For those Libtard designer who refused to dress Melania. Ralph Lauren stock is going through the roof.

Saturday Night Live" writer suspended for tweet that mocked Barron Trump, 10-year-old son of President Donald Trump

I do not care what your political beliefs or convictions are but mocking a 10 years old is where I draw the line

Breaking.....
Senate confirms Pompeo as CIA director, Tillerson clears committee vote

In final presidential hours, Obama quietly gave Palestinian Authority $221mn in aid


Thank God he is gone

Modsbuty:
Breaking.....
Senate confirms Pompeo as CIA director, Tillerson clears committee vote

Despite Democrats obstruction

obixcel:
Despite Democrats obstruction

The republicans have the majority in the house so the democrats can not stop any of Trumps nominee. The funny part is that a rule that was created by the democrats made it easier for the republicans.

When the losing party is burning cars, smashing windows, blocking Trump supporters and attacking police officers on Inauguration Day, you know you made the right choice

Donald J. Trump at The White House.

Earlier today I signed three executive orders:
1. Withdraw the U.S. from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP.)
2. Reinstate the Mexico City Policy dealing with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and abortion access.
3. A complete freeze on federal workforce hiring - with the EXCEPTION of our United States Military.


He is not kidding folks

"The office of the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Foreign Affairs and Diaspora hereby appeals again to Nigerian migrants to avoid Libya, as penalty for illegal migration to Libya, when caught, is usually a death sentence."


Another wonderful Obama Legacy

You don’t like his polices ? Which ones? Lower taxes? Rebuild a depleted military ? Rebuild the inner cities(Crime infested) ? Get rid of the (lie) Obama care? Giving American parents a choice to where they send their kids to school? Getting rid of common core(That's like Bantu education) ? Giving all Americans regardless of race or back ground a hand up instead of a hand out(dololo)? Bringing back companies that left the US back to provide more jobs for their people? Build a wall to keep illegals and drugs and human traffickers out of our country or at least slow the flow, a temporary halt on Syrian refugees until he and the American people know they will asimulate with the American citizens and respect their laws? Prevent their veterans from dying while they wait for months to see a VA Doctor ? With all due respect I don’t see why anyone except an illegal would have problems with trumps adgenda for Amercia first!

Remember the riots in 2008 when Barack Obama was first elected? All those conservatives marching, protesting, and eventually getting out of hand and causing property damage? And then again in 2012? I’ll bet you don’t remember it, because — as far as I can tell — it never happened.

That seems to be the point of this meme, a photograph of a nameless deserted street in what appears to be a densely populated U.S. city, with the superimposed text: “Picture of riots when Obama won 2008 & 2012”.

My first reaction, as a former newspaper photographer, was to wonder how a photo of an empty street is supposed to show what did or didn’t happen in an entire nation. I thought about some of the incidents I was sent out to cover, and whether I could have made a photo of nothing happening nearby and reported that, therefore, nothing had happened, because nothing was happening in the photo I made.



Of course, that’s not the point. This photo doesn’t purport to show a specific location; the empty street is merely a visual aid to the text, which claims no one rioted over Obama’s election as president. The meme only makes sense if you already know there have been a handful of violent outbreaks in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s election, and only if you assume that the violence was caused by angry liberals upset about losing the election.

 
What Actually Happened

I found it interesting that stories about the “riots” (like this one - http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/11/us/oregon-protest-riot/index.html) were actually talking about a dozen different things and conflating them. The focus is on a very few episodes of violence, but the rest of the story describes a slew of various non-violent protests in unrelated cities. It’s almost as if the author wants readers to think that “protests” and “riots” are the same thing (they’re not).

What actually happened is that many Democrats (and some who sympathize with them) took to the streets to hold signs, chant chants, and express their (vocal) frustration over losing the election. In a couple of places, unaffiliated instigators took advantage of the scene and started violence. In Portland, Oregon, for example, it was self-described “anarchists” who started the violence. Both the police and the Democratic protestors agree on this (and neither police nor Democrats can be anarchists, by definition).

