Commandante Donald Trump : troll, puis candidat puis président puis putschiste puis re président

[TODA]

On 05/05/2017 at 6:26 PM, Adrian said:

Une compagnie d'assurance avec une grosse armée.

Voilà!

[TODA]

En ce moment je m'intéresse fortement au  Dr Robert Morse...Son discours sur le système de santé américain, le gouvernement, les industries pharmaceutiques et le business de la maladie...et les liens entre ces différents partenaires...Whaou, c'est du costaud!( distillé à dose homéopathique au fil de ses vidéos)

Au début, tu te demandes s'il n'est pas complètement givré, et complotiste

mais au fil du temps en expérimentant sur moi même ses enseignements, je lui trouve une extraordinaire cohérence, et cela rejoint toute ma connaissance du système "de soins" à la française...

[Marlenus]

4 minutes ago, TODA said:

En ce moment je m'intéresse fortement au  Dr Robert Morse...Son discours sur le système de santé américain, le gouvernement, les industries pharmaceutiques et le business de la maladie...et les liens entre ces différents partenaires...Whaou, c'est du costaud!( distillé à dose homéopathique au fil de ses vidéos)

Au début, tu te demandes s'il n'est pas complètement givré, et complotiste

mais au fil du temps en expérimentant sur moi même ses enseignements, je lui trouve une extraordinaire cohérence, et cela rejoint toute ma connaissance du système "de soins" à la française...

Faut avouer que quand tu tapes Robert Morse sur google, tu tombes sur ça, je ne vais pas plus loin:

 

Quote

Le Docteur Robert Morse est un naturopathe américain qui pratique depuis près de 40 ans et a guéri plus de 100.000 personnes de toutes les maladies imaginables en utilisant des méthodes de désintoxication simples et une alimentation Végane crue frugivore (les fruits ont un pH idéal pour le corps, légèrement basique) associée à des plantes médicinales.  
Qu’il s’agisse de diabète, de Candida Albicans, de calculs rénaux, de Fibromyalgie, de Lupus, de la maladie de Lyme, de la fatigue chronique, de l’autisme, de la sclérose en plaques (MS), de la maladie de Parkinson, du VIH / SIDA, des insomnies, des migraines, des problèmes cardiaques ou de cancer, peu importe la maladie,[/quote}

 

 

[TODA]

Ouais...

Moi je n'ai jamais été en aussi bonne santé ( que depuis que je suis ses conseils complètement  "gratuits" (youtube)

 de plus, Mon père et mon grand père sont morts très jeunes de crise cardiaque et maintenant je sais ( ou crois avoir compris ) pourquoi...

(juste en  modifiant , moi mon hygiène de vie et en constatant les résultats  sur une "génétique" similaire)

C'est tellement "simple" et hyper logique

 

 Ma mère, de nombreuses amies ou femmes de ma famille sont décédées de cancers...quand je me remémore leur parcours de "fin de vie" je suis fort en colère: 

et si chacun est libre de croire ce qu'il veux, moi, jamais - plus jamais de ma vie- je ne ferais confiance à un toubib payé payé par la sécurité sociale pour me prescrire un médicament produit par une industrie pharmaceutique et agrée par un crowny ministère de la "santé"

[José]

Senate GOP rejects House Obamacare bill

 

Citation

 

After all the energy the House just expended on ramming through its Obamacare repeal, the Senate is about to start over.

 

“We’re writing a Senate bill and not passing the House bill,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn). “We’ll take whatever good ideas we find there that meet our goals.”

 

[...]

 

The two chambers have not coordinated much in recent weeks as the House — with an assist from the White House — frantically worked to kick the health care bill to the other side of the Capitol. Senate Republicans say they’ll take the time they need to understand the House bill’s ramifications. And they will insist on a score from the Congressional Budget Office before voting, unlike the House.

 

[...]

 

 

[José]

Republicans’ health-care plan could launch some ugly political battles in state legislatures

 

Citation

 

Even if a watered-down version of House Republicans' health-care legislation becomes law, states are probably going to be on the hook for billions of dollars of health-care costs, especially for the poor and sick. And that means they're going to have to make some hard choices: Do you find a way to raise taxes/cut other services to keep your most vulnerable population insured? Or do you just stop insuring them?

 

That's the heart of the question facing all 50 states as Republicans in Washington unwind the federal government's involvement in health care. Legislatures trying to answer it could get ugly.

 

States just don't have the money right now to make up for the health insurance subsidies the federal government could cut back on. Thirty-one states started 2017 with deficits — a couple are closing in on $1 billion, according to a MultiState Associates study.

