ChrisWeigant.com

Like A Rug

[ Posted Wednesday, February 8th, 2017 – 18:11 PST ]

No, that's not a Donald Trump hair joke. It is nothing more than the end of a simile on lying. Rugs are the epitome of lying, since nothing lies more obviously than a rug. Of course, I could have gone with a different motif, but Al Franken had already used the title: "Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them," so I had to go with what was available, as it were.

The administration of Donald Trump has, so far, been breathtaking at its dishonesty. Some of this comes from the president himself, but a fair portion comes from his advisors, who are often put in the unenviable position of trying to prove something which is not actually true (so as not to contradict a Trump lie). They pretzel themselves into explaining what Trump really meant, and how in a certain light it bears a passing resemblance to something which is actually quasi-factual. Must be tough, but they all knew what they were signing up for, so it's hard to feel too sorry for them, really.

The Trump administration began this dishonesty on their first day in power. Sean Spicer was sent out to the press podium to state as a fact something which was simply not true. Trump's inauguration had: "the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration -- period -- both in person and around the globe." This was laughably untrue, and anyone with eyes to see the photos knew it. That was Day One.

Since then the lies have been so constant and unrelenting it's actually hard to keep up with them all. Some of these wouldn't be classified as lies by some, such as Trump tweeting about a "so-called judge" who ruled against him. There's nothing "so-called" about him -- the man is indeed a federal judge, confirmed by the Senate, with a lifetime tenure on the bench. This is precisely why America's judiciary is completely independent, in fact, so they can ignore political pressure from other branches of the government. But some might call this merely an insult, rather than a lie.

Then there are questions of interpretation. When Trump spoke of Frederick Douglass seemingly in the present tense, it was interpreted as Trump not knowing Douglass was not still alive. Perhaps. He's not the most eloquent president we've ever had (by a long shot) so perhaps it was just his clunky speaking style. We're bending over backwards to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he could have just misspoken on this one. Then again, he could have just never heard of Frederick Douglass before in his life -- also a plausible explanation.

Other strange statements could likewise be chalked up as opinions, misguided though they may be, such as Kellyanne Conway insisting that there had been "no chaos" at the airports when Trump's Muslim ban was instituted, and everything was going swimmingly. To be as charitable as possible, it depends on her own personal definition of what she considers to be chaos. Looked like chaos to me, but who am I to contradict her opinion?

This all has to be seen through the lens of spin, because top advisors to any president are indeed spin doctors -- it's part of the job, really. But this is normally an exercise in framing the presentation more than disputing obvious facts. A presidential spokesperson might say something like: "We don't see this as a black-and-white incident. We see countless shades of grey, in fact, and while this