 

But Still, Why Protest

Okay, so now that we know the Democratic protestors aren’t “rioting”, but merely protesting — which takes a lot of sting out of the meme — it still leaves the question: Why protest at all? Did Republicans take to the streets for peaceful protests after Obama was elected? I don’t think they did.

So what’s the difference? Are Republicans/conservatives inherently less protesty? And are Democrats/progressives inherently more likely to get outside and hold signs? Yes, of course. It’s self-evident. And here’s why:

By definition, a “conservative” is more content with the status quo. By definition, a “progressive” advocates for social progress, for improvement to society. People who are content with how things are do not have a desire or need to protest. People who advocate for change — when talking, writing, and voting do not succeed — often feel pushed by frustration into public protests.

In this case, many liberals and progressives feel betrayed by their own party for nominating a heavily flawed centrist candidate. (Many never identified with the Democratic party at all, but voted with them for lack of a better choice.) They feel betrayed by the 60 million of their fellow Americans who voted for the regressive candidate. And they feel betrayed even by the Founding Fathers of our country, who set up the Electoral College — the institution which ensured a Donald Trump victory despite the popular vote actually favoring Hillary Clinton.

 

The False Equivalence Fallacy

A conservative (or even an uninformed moderate/independent) might respond: “But we were frustrated when Obama won, and didn’t protest. Why does frustration make them [Democrats/liberals] protest?”

This is called false equivalence, a common logical fallacy. The question, which at first sight appears valid, falls apart when we examine the source of the frustration.

Those who voted against Obama in 2008 and 2012 were indeed frustrated when Obama won both times (winning both the popular vote and Electoral College by wide margins). It is understood that they preferred John McCain and Mitt Romney, respectively, over Obama. While we know that some of this was for racist reasons (my own family members sent me emails describing Obama as a “monkey” and a Kenyan Muslim), we also know that the policies proposed by Obama were different than the policies proposed by McCain and Romney, and their supporters preferred their policies.

But what actually were those Obama proposals that frustrated conservatives so?

The two largest issues in the 2008 campaign were the Iraq War and the growing economic recession, while healthcare reform was a close third. Obama and McCain disagreed on how and when to end the Iraq War, and they disagreed on how to handle the economic recession. On healthcare, Obama favored more government action while McCain wanted less. These are all legitimate political disagreements, and are all starting points for conversations, discussions, and political solutions. Neither candidate proposed marginalizing large groups of people based on religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or other descriptors.

In 2012, the economy was the primary issue, though there were many smaller ones that swirled and danced throughout the election season. Recovery from the recession had been slow (though steady and consistent) under Obama, and Republicans placed their hopes in former successful businessman Romney to jump start it. With no major scandals or huge mistakes behind him so far, Obama carried the day, with voters never becoming convinced that Romney understood the common person’s struggles. Economic policies are tricky things and aren’t divided strictly along party lines. There is a wide spectrum among the U.S. voting populace when it comes to how we think the government should be involved in the economy, ranging from “no involvement” (strict libertarianism) to “complete control” — very few people in our nation hold to either extreme view; most of us think the government should have more involvement in some places or less involvement in other places.

Perhaps you are now seeing the differences between the “frustration” of the 2008 and 2012 campaigns versus the “frustration” of the 2016 election. Neither of the previous two involved a candidate promising to strictly ban any immigration based on religious beliefs. Neither McCain, Romney, nor Obama promised to deport every single illegal Mexican-American immigrant (which to be accomplished puts all legal Mexican-appearing citizens at extreme risk of rights violations). No candidates in the 2008 or 2012 campaigns hired white supremacists or alt-right figureheads as campaign advisors. No candidates in the 2008 or 2012 campaigns advocated grabbing women by their Instruments or accused female news anchors of having “blood coming out of her wherever”. No candidate in the 2008 or 2012 elections was accused of walking in on teenage pagaent contestants while they were dressing. No candidate in 2008 or 2012 advocated for the controversial stop and frisk police tactics that are known to be racist and ineffective, targeting primarily minority males. I don’t remember McCain, Romney, or Obama calling for the U.S. to commit war crimes.