But the House Republicans' health-care plan would whack almost every state's budget in potentially big ways:

 

1. It would drastically cut the federal government's contribution to Medicaid (even states that didn't expand Medicaid under Obamacare). And Medicaid spending was the largest slice of states' spending in fiscal 2016.
2. It would drastically cut federal subsidies for people who get their insurance through the marketplaces Obamacare set up.
3. And it would leave millions of mostly middle- and lower-income people uninsured (though how many, we don't know, since Republicans voted on their bill without an official estimate). And uninsured people who get sick could cost state and local governments and private hospitals up to $1 trillion in unpaid-for health coverage over the next decade, according to one analysis from the Urban Institute.

 

[...]

 

 

[Adrian]

Citation

The Environmental Protection Agency has dismissed at least five members of a major scientific review board, the latest signal of what critics call a campaign by the Trump administration to shrink the agency’s regulatory reach by reducing the role of academic research.

A spokesman for the E.P.A. administrator, Scott Pruitt, said he would consider replacing the academic scientists with representatives from industries whose pollution the agency is supposed to regulate, as part of the wide net it plans to cast.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/07/us/politics/epa-dismisses-members-of-major-scientific-review-board.html?referer=&_r=0

 

[Adrian]

What’s the Legal Basis for the Syria Strikes? The Administration Must Acknowledge Limits on its Power to Start a War

 

Citation

In 2011, when President Obama approved military strikes in Libya without prior Congressional authorization, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel published a detailed legal opinion setting forth the legal rationale. That allowed members of Congress to assess the Administration’s rationale, hear from citizens, and decide whether or not to use its own authorities. That debate continues to this day. But it is only possible because the legal opinion was made public. 

 

Members of the Administration have offered a plethora of inconsistent rationales for the strikes. Most recently, Commerce Secretary Ross described it as no-cost “after-dinner entertainment” for the President’s guests at Mar-a-Lago. The President referenced chemical weapons as justification. The Secretary of State referred to enforcing violations of international commitments. White House spokesman Sean Spicer made the astounding claim that the Constitution gives the President "the full authority to act" whenever military force is "in the national interest.” The Administration released some anonymous bullet points as “Press Guidance.” But as commentators have pointed out, these sparse points are deeply flawed substantively because they fail to acknowledge the absence of U.N. Security Council authorization. Moreover, the “Press Guidance” lacks the hallmarks of adequate legal process, such as which lawyer or legal office developed it and whether any would stand behind it.

 

The only formal written account from the Administration is a short letter sent to Congress pursuant to the War Powers Resolution.  That letter offers vague platitudes, declaring that the President “acted in the vital national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.”  But it lacks any statement of applicable legal standards and does not address the international legal basis for the strikes.  More worrisome, it declares that: “The United States will take additional action, as necessary and appropriate, to further its important national interests.”  The letter conspicuously fails to say that the President recognizes domestic and international legal constraints on his authority.

The Administration’s refusal to disclose the legal basis for its action suggests one of two things is going on—each of which would be disturbing.

 

One possibility is that the President never received clear legal guidance that set out the governing domestic and international law standards for initiating hostilities against a new adversary, and never rigorously made an assessment about the legality of the Syria strikes.  Experienced lawyers throughout the Executive Branch have substantial expertise on the domestic and international law standards that govern the use of force. Launching a new conflict without seeking their advice would be a substantial departure from sound rule of law procedures and indicate a dangerous disregard for the rule of law. 

 

The other possibility is that the Administration has a legal rationale that it just refuses to share.  The Administration has discussed the operation widely, however, so there can hardly be concerns about secrecy, and any references to intelligence community sources and methods  could be redacted easily. The only possible explanation for refusing to disclose a legal opinion would be to keep the American people and the Congress in the dark—to prevent informed debate and oversight of the President’s ability to take the United States into a new armed conflict with another country.  In our democracy, that is simply unacceptable.

 

[José]

Trump has been sued 134 times in federal court since inauguration

 

Citation

Trump has been sued 134 times in federal court since he was sworn into office, according to a Globe tally based on federal court databases, nearly three times the number of his three predecessors in their early months combined.

 

[José]

President Trump Deletes Every Old Press Release, But The Internet Never Forgets

 

Citation

 

Yesterday, journalists discovered that the Trump regime had deleted the president’s infamous press release from 2015 that called for a ban on all Muslims traveling to the United States. But it wasn’t just the Muslim ban. Every single press release from before January 1, 2017 has been erased from donaldjtrump.com. Thankfully, the internet never forgets.

 

As Russ Kick from the website Memory Hole notes, every Trump/Pence 2016 campaign press release that was deleted this week has been backed up by the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. It’s almost impossible to completely erase something from the internet these days—for better and for worse.

 

 

[Adrian]

Comey le directeur du FBI viré !

 

Citation

Mr. Comey, who is three years into a 10-year term at the helm of the F.B.I., learned from news reports that he had been fired while addressing bureau employees in Los Angeles.

 

The Nightmare Scenario: Trump Fires Comey, the One Man Who Would Stand Up to Him

[José]

Text analysis of Trump's tweets confirms he writes only the (angrier) Android half
 

Citation

 

[...]

