Slave trade in Africa, and the cleansing of Mozambique and Angolan coasts.
Da Gama did his fair share or murdering, once sending a boat filled with severed limbs of captured pilgrims to Zamorin of Calicut. Then there
And a proponent of animal rights.
When I read your mention of the Portuguese and French above, I was gonna write something about the Belgians, but you beat me to it.
Those fuckers still make my blood curdle each time I read anything at all about Leopold II and the Congo. Many buildings in Belgium today might as well have been built from the bones of the people of Congo.
Most shocking is the detail that the Congo was not even the property of Belgium, or the crown, but his own private demesne, to do with as he wished. And he wished a lot of dreadful things.
Stewart’s finest hour.
Indeed.
So that Mueller testimony was…something.
Pretty sure Jerry Nadler regrets scheduling that one.
Didn’t see it, but the afternoon session has been as exciting as my 3 corndog lunch.
Back to my building project.
That can be exciting in its own way.
Will someone please tell me…
With the exception of Nancy Pelosi (and a few others)…when are the DEMS going to learn that Trump will not fall from anything external…people like Trump ultimately destroy themselves.
The DEMS need to just go about doing the country’s business…and let the Twitter-in-Chief do his things (yes…I know that part of their Constitutional responsibility is oversight of the Executive Branch…but c’mon…This bone has been picked dry…)
Move on and quit giving Trump such easy targets…
Maybe we are living in a simulation after all?
The Dems need to be more concerned about the Republicans in Congress.
I would argue that the Dem candidates for president should focus less on Trump is bad and anyone but Trump, and more on what the Republicans have done or not done and how they will be different.
Another “win”;
The Supreme Court; in a 5-4 decision; cleared the way for Trump to use Defense Funds for building of the Border Wall.
(Ummmmm…where are GOP screams of governmental overreach, and “policy making judges” and the like?)
…crickets…
Not sure why you would expect “screams of governmental overreach,” or “policy making judges.” The funds have already been taken by the government—they’re just being reallocated, if I’m not mistaken. There’s also no policy being made.
As I understand it, @NickViar…(and I am far from an expert on this)…it is the Constitutional mandate of Congress to allocate funds for specific purposes, especially large expenditures like 2.5 Billion dollars. Certainly each branch of Government can shift around funds for some specific purposes; but funds for a Border Wall…especially the billions that Trump wanted…supposedly require that those funds be allocated by Congress. If a President could Constitutionally shift around funds allocated by Congress for specific purposes…this never would have reached the Courts and eventually the Supreme Court. In other words; it would have been well within Executive Branch Powers.
It wasn’t. So Trumps declares a “National Emergency”…and after some Court Challenges…get’s his 2.5 Billion out of Defense.
That’s my poor explanation. Perhaps someone like @thunderbolt23 can explain it more clearly. One thing I AM certain of…if President Obama did it for some Ego project…the Trumpublicans would have been screaming from the Capitol calling for hearings; that you can bank on.
I think you meant “Executive(or Judicial?) overreach,” then.
FWIW, I think the Supremes only ruled that the plaintiffs may not have proper standing to challenge.
Is the phrase government overreach not encompassing of exec or judicial overreach?
Seems awfully nitpicky
Again…I welcome any criticism of my appraisal.
I have gotten to the point that I apply an “Obama Test” (OT)…a sort of gauge of the things that particularly (but not exclusively) the Trumpublicans do and say…vs. what they would have done and said had President Obama done something similar to what Trump does.
I simply think that pursuing an “Ego Project” as Trump did here; would have led to yells and screams of investigation from the Trumpublicans had President Obama done something similar.
(But it’s just Politics right?)
SCOTUS didn’t decide the merits of the case (whether Trump could lawfully use the money or not) - SCOTUS lifted a lower court’s injunction that said Trump had to freeze the spending until the case got resolved. A decision on the merits is forthcoming from the 9th Circuit, and it’s pretty much guaranteed to move on up to SCOTUS - but in the interim, Trump can move ahead with spending the money.
As far as the merits of the case, we’ll get to see if this will be the latest abandonment by “conservatives” of previously cherished values and principles - having given up family values and fiscal conservatism entirely, will they give up fidelity to constitutional separation of powers, too?
(As long as the end goal is something that will make the Libs angry, the answer is a foregone conclusion of Yes.)
This.
And thank you for the clarification on the case, @thunderbolt23. I don’t want to be one of those uniformed; or misleading; or both (like Trump) who yells “BIG WIN!” or “BIG LOSS” over some narrow decision by the SCOTUS.
And yes…the crickets are deafening as one sees " conservatives" abandon previously cherished values and principles…and give a pass to Trump on things that would have gotten President Obama crucified.