The differences between McCain and Obama were very slight and political. The differences between Romney and Obama were ideological, but mostly relating to economic theory. None of them said they would marginalize entire demographics, especially demographics that primarily vote for their opponents.

For conservatives to feel what liberals are feeling this week, this is what would have to happen: They would have to lose the presidential election to a candidate that promised to round up evangelical Christians and deport them, ban immigration for any white Christians, suggest checking IDs of anyone who “looks white” to make sure they’re legal residents, have a video surface saying “I kick guys in the nuts and they let me get away with it because I’m a star”, make fun of bodily functions of male TV anchors (“Do you have an erection right now?”), hire as campaign advisors people who run anti-white organizations, and so on.

Of course, few of those are close approximations to what Trump’s campaign has made people feel; none of them are realistic scenarios and none of them have a history of being played out in the U.S.

Perhaps another way to explain the difference is imaginary quotations:

Conservative, when Obama won: “I disagree with his policies on healthcare and the economy. If he implements them, our economy won’t recover as quickly. Also, he wants to pull out of Iraq too quickly. The region might become destabilized.”

Liberal, when Trump won: “We just elected a man who said he’s assaulted women, puts all Mexican-Americans in danger, said he will strip the rights of black and Latino men, wants to remove First Amendment protections from the press, wants our policy to discriminate against Muslims, and so on.”

 

Conclusion

No, there were no riots — or even protests, as far as I know — when Obama was elected in 2008 or reelected in 2012. Because he hadn’t actually told anyone that he would strip their rights, oppress them, or put them in danger some other way. He just had different policies, any of which could be later corrected without lasting damage. No demographic could reasonably think Obama was gunning for them.

Those protesting this week are simply taking Trump and his advisors at their word. They fear the irreparable damage that can certainly be caused. They have seen already the incidents of hate perpetrated by people who say they support Trump. They have gay friends or relatives or are gay themselves and know that Republicans as a group support conversion therapy, want to ban gay marriage and adoptions, and worse. They are black or Hispanic or Muslim and fear the emboldened white supremacist groups from which Trump has done very little to distance himself. They are women who have already been grabbed and groped and now worry it will only get worse.

And, of course, we disagree with his policies.

http://wilcfry.com/blogs/verily/archives/2418

Modsbuty:


The republicans have the majority in the house so the democrats can not stop any of Trumps nominee. The funny part is that a rule that was created by the democrats made it easier for the republicans.

You guys just throw out trash about a country or system you have no idea about. FYI, it's not the House of Reps that confirms nominees, it's the Senate. If passing out lies and ignorance is what makes you happy, more grease to your joints.

Lucasbalo:
You guys just throw out trash about a country or system you have no idea about. FYI, it's not the House of Reps that confirms nominees, it's the Senate. If passing out lies and ignorance is what makes you happy, more grease to your joints.

I dont have the strenght to debate you for now I will come up with a reply much later....

Halleluyah

1bkaye:


Remember the riots in 2008 when Barack Obama was first elected? All those conservatives marching, protesting, and eventually getting out of hand and causing property damage? And then again in 2012? I’ll bet you don’t remember it, because — as far as I can tell — it never happened.

That seems to be the point of this meme, a photograph of a nameless deserted street in what appears to be a densely populated U.S. city, with the superimposed text: “Picture of riots when Obama won 2008 & 2012”.

My first reaction, as a former newspaper photographer, was to wonder how a photo of an empty street is supposed to show what did or didn’t happen in an entire nation. I thought about some of the incidents I was sent out to cover, and whether I could have made a photo of nothing happening nearby and reported that, therefore, nothing had happened, because nothing was happening in the photo I made.



Of course, that’s not the point. This photo doesn’t purport to show a specific location; the empty street is merely a visual aid to the text, which claims no one rioted over Obama’s election as president. The meme only makes sense if you already know there have been a handful of violent outbreaks in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s election, and only if you assume that the violence was caused by angry liberals upset about losing the election.

