The Trump Administration

The Orange Dove Of Peace:

The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/811977223326625792?ref_src=tw...

I said during the campaign that his rhetoric was empty and he's just another establishment Republican. I hope those who voted for him soon wake up to realize he fucked them hard with a dull knife. He's a carpet bagger and con man. He also is a bonafide sociopath.

Canada's Trudeau Says Trump Very Supportive of Keystone XL Pipeline

http://reuters.com/article/us-canada-energy-trudeau-idUSKBN14A1S0

"He actually brought up Keystone XL and indicated he was very supportive of it,' Trudeau told an event in Calgary, Canada's oil capital. 'I'm confident that the right decisions will be made..."

Quote:

The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes

"We must all chug a 26'er of Jagermeister and get behind the wheel until such time as Canada comes to its senses about drunk driving".

Merry Christmas and peace on earth!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/23/donald-trump-nuclear-wea...

Asked on Friday morning for clarification of his remarks about America’s need to “strengthen and expand” its nuclear weapons, President-elect Donald Trumpsaid: “Let it be an arms race.”

alan smithee wrote:

Apparently,Trump is having a hard time finding 'A' list entertainers for his inauguration. So he's forcing the Rockettes to perform with the threat of being fired.

Stay classy,fuckface.

http://addictinginfo.org/2016/12/23/the-rockettes-are-hitting-back-at-be...

 

While I think Trump is vile, an entertainment company does not normally seek democratic approval for gigs otherwise they would not be able to agree on them. The head of the company is taking the gig and not accepting individuals to boycott.I don't see this as a big deal and just think how it could be used in reverse.

So imagine a dance company owned by a progressive. They wanted to perform in a benefit for planned parenthood. Would you accept that individual members could effectively veto the performance by enough "opting out."

If this is a paid gig and it is safe -- on what basis should your personal choice get to give one member an opportunity to deny work for the others?

You don't show up for work -- guess what happens.

Your explanation to your friends-- was my work not my choice. Period.

alan smithee wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Apparently,Trump is having a hard time finding 'A' list entertainers for his inauguration. So he's forcing the Rockettes to perform with the threat of being fired.

Stay classy,fuckface.

http://addictinginfo.org/2016/12/23/the-rockettes-are-hitting-back-at-be...

 

While I think Trump is vile, an entertainment company does not normally seek democratic approval for gigs otherwise they would not be able to agree on them. The head of the company is taking the gig and not accepting individuals to boycott.I don't see this as a big deal and just think how it could be used in reverse.

So imagine a dance company owned by a progressive. They wanted to perform in a benefit for planned parenthood. Would you accept that individual members could effectively veto the performance by enough "opting out."

If this is a paid gig and it is safe -- on what basis should your personal choice get to give one member an opportunity to deny work for the others?

You don't show up for work -- guess what happens.

Your explanation to your friends-- was my work not my choice. Period.

Here's a suspected and/or alleged rapist and misogynist still using women in a self-engrandizing fashion,sort of like his 'beauty' pageants.

I strongly disagree. I would not willingly take part in the celebration of any fascist. These women have a right to refuse to take part in the inaugruation farce of a misogynist,racist,fascist maniac. I could not do so in clear conscienceness. A lot of these ladies feel the same. They shouldn't be forced to perform for someone they consider unworthy of their services.

Your show up to work or fuck off attitude is cavalier and chauvinistic.

Tell me,would you feel the same if you were forced to sing a love song to Harper,Trudeau or O'Leary? Would you not be completely disgusted? Would you,even under threat of being fired,be able to do so with a clear conscience?

Would you be able to suck it up and perform with a smiling face for Trump? I empathize with these women. They shouldn't be forced to perform for this asshole if they choose not to. It's their right. Your attitude toward these women is very right wing.

Well I empathize with them as well -- you are being a jerk here to suggest otherwise and stuff your name calling this is not a left-right issue.

I am not being cavalier but there are issues here and precident that could be used in other ways. Moral calls for individuals can be used coming from the right as well -- and it won't be regarding some dickhead's entertainment but someone perhaps needed important services.

Political opinion can never be used to drive work participation.

Think before you go off on these things about how the other side can use it.

It would be better for them to perform and get paid and then do an interview about how revolting that was -- using freedom of speech than to get justifiably fired for not showing up for work. And no-- entertainment individuals who are part of groups don't get to make individual decisions for the group. That's not right wing.

The point is letting individuals make moral calls for groups is not a precident that is going to be helpful -- to anyone.

alan smithee wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Apparently,Trump is having a hard time finding 'A' list entertainers for his inauguration. So he's forcing the Rockettes to perform with the threat of being fired.

