office, then when they get in trouble, the favor is returned.

And, your boy in the White House just erased much of the oversight Obama installed to try and curb some of this shit.

But, nice way to change the world to fit your personal worldview rather than accepting that you might be wrong.

bobknight33 said:

Not saying its right but it is the way of the world.


Good Video.

Liberal Redneck - Virginia is for Lovers, not Nazis

newtboy says...

That's a long disjointed rambling rant for an apparent comprehension mistake.
I suggest you read again, I only mentioned antifa because Bob misidentified them, not to support or defend them.
So far as I know, they were not active in this specific fiasco, the one I'm commenting on. I have no love for them, as they seem to be fighting violent fascism with violent fascism.
I've seen no footage of black hooded thugs this time, only polo shirt wearing nazis (not hyperbole, actual nazis) fighting hipsters, women, children, and elderly people.

You must be fucking kidding, Asmo. The white nationalists are clear why they are feeling safe to unify and license to mobilize, their guy won the white house and he's gonna help them take their country back and make America white....I mean great again. When Trump tried to spread the blame for the violence, they saw that as another endorsement, as did most people. It's not a reaction to antifascists, antifascists are a reaction to their resurgence imo. Which came first, the KKK, the Neo Nazis, the alt right, or Antifa?
To be crystal clear, so you aren't confused again, my mention of the antifascists here is not an endorsement of their group or methods.

Asmo said:

While I have no interest in defending right wingers, the old adage of "defending scoundrels" applies...

You must be fucking kidding Newt... Seriously, have you had your head up your ass over the past year with the various riots and attacks headed up by antifa? The same people that classify anyone who doesn't submit to their orthodoxy as nazi's, then say it's fine to physically assault said nazi's for talking, because talking is literally as dangerous as physical violence? You remember the Battle of Berkley, bikelock guy, moldylocks and her scalp claims/sap gloves/M80's in glass bottles?

But yeah, they're as pure as the driven snow right?!?!? /eyeroll

The communists and the nazi's are only separated by the thinnest of differences, and both prefer to resolve issues with violence rather than conversation. Favouring one over the other is like saying Hitler was better than Stalin (or vice versa). But antifa and other identitarian groups do have to wear responsibility for unifying white nationalists and giving them license. They've spent so long vilifying whiteness that the only surprise here for me is that this sort of thing hasn't happened sooner.

But yeah, way to stand with the Communists Newt. Nice job.

Swamp Wars - Cindy Jacobs

RFlagg says...

Drain the swamp... I don't see any swam draining. He drained the very same Wall Street people he complained Hillary would bring in, into the White House, and other low lifes... like Bannon.

And if we get just another 10 months of turmoil depends on how we pray... of course a minor chunk of Christianity don't vote Republican, and actually vote the way Jesus would, which clearly wouldn't be for Trump or his kind... but I digress. So they are praying against Trump, but of course we know she means we need to pray for the nation, and for Trump's divine leadership from God... odd how the right is willing to say that God appoints leaders like Trump, but wouldn't say the same about Obama, who clearly was far more Christ like than Trump... Anyhow, the point I was going to get to, is odd how one has to pray to get God to act, though His will is perfect, so you can't change His mind, or His will... and why would He just sit and go... "4,998,888 more prayers to go, then I'll answer.. ohh... 4,999,884 to go! Way to go My people." That isn't compassion or anything... Either His will is perfect and His will will be done, or He's malleable, which isn't divine... or He's a fake, or at least no more real than any of the other 5,000 gods out there, and can't actually answer prayer any more than those other gods... "It takes an action of faith on our part, by praying"... bull shit, either He's going to do it or not.... because most of those kids with brain and bone cancer, Christian, with Christian families who pray all the time, as are most of the people who are dying of horrible things in this nation, but somehow His answering prayer ratio seems to be about the same as random, and the same as to any other god...

All these kind of people, and Fox News types who also brag about their faith, and how Christianity is under attack bull shit line... is why I hate Christianity and what it's become... to which Christians take great offence, "why hate me?" but I hate Christianity, not you as a person... of course they don't get that, because they identify so strongly with their faith that they take that personally as an attack against them... of course then they don't see how their anti-LGBT rantings, and the "don't hate the sinner, hate the sin" is basically the same... they can't empathize, and see how their hatred of the sin of homosexuality as they see it, is the same as my hatred of modern Christianity.