 
What Actually Happened

I found it interesting that stories about the “riots” (like this one - http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/11/us/oregon-protest-riot/index.html) were actually talking about a dozen different things and conflating them. The focus is on a very few episodes of violence, but the rest of the story describes a slew of various non-violent protests in unrelated cities. It’s almost as if the author wants readers to think that “protests” and “riots” are the same thing (they’re not).

What actually happened is that many Democrats (and some who sympathize with them) took to the streets to hold signs, chant chants, and express their (vocal) frustration over losing the election. In a couple of places, unaffiliated instigators took advantage of the scene and started violence. In Portland, Oregon, for example, it was self-described “anarchists” who started the violence. Both the police and the Democratic protestors agree on this (and neither police nor Democrats can be anarchists, by definition).

 

But Still, Why Protest

Okay, so now that we know the Democratic protestors aren’t “rioting”, but merely protesting — which takes a lot of sting out of the meme — it still leaves the question: Why protest at all? Did Republicans take to the streets for peaceful protests after Obama was elected? I don’t think they did.

So what’s the difference? Are Republicans/conservatives inherently less protesty? And are Democrats/progressives inherently more likely to get outside and hold signs? Yes, of course. It’s self-evident. And here’s why:

By definition, a “conservative” is more content with the status quo. By definition, a “progressive” advocates for social progress, for improvement to society. People who are content with how things are do not have a desire or need to protest. People who advocate for change — when talking, writing, and voting do not succeed — often feel pushed by frustration into public protests.

In this case, many liberals and progressives feel betrayed by their own party for nominating a heavily flawed centrist candidate. (Many never identified with the Democratic party at all, but voted with them for lack of a better choice.) They feel betrayed by the 60 million of their fellow Americans who voted for the regressive candidate. And they feel betrayed even by the Founding Fathers of our country, who set up the Electoral College — the institution which ensured a Donald Trump victory despite the popular vote actually favoring Hillary Clinton.

 

The False Equivalence Fallacy

A conservative (or even an uninformed moderate/independent) might respond: “But we were frustrated when Obama won, and didn’t protest. Why does frustration make them [Democrats/liberals] protest?”

This is called false equivalence, a common logical fallacy. The question, which at first sight appears valid, falls apart when we examine the source of the frustration.

Those who voted against Obama in 2008 and 2012 were indeed frustrated when Obama won both times (winning both the popular vote and Electoral College by wide margins). It is understood that they preferred John McCain and Mitt Romney, respectively, over Obama. While we know that some of this was for racist reasons (my own family members sent me emails describing Obama as a “monkey” and a Kenyan Muslim), we also know that the policies proposed by Obama were different than the policies proposed by McCain and Romney, and their supporters preferred their policies.

But what actually were those Obama proposals that frustrated conservatives so?

The two largest issues in the 2008 campaign were the Iraq War and the growing economic recession, while healthcare reform was a close third. Obama and McCain disagreed on how and when to end the Iraq War, and they disagreed on how to handle the economic recession. On healthcare, Obama favored more government action while McCain wanted less. These are all legitimate political disagreements, and are all starting points for conversations, discussions, and political solutions. Neither candidate proposed marginalizing large groups of people based on religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or other descriptors.

In 2012, the economy was the primary issue, though there were many smaller ones that swirled and danced throughout the election season. Recovery from the recession had been slow (though steady and consistent) under Obama, and Republicans placed their hopes in former successful businessman Romney to jump start it. With no major scandals or huge mistakes behind him so far, Obama carried the day, with voters never becoming convinced that Romney understood the common person’s struggles. Economic policies are tricky things and aren’t divided strictly along party lines. There is a wide spectrum among the U.S. voting populace when it comes to how we think the government should be involved in the economy, ranging from “no involvement” (strict libertarianism) to “complete control” — very few people in our nation hold to either extreme view; most of us think the government should have more involvement in some places or less involvement in other places.