Stay classy,fuckface.

http://addictinginfo.org/2016/12/23/the-rockettes-are-hitting-back-at-be...

 

While I think Trump is vile, an entertainment company does not normally seek democratic approval for gigs otherwise they would not be able to agree on them. The head of the company is taking the gig and not accepting individuals to boycott.I don't see this as a big deal and just think how it could be used in reverse.

So imagine a dance company owned by a progressive. They wanted to perform in a benefit for planned parenthood. Would you accept that individual members could effectively veto the performance by enough "opting out."

If this is a paid gig and it is safe -- on what basis should your personal choice get to give one member an opportunity to deny work for the others?

You don't show up for work -- guess what happens.

Your explanation to your friends-- was my work not my choice. Period.

Here's a suspected and/or alleged rapist and misogynist still using women in a self-engrandizing fashion,sort of like his 'beauty' pageants.

I strongly disagree. I would not willingly take part in the celebration of any fascist. These women have a right to refuse to take part in the inaugruation farce of a misogynist,racist,fascist maniac. I could not do so in clear conscienceness. A lot of these ladies feel the same. They shouldn't be forced to perform for someone they consider unworthy of their services.

Your show up to work or fuck off attitude is cavalier and chauvinistic.

Tell me,would you feel the same if you were forced to sing a love song to Harper,Trudeau or O'Leary? Would you not be completely disgusted? Would you,even under threat of being fired,be able to do so with a clear conscience?

Would you be able to suck it up and perform with a smiling face for Trump? I empathize with these women. They shouldn't be forced to perform for this asshole if they choose not to. It's their right. Your attitude toward these women is very right wing.

Well I empathize with them as well -- you are being a jerk here to suggest otherwise and stuff your name calling this is not a left-right issue.

I am not being cavalier but there are issues here and precident that could be used in other ways. Moral calls for individuals can be used coming from the right as well -- and it won't be regarding some dickhead's entertainment but someone perhaps needed important services.

Political opinion can never be used to drive work participation.

Think before you go off on these things about how the other side can use it.

It would be better for them to perform and get paid and then do an interview about how revolting that was -- using freedom of speech than to get justifiably fired for not showing up for work. And no-- entertainment individuals who are part of groups don't get to make individual decisions for the group. That's not right wing.

 

The point is letting individuals make moral calls for groups is not a precident that is going to be helpful -- to anyone.

I'm not trying to be a jerk. I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of the women who do not want to entertain for a fascist. Just out of principle I'd refuse. And I'd refuse because I would never try to normalize this fascist prick.

Would it be any different if they were performing for Hitler? Let's face it,this orange moron is the next Hitler at worst and the next Mussolini at best. Some things are more important than money.

And if I were one of them I would seriously consider resignation.

That just does not change the fact that you cannot as an individual decide on something like this.

I would think a public protest -- freedom of speech would be better than claiming a right to not show up for work.

To allow an opt out has much wider implications and will be used against people in a way you would not apporve of if this precident were allowed (which it would not be).

But yes I sympathize. I just don't think there is any basis for the action you are proposing-- a mass resignation would be nice but that's not happening so it is left to an individual resignation or going to work.

BTW To claim my position is right wing is being a jerk. It is not so simple and with a minimum of effort you should be able to see that even if you do not agree.

alan smithee wrote:

 

Well,first off,I apologize for calling you right wing. I've been here for a long time and I know you're not.

I feel for these women being forced to perform for a misogynist,nevermind the fact that the man is,without doubt or hyperbole,a fascist.

I don't expect any of them to resign but it's going to be humiliating for some of them. Other entertainers have the luxury to refuse to perform. Which is why Trump will be left with Kid Rock and Ted Nugent.

I can't imagine being forced to perform for a low life like Donald Trump. I'd have to shower a dozen times with a brillo pad. It would be humiliating. And degrading.

I'd just like to add that it turns out the company is giving the women an option.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/entertainment/attendance-optional-at-trump-inaugur...

So my comments are now obsolete.

Thank you for that.

I think it is good the company is doing that although it would be better if they did not perform. The difference is that when you are part of a collective you don't get an individual decision and when that is a company the employer gets to decide. We can think of great things to boycott but we can also think of things we would not want individuals to be able to boycott -- just imagine where that can lead. It is all of this I was thinking of.

Now when it comes to a company I would not want to patronize a company that would entertain Trump -- but I would not feel any ill-will to those individual working people whose job it is to do so.

I absolutely agree with your feelings -- just not the conclusion that individual working people can decide what to participate in -- unless the company gave them that choice and had the capacity to do so.

I would be the first to scream if a company decided to give people the opportunity to boycott any other person or group -- the people who feel those types of boycotts are the most vulnerable.

Was a sad situation the were in -- but I am sure you are aware when you take such a job that you will perform for people you think are repugant.

I think in many cases people may just conclude they are performing for the office -- the country rather than the individual. Certainly entertainers whose personal names are their brand and they own the business will have a different right to decline than a performer who is an employee. I am not being down on employees -- just recognizing there are decisions you don't get to make as an employee and who you serve or buys your employer's services is one of them.

Still, as I say, good the company is giving them a chocie -- would have been better not to have put them in the position and declined the gig.

The Coup Against Trump and His Military - Wall Street Defense    -   by James Petras

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/printer_75786.shtml

"A coup has been underway to prevent President-Elect Donald Trump from taking office and fulfilling his campaign promise to improve US-Russia relations. This 'palace coup' is not a secret conspiracy, but an open, loud attack on the election. The coup involves important US elites, who openly intervene on many levels from the street to the current President, from sectors of the intelligence community, billionaire financiers and to the more marginal 'leftist' shills of the Democratic Party.

The buildup for the coup is gaining momentum, threatening to eliminate normal, constitutional and democratic constraints. This essay describes the brazen overt coup and the public operatives, mostly members of the outgoing Obama regime.

In early December, President Obama issued an order for the CIA to 'complete its investigation' of the Russian plot and manipulation of the US presidential election in 6 weeks - right up to the very day of Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2017. A concoction of  pre-cooked 'findings' is already oozing out of secret, clandestine CIA archives with the President's approval.

Obama's last-ditch effort will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations  with Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia.

Ultimately, Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of dangerous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of these grotesque policies on to the incoming Trump administration..."Obama pledged to send more US troops to the Middle East and increase arms shipments to the jihadi terrorists in Syria, as well as the Gulf states and Saudi 'allies.'

Concidentally, the Syrian Government and their Russian allies were poised to drive the US-backed terrorists out of Aleppo - and defeat Obama's campaign of regime change in Syria..."

The eloquence and coherence of the President-elect:

"I think we ought to get on with our lives," he said, according to a transition pool report, before segueing into an apparent discussion of information security.

"I think that computers have complicated lives very greatly," Trump said. "The whole age of computer has made it where nobody knows exactly what's going on." 

The President-elect said that computers have "speed" and "a lot of other things" but said he isn't sure whether "the kind of security we need" is available. 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-russia-sanctions-computers?utm_content=bufferc4354&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Trump sidestepped a question about whether Israel should stop building settlements in the West Bank, saying instead that he is "very very strong on Israel." 

alan smithee wrote:

josh wrote:

The eloquence and coherence of the President-elect:

"I think we ought to get on with our lives," he said, according to a transition pool report, before segueing into an apparent discussion of information security.

"I think that computers have complicated lives very greatly," Trump said. "The whole age of computer has made it where nobody knows exactly what's going on." 

The President-elect said that computers have "speed" and "a lot of other things" but said he isn't sure whether "the kind of security we need" is available. 

 

What a dull-minded buffoon, A clown and an 'A' list,first class MORON. This isn't funny.

Ok so those who stated that Bush was the dumbest POTUS ever are being shown up. Yep you can get worse.

Maybe one day they will do even worse than Trump. Don't say it is not possible-- life will want to prove it is. And that's not worth it.

alan smithee wrote:

Apparently,Trump is having a hard time finding 'A' list entertainers for his inauguration. So he's forcing the Rockettes to perform with the threat of being fired.

Stay classy,fuckface.

http://addictinginfo.org/2016/12/23/the-rockettes-are-hitting-back-at-be...

So far the Rockettes agreed to appear - however, when individual dancers objected their union said that they had no choice - they had to perform.  However, Madison Square Gardens (their employer) has since announced that they will leave it up to individiual dancers to decide if they want to appear.

The only other name I've seen is Jackie Evancho - only thing is, she has a transgendered sister and Jackie has been very supportive of her so it remains to be seen how that plays out.

But fact is, this is starting to look more like a church service than an inauguration.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/franklin-graham-paula-white-samuel-rod...

BTW - the three individuals listed in the headline of the article are serious con artists/snake oil salesmen (with apologies to snake oil salesmen)

 

 

Quote:

The email reads: “We have received an email from a Rockette expressing concern about getting “involved in a dangerous political climate” but I must remind you that you are all employees, and as a company, Mr. Dolan obviously wants the Rockettes to be represented at our country’s Presidential inauguration, as they were in 2001 & 2005. Any talk of boycotting this event is invalid, I’m afraid.”

This is really not that different from what we might tell some bakery that refuses to make a wedding cake with two men on it.

In other words, if this is your job then this is your job.  And I'm happy that -- thus far, anyway -- doctors and nurses and ambulance workers and firefighters and rescue personnel aren't in any position to pick and choose the realities of their job.

But in the interest of counterpoint, should a paramedic get to decide that they cannot, in good conscience, defibrillate someone in a "Make America Great Again" hat?

A rather bizarre comparison since the Trump inauguration is, in effect, a private affair while the other examples you give are people servicing the public at large. But carry on.

Quote:

A rather bizarre comparison since the Trump inauguration is, in effect, a private affair while the other examples you give are people servicing the public at large.

So the inauguration is a private affair, but my same-sex wedding is not a private affair?

Quote:

Not really. Bakeries are generally free to refuse work they don't want to do; and in any case what we'd likely "tell them" is that we'd go somewhere else.

So a bakery is, and should be, free to not serve blacks?

Or else what's the specific difference?

Quote:

It's more than a slight stretch to equate front line life-saving professions with singing & dancing at a political gong show.

Is that because first responders have no personal conscience?  Or because they're expected to ignore theirs and do their job?

This is just not a road we want to go down.  Certainly not for the brief and petty thrill of denying Trump.

You could say that Trump is a good thing.

It is possible that we need considerable momentum to be able to address what the world needs. This would not have happened with a Democrat President now. However, a Trump presidency might introduce the kind of backlash after four years that might make things possible.

It is always possible to think of a bright side.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Not really. Bakeries are generally free to refuse work they don't want to do....

So a bakery is, and should be, free to not serve blacks?

False equivalence - Free to refuse work they don't want to do.

Quote:

It's more than a slight stretch to equate front line life-saving professions with singing & dancing at a political gong show.

Is that because first responders have no personal conscience?[/quote]

It's because they are, as you say, first responders; dealing with immediate life/death crises - not showtime singing & dancing.

Research has shown and other people are saying that 1/3 Republican presidents are as dumb as the other 2.

Interestingly enough, Mormons are petitioning the church because they don't want the Mormon Tabernacle Choir to perform at Trump's inaguration. One member has already resigned from the choir rather than perform. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4075742/Mormons-launch-petition-...

Video: Assange to Hannity: Source for WikiLeaks Was Not Russian Government

http://theamericanfirst.com/assange-to-hannity-source-for-wikileaks-was-...

"We can say, we have said, repeatedly over the last two months, that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party. So why such a dramatic response? Well, the reason is obvious. They're trying to delegitimize the Trump administration as it goes into the White House. They are trying to say that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate President..."

Noam Chomsky: With Trump Election, We Are Now Facing Threats To The Survival of the Human Species

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/41176-noam-chomsky-w...

"[The dangers] we now face are the most severe that have ever arisen in human history. They are literal threats to survival: nuclear war, environmental catastrophe. These are very urgent concerns. They cannot be delayed. They became more urgent on November 8th for the reasons you know and that I mentioned. They have to be faced directly and soon, if the human experiment is not to prove to be a disastrous failure."

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

False equivalence - Free to refuse work they don't want to do.

OK.  If I work at an LCBO (or whatever your provincial equivalent) and I decline to serve an indigenous customer, is that me refusing work I don't want to do?  Serving him would be work, and let's say I don't want to do it?

What's your reason for not serving him/her? Are they disturbing the peace, abusing other customers, don't want to pay, want you to blend two of the wines, want a free sample that's being offered with a product other than the one bought? (I've seen this from an apparently "Caucasian" type - where is Caucasia anyway?)

The distinction is between refusing specific work, and rejecting a specific customer. If you don't have a valid non discriminatory** reason you better serve him. You're an employee of a gov't agency, no doubt with a detailed job description.

But if a private business wants to refuse to make something to a design supplied by a customer, I'd defend their right to do so. Not sure how it would hold up in court though, if it's a same-sex wedding cake -  given the current enthusiasm for purely-political correctness.

**Discrimination; an ambiguous & over-used word, but you know what I mean.

"Discrimination can be vital; prejudice, deadly". - me. :)

josh wrote:

Assange and right-wing Trump hack Hannity.  Perfect together.  That's what I call a credible interview. 

Glad you liked it. Have some more...

Hannity/Assange Full Interview

http://rabble.ca/comment/1593323#comment-1593323