• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About cprenegade


  • Location
    over the Rainbow
  • Gender
    rather not say
  1. Because the Philippine government didn't put out the transcript, it was leaked, and picked up by the Intercept. So there is no official government transcript. The Intercept is published by First Look Media, owned by Pierre Omidyar. I know you guys want to get Trump, but he gives you a lot of serious ammunition all on his own. Going after stories that are obviously very questionable when there are so many other real, verifiable events just puts you in the same category as the low information voters that bought into fake news that you all like to pick on.
  2. Does it really matter? I am not aware of any mechanism in our government that says the people can recall him if his popularity drops below a certain level. And if we're talking about re-election, I think it is safe to say that his obvious inexperience with government has probably insured that most of the independents that supported him will likely go the other way, provided democrats don't nominate someone that repulses them again.
  3. Ok, I totally doubt these accounts. Even if he did say that, I doubt he was right. Trump can't remember the details of what he ordered for lunch let alone where any of our military is located. And even if he did, military officials would never confirm that he actually did it. I might think this was a bluff in the hopes it would get back to NK, but I doubt Trump is that smart. George HW Bush and James Baker did it with Saddam, but Trump isn't that capable. I just don't buy into Talkingpointsmemo or buzzfeed. Until they can put names to that story, they are part of the internet gossip sensation that exists now. They make Trump out to understand and retain more military knowledge than I think he actually is capable of or wants to know.
  4. My only argument with that is that perhaps they should simply not have attended. It was known since March that Pence would be speaking, plenty of time for them to notify school administration that they would not attend and would like their degrees mailed to them. The ceremony is for everyone and their families. If you have that much of a problem with who is speaking perhaps it would be better to decline to be there rather than cause controversy. But as I said, the protest was done quietly and in a way that did not disrupt or ruin the ceremony for anyone else, so I give them credit. It's a shame all protestors can't be that respectful.
  5. No loud booing, no attempts to shout down the speaker, no disruption of the ceremony at all. They simply got up and walked out, and the ceremony continued. At least the Notre Dame students handled their protest with class and dignity, unlike some other schools and events where protestors acted like children having tantrums. Good for the students of Notre Dame. At least they kept it civil.
  6. I didn't say they were totally responsible. I said they are not innocent bystanders in the worldwide game of terrorism. They play the game from behind the scenes, but they are very much involved with terrorist organizations that carry out activities across the globe. To deny their involvement is simply being naïve.
  7. Conspiracies? The cases were built using intelligence findings on meetings between Al-Qaeda and Iranian officials and tracing where Iranian money was going. Iran isn't at the forefront of any terrorist activity, but they are indirectly involved in it as a background player and a source of knowledge and money. As for Ghaddafi being framed, he accepted responsibility in 2003 for the Lockerbie bombing, although being careful to maintain that he himself never gave the order.
  8. Federal judges have found Iran complicit in the 1998 US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and in the bombing of the USS Cole. The 9/11 commission found that some of the hijackers passed through Iran and were aided by the Iranian border guards. They have aided Hezbollah, which has attacked western targets, and the Taliban which supported Al-Qaeda. Their main focus may be terrorism in the ME directed at Israel, but they are hardly innocent bystanders when it comes to worldwide terrorism. They just use more subtle, indirect methods of supporting it. My major objection to the easing of sanctions on Iran was that the Iran nuclear deal did not address Iran's sponsorship of terrorism.
  9. I've seen a few people in their 80+ years that were not up to handling the task of having a driver's license, yet as long as they renewed them in time, they got them. My point is simply if you make an assumption that someone under 35 is not up to the task, that is also age discrimination. Just not the kind everyone thinks of when they hear the term. If you can make a case for a limitation on the low end, the you can make a case that on the high age end your mental facilities are subject to slowing down. Life experiences might be important, but they don't necessarily guarantee success. Trump has plenty of life experiences, but they are very limited to situations where he has total control of the business deal. Not exactly good life experiences to be the leader of a country where you might have to negotiate with other countries instead of simply telling them what to do.
  10. Then why is our current law preventing anyone under 35 not age discrimination as well? If we can legally restrict on the low end, then we can legally restrict on the high end.
  11. Maybe there should be a maximum age requirement for government service. Once you're old enough to qualify for social security, you can't run for office anymore. But I'm sure someone would scream age discrimination. There's always some kind of discrimination for people to get upset about.
  12. It's also possible to believe that Comey was absolutely right to disclose that the investigation was being reopened because more emails came up, right again to disclose that nothing new came out of it, and have a problem with the way he was fired. Comey explained why he believed it was right to deliver that letter and make it public. Trump's explanation for firing him was not nearly as clear or as believable as Comey's was.
  13. I guess somehow you missed it. He has already done that.
  14. I agree with you that any other republican would have been the same as a Trump regarding the SC choice. But your question is an interesting one. Trump may be gone in less than one year of presidency if it can be proven that he committed treason. Most of his damage might be to the republican party. The SC nomination may keep the court conservative for the next decade plus. From a conservative point of view, was that worth what is going on now? And if he goes, Pence will be president. He is more hard core conservative than Trump and should the need for another SC justice come up while republicans control the senate, Pence would have the opportunity to turn the court to the conservative viewpoint for the next 20 years or so. Assuming Trump's damage would be limited to the EO's that he has signed, I'm not sure conservatives would find that such a bad trade off.