Perhaps you are now seeing the differences between the “frustration” of the 2008 and 2012 campaigns versus the “frustration” of the 2016 election. Neither of the previous two involved a candidate promising to strictly ban any immigration based on religious beliefs. Neither McCain, Romney, nor Obama promised to deport every single illegal Mexican-American immigrant (which to be accomplished puts all legal Mexican-appearing citizens at extreme risk of rights violations). No candidates in the 2008 or 2012 campaigns hired white supremacists or alt-right figureheads as campaign advisors. No candidates in the 2008 or 2012 campaigns advocated grabbing women by their Instruments or accused female news anchors of having “blood coming out of her wherever”. No candidate in the 2008 or 2012 elections was accused of walking in on teenage pagaent contestants while they were dressing. No candidate in 2008 or 2012 advocated for the controversial stop and frisk police tactics that are known to be racist and ineffective, targeting primarily minority males. I don’t remember McCain, Romney, or Obama calling for the U.S. to commit war crimes.

The differences between McCain and Obama were very slight and political. The differences between Romney and Obama were ideological, but mostly relating to economic theory. None of them said they would marginalize entire demographics, especially demographics that primarily vote for their opponents.

For conservatives to feel what liberals are feeling this week, this is what would have to happen: They would have to lose the presidential election to a candidate that promised to round up evangelical Christians and deport them, ban immigration for any white Christians, suggest checking IDs of anyone who “looks white” to make sure they’re legal residents, have a video surface saying “I kick guys in the nuts and they let me get away with it because I’m a star”, make fun of bodily functions of male TV anchors (“Do you have an erection right now?”), hire as campaign advisors people who run anti-white organizations, and so on.

Of course, few of those are close approximations to what Trump’s campaign has made people feel; none of them are realistic scenarios and none of them have a history of being played out in the U.S.

Perhaps another way to explain the difference is imaginary quotations:

Conservative, when Obama won: “I disagree with his policies on healthcare and the economy. If he implements them, our economy won’t recover as quickly. Also, he wants to pull out of Iraq too quickly. The region might become destabilized.”

Liberal, when Trump won: “We just elected a man who said he’s assaulted women, puts all Mexican-Americans in danger, said he will strip the rights of black and Latino men, wants to remove First Amendment protections from the press, wants our policy to discriminate against Muslims, and so on.”

 

Conclusion

No, there were no riots — or even protests, as far as I know — when Obama was elected in 2008 or reelected in 2012. Because he hadn’t actually told anyone that he would strip their rights, oppress them, or put them in danger some other way. He just had different policies, any of which could be later corrected without lasting damage. No demographic could reasonably think Obama was gunning for them.

Those protesting this week are simply taking Trump and his advisors at their word. They fear the irreparable damage that can certainly be caused. They have seen already the incidents of hate perpetrated by people who say they support Trump. They have gay friends or relatives or are gay themselves and know that Republicans as a group support conversion therapy, want to ban gay marriage and adoptions, and worse. They are black or Hispanic or Muslim and fear the emboldened white supremacist groups from which Trump has done very little to distance himself. They are women who have already been grabbed and groped and now worry it will only get worse.

And, of course, we disagree with his policies.

http://wilcfry.com/blogs/verily/archives/2418

God bless you for your post my beautiful sister. The problem with all these village clowns is that they have no knowledge of how things are or work in America . Why would a Blackman from Africa supports people that think of them as Subhuman ?. If Trump loathes and despise Obama despite Obama's achievements in life, what would he think about the brain damaged village skunks lapping his behind. You wonder why Africa is called the Dark Continent ?. This is classic example of Stockholm Syndrome when the oppressed love their oppressors. Thank God most Nigerians are better than the few delusional bunch on the Foreign Sections.

Modsbuty:


I dont have the strenght to debate you for now I will come up with a reply much later....

You must be running out of data. I can help you out with that if you don't mind.

Lucasbalo:
God bless you for your post my beautiful sister. The problem with all these village clowns is that they have no knowledge of how things are or work in America . Why would a Blackman from Africa supports people that think of them as Subhuman ?. If Trump loathes and despise Obama despite Obama's achievements in life, what would he think about the brain damaged village skunks lapping his behind. You wonder why Africa is called the Dark Continent ?. This is classic example of Stockholm Syndrome when the oppressed love their oppressors. Thank God most Nigerians are better than the few delusional bunch on the Foreign Sections.

Yup, his entire campaign was built on baiting with prejudice and bigoted rhetoric which is likely why it's being taken as personally as it is. All the while sha, according to voting stats all of this probably wouldn't have been the case if more of those lashing out had actually voted smh

1bkaye:
Yup, his entire campaign was built on baiting with prejudice and bigoted rhetoric which is likely why it's being taken as personally as it is. All the while sha, according to voting stats all of this probably wouldn't have been the case if more of those lashing out had actually voted smh

You are absolutely right. If more Americans vote, Democrats will win all the time. Most Americans don't believe the politicians and that's why they don't come plus Republicans like voter suppression.

O boy

Modsbuty:
O boy

abi o

lol

Trump's executive order which aimed at Defunding Planned Parenthood and NGOs who encourage abortions is right on point. This is a very sensible move, no need to talk much.

obixcel:
Trump's executive order which aimed at Defunding Planned Parenthood and NGOs who encourage abortions is right on point. This is a very sensible move, no need to talk much.

I agree.

1bkaye

What actually happened is that many Democrats (and some who sympathize with them) took to the streets to hold signs, chant chants, and express their (vocal) frustration over losing the election. In a couple of places, unaffiliated instigators took advantage of the scene and started violence. In Portland, Oregon, for example, it was self-described “anarchists” who started the violence. Both the police and the Democratic protestors agree on this (and neither police nor Democrats can be anarchists, by definition).

This is like when iPob guys protest, things get violent and they claim it was hijacked by foreign elements. The writer made some fine points at the end but we cannot say for sure if anarchists were (solely) behind the violence. Anybody, irrespective of backrgound, is capable of volence.

An0nimus:


This is like when iPob guys protest, things get violent and they claim it was hijacked by foreign elements. The writer made some fine points at the end but we cannot say for sure if anarchists were (solely) behind the violence. Anybody, irrespective of backrgound, is capable of volence.

I agree

An0nimus:


This is like when iPob guys protest, things get violent and they claim it was hijacked by foreign elements. The writer made some fine points at the end but we cannot say for sure if anarchists were (solely) behind the violence. Anybody, irrespective of backrgound, is capable of volence.

You are right. No one in his or her right mind will support violent protests and anarchy. The violent protesters will be arrested and prosecuted. That's the American way. I have never been a big supporter of protests because I grew up schooling in Jesuit schools and that's a big no no. Having said that, civil unrest is the hallmark of American democracy and I support their first amendment right to critique their leadership. Trump is feeling it too because he knows Americans are not going to kiss his rear like our lapdogs in Nigeria .

Modsbuty:
Donald J. Trump at The White House.

Earlier today I signed three executive orders:
1. Withdraw the U.S. from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP.)
2. Reinstate the Mexico City Policy dealing with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and abortion access.
3. A complete freeze on federal workforce hiring - with the EXCEPTION of our United States Military.


He is not kidding folks

I dont understand the noise. There is nothing special about these EOs

TPP was dead since November, republican presidents always sign the mexico city policy and most incoming admins usually put a hiring freeze in place for a while.

Most trumpkins are just getting exposed to American politics for the first time i guess.

1bkaye:
Yup, his entire campaign was built on baiting with prejudice and bigoted rhetoric which is likely why it's being taken as personally as it is. All the while sha, according to voting stats all of this probably wouldn't have been the case if more of those lashing out had actually voted smh

Still suffering from post-election traumatic experience?

obixcel:
Still suffering from post-election traumatic experience?

Lol just shocked that it was Trump, not his party. It's done now sha lol let's see how the next 4 or 8 years go