I love how the far right is far more upset at the leaks than the crime... when the DNC was having leaks, they had near zero concern about the leaks, it was the potential crimes being exposed that they were concerned with. Now that it is against Trump, suddenly the potential crime matters nothing, all that matters is leaks. Were this Clinton or Sanders, they'd be screaming from the mountain top, "the crime matters far more than the leaks! Lock her/him up!" Now they are going after leakers, who haven't exposed anything that endangers national security, just is embarrassing for our asshole in chief.

Of course the people who watch this, 700 Club, TBN, Fox, listen to right wing radio, and the like... they are still fired up, they still believe. Some of the people who voted for him who may not be in that crowd, might start having doubts, but the vast majority of his base still is in love with him, and still thinks he's God's greatest gift to this nation. They've been lied to and deceived by their churches for so long... that even if they actually do take a moment to read the Bible for themselves, they can't interpret it any other way than the way these ilk violate it's teachings, and the teachings of the Jesus they claim to follow.

As I've said before, if I were still a Christian, I'd seriously consider the modern right wing evangelical movement to be part of the anti-Christ system, as they turn more people against God than for Him, and are teaching a system opposite of what Jesus taught... Satan/the anti-Christ doesn't need to deceive the world, we are already damned to Hell, what he'd need to deceive, would be those who think they are faithful to the teachings of Jesus. Use them, not as a beacon of life and hope, but the pure bigotry and hate that modern Christianity is. To make it it unappealing... they might still get into Heaven with those who actually believe the way Jesus taught (because believing Jesus is the Christ, the son of God and all that is the only requirement in), but the Judgement Seat of Christ would find them learning how they cost millions of souls, then He'd point to the Christians on the left, and would say, they did far better, they followed my lessons... He'll look at Jim there and say, "look at the thousands of souls that you personally turned against My message, because you didn't teach the Love I commanded, you didn't teach the golden rule as I taught it, you taught a corrupted message, and now they'll burn for all eternity in Hell, because of you. I tried to reach them, but they heard your message of bigotry and hate, of love of money over helping the needy and the poor, of greed over the command to heal the sick, and turned from me.... now because you believed in Me, I have to let you in, but you'll live seeing those who turned from me as they are tormented in the back of your mind... you'll have a small home here, not the grand home that those who have taught my message properly have... to those who much was given, much was expected, and you failed. That man there, murdered 33 people, and converted before his execution, and his home will be grander than yours. Those who had much, will have little... so enter to your reward... of praising me for all I've done, 24/7 for all eternity, but as you praise, remember those who aren't here, because you poisoned the world against me." "Surely Lord there must be some who were saved, I saw them come forward." "They were already saved, or would soon be, for each one of them that actually turned to me because of you, hundreds turned away... that's not a good exchange Jim..."

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

JiggaJonson says...

Fair enough, but the problem in this case is the president alone. He's stirring up opposition to the bill and the party with his tweets.

Republicans can say that the ACA was written behind closed doors and pushed through all they want, but the truth is that Obama had much to do with its passing by promoting it and talking specifics. https://www.c-span.org/video/?292260-1/white-house-health-care-summit-part-1

Obama wasn't a president that simply repeated "it's a great bill, the BEST bill" over and over. Now, granted idk why the keep your doctor/plan line was repeated, but if you have a plan that doesn't let you go to the doctor, or a hospital, or get an ambulance, can you really call it health care anymore ?

At some point they had to define what health care was to be able to assign a legal consequence.

In summation, Obama helped the ACA along with speeches and conferences and open debates where he talked actual policy.

Trump is hurting his chances of passing anything by speaking only in vagaries and insults.

bobknight33 said:

Agreed more was passed. It should be noted that under Obama the Democrats had more Democrats so getting to the 50 vote was much easy.

Party Breakdown
In the 111th Congress, the current party alignments are
261 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 180 Republicans.
The Senate has 57 Democrats; two Independents, who caucus with the Democrats, and 41
Republican


Party Breakdown
In the 115th Congress, the current party alignments as of March 13, 2017, are as follows:
House of Representatives: 239 Republicans and 197 Democrats
and 5 vacancies.


Senate: 52 Republicans, 46 Democrats, and 2 Independents, who both caucus
with the Democrat

eric3579 (Member Profile)

radx says...

... and now this.