 

My analysis, shown below, concludes that the Android and iPhone tweets are clearly from different people, posting during different times of day and using hashtags, links, and retweets in distinct ways. What’s more, we can see that the Android tweets are angrier and more negative, while the iPhone tweets tend to be benign announcements and pictures. Overall I’d agree with @tvaziri’s analysis: this lets us tell the difference between the campaign’s tweets (iPhone) and Trump’s own (Android).

 

[...]

 

 

[Fagotto]

6 hours ago, Adrian said:

Comey le directeur du FBI viré !

 

 

The Nightmare Scenario: Trump Fires Comey, the One Man Who Would Stand Up to Him

 

Un move à la Nixon période Watergate...

[Rincevent]

il y a 59 minutes, Fagotto a dit :

Un move à la Nixon période Watergate...

Même Nixon n'a jamais viré le directeur du FBI en fait. 

[Jukebox]

5 minutes ago, Rincevent said:

Même Nixon n'a jamais viré le directeur du FBI en fait. 

Il avait viré un procureur qui enquêtait sur le scandale, je crois. 

[José]

 

[Nick de Cusa]

Trump va passer an Arabie Saoudite ce mois, ça va être la grande love fest avec Mohammed Bin Salman et son approche assez similaire (Vision 2030). Je ne m'attends pas à entendre fort piper mot aux trumpolâtres ici et ailleurs 

[Fagotto]

Ils vont pouvoir discuter tranquillou d'une guerre contre l'Iran pour détourner de leurs problèmes internes.

[Adrian]

Le 04/05/2017 à 21:14, Neomatix a dit :

Maintenant que le Hamas est rentré dans le rang ça va aider.

 

Dans une vidéo, Netanyahou a littéralement jeter le papier du Hamas dans la poubelle..

[Neomatix]

trumpolâtres ici

Où ?

 
Dans une vidéo, Netanyahou a littéralement jeter le papier du Hamas dans la poubelle..

Nan mais comment tu veux faire quoi que ce soit avec des débiles pareils de chaque côté...

[Adrian]

Après son move nixonien Trump invite Kissinger à la Maison Blanche

 

 

Bizarre le costume..

 

Citation

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he fired FBI Director James Comey because "he was not doing a good job.”

"He wasn't doing a good job," Trump said in the Oval Office, according to a pool report. "Very simply. He was not doing a good job."

 

Quelle argumentation de la part de Trump.

 

[FabriceM]

il y a 8 minutes, Adrian a dit :

Quelle argumentation de la part de Trump.

 

Remarque, ça vaut mieux que de la soupe de cellulose.

[Fagotto]

On sait pas trop où il veut en venir en tout cas... il parait qu'il en avait marre d'entendre parler (vu qu'il est accro au médias) de l'enquete sur les liens russes, mais bon ça va pas aider, et ça va etre la guerre au Congrès.

[Tortue joviale]

Bof, le FBI fait partie de l'executif: il peut y nommer qui il veut sans avoir besoin de motif particulier

Quant au fait que Comey ne fait pas une bonne performance dans son travail, on en sait rien: c'est pas impossible 

Surtout que le gars doit travailler pour une administration et des politiques qu'il ne soutient pas, ca ne m'etonerait pas qu'il soit pas efficace

 

Quant a l'absence d'argumentation de Trump, ca me parrait tout a fait approprie de ne pas discuter les details de l'evaluation de performance d'un agent d'une agence federale avec un journaliste

[Tramp]

Les nominations importantes doivent recevoir la confirmation du Senat.

[Tortue joviale]

Oui, mais ca ne requiert pas un motif

[Adrian]

Citation

The FBI Director serves a ten-year term precisely in order to insulate against the whims of a President who does not like what—or whom—the FBI is investigating. While the President has legal authority to fire an FBI director, the fact that Trump has done so under circumstances of an active FBI investigation of the President’s own campaign violates profoundly important norms of an independent, non-political FBI. The situation has no parallel with the only previous FBI director to be removed by a president

 

[Tramp]

il y a 2 minutes, Adrian a dit :

an independent, non-political FBI.

 

Edgar Hoover rigole.

[Adrian]

Cette règle de limite de temps n'existait pas à son époque

[Tortue joviale]

Quote

The FBI Director serves a ten-year term precisely in order to insulate against the whims of a President who does not like what—or whom—the FBI is investigating. While the President has legal authority to fire an FBI director, the fact that Trump has done so under circumstances of an active FBI investigation of the President’s own campaign violates profoundly important norms of an independent, non-political FBI. The situation has no parallel with the only previous FBI director to be removed by a president

 

 

 

 

Ce passage ressemble plus a une opinion qu'a une description d'un texte de loi ou d'un reglement

Un peu comme quand un journaliste dit que la france est une monarchie electorale