Add the moral hazard created by Dem hacks who insist that Trump needs to kill Russians to show that he's not in cahoots with Putin. The result: watch WW3 on Pay TV.

radx said:

The deeply conservative (!) "Die Welt" in Germany has two pieces by Sy Hersh, completely debunking the supposed chemical attack by the Syrians at Khan Sheikhoun. It also paints a highly disturbing picture of the decision-making process in both the White House and the Pentagon.

eric3579 (Member Profile)

radx says...

The deeply conservative (!) "Die Welt" in Germany has two pieces by Sy Hersh, completely debunking the supposed chemical attack by the Syrians at Khan Sheikhoun. It also paints a highly disturbing picture of the decision-making process in both the White House and the Pentagon.

The first one is a rather short conversation that includes all the goodies: the chemical attack in Syria was, once again, not a chemical attack by Syrian forces -- they hit a stash, just like both the Syrians and the Russians claimed at the time.

The piece also details that US forces are keenly aware that it was not a chemical attack, that the response (Tomahawk strike on Syrian airfield) was equally ridiculous and dangerous, and that the bellicose stance of the US vis-a-vis Russia is complete lunacy.

The longer piece by Hersh himself and displays in great details the disconnect between Trump and his military advisers, as well as between the upper echelons of the military and the troops in the region.

Just a snippet about the strike itself:

A Bomb Damage Assessment (BDA) by the U.S. military later determined that the heat and force of the 500-pound Syrian bomb triggered a series of secondary explosions that could have generated a huge toxic cloud that began to spread over the town, formed by the release of the fertilizers, disinfectants and other goods stored in the basement, its effect magnified by the dense morning air, which trapped the fumes close to the ground.

And the media went along for the ride, for the umpteenth time. Remember Brian Williams fawning about the beauty of the weapons?

At some point, this volatile mixture of warmongering and McCarthyism is going to start WW3, and they'll blame it on the Russians.

I think this quote illustrates the issue quite nicely:
“Did the Syrians plan the attack on Khan Sheikhoun? Absolutely. Do we have intercepts to prove it? Absolutely. Did they plan to use sarin? No. But the president did not say: ‘We have a problem and let’s look into it.’ He wanted to bomb the shit out of Syria.”

lurgee (Member Profile)

Trump Russian connection proven.

newtboy jokingly says...

Member that time Trump said he wants to fuck his daughter?

I member.

Member when Trump hired a known foreign agent as his national security advisor and kept him there with full clearance for weeks?

I member.

Member when Trump fired the man investigating his administration's ties to Russia then had the Russians in the white house celebrating and sharing top secret intelligence?

I member.

Member when the right pulled out every stop to try to distract from the fiasco?

I member.

Former CIA Dir. On Jared Kushner/Russia Secret Communication

newtboy says...

Only in your Trump addled mind.
It came from congressional hearings, not reporters.
This story has just begun.

You might note that none of the investigations Trump (and so you) call fake news have ended without finding evidence of improper behaviour with his people and the Russians during the transition.
Not one. That's because the only fake news is coming directly from the white house now, with 7 different, contradictory explanations for their actions every time they're caught, which is a few times a week. That's what happens when an idiot failure of a businessman doesn't understand that governing is different from owning a company that the board runs, or that public service isn't done in secret for your own financial gains.

bobknight33 said:

Yet another liberal Fake news story.

Again this story has failed.

Trump pushes aside NATO ally and Preens for the camera

newtboy says...

I don't want my upvote of your comment to be assumed to be a specific accusation against @bobknight33 of saying things that are that blatantly racist, but for the average Trump supporter, that mindset seems true. Most aren't as blatantly racist as that in public, some are, but it is at least a thought seemingly present in the subconscious of the majority of them, and is absolutely a thought not abhorrent enough to denounce for all but a select few.

For the rest, just change to "classless libtard snowflake doesn't know how to act right, can't wait till we finally get a classy hyper Christian conservative back in the white house"...or any other dismissive insult that allows them to believe in their fantasy world.

Remember, Obama wasn't just invalid as our president because he's black, but also Kenyan, a Muslim, the founder of Daesh, and part/leader of a child slavery pizza ring, etc...... ;-)

SaNdMaN said:

Mistaking brutishness for strength. Typical Trump supporter.

And if it were Obama, it would've been "nigger doesn't know how to act right; can't wait till we finally get a classy white president in the White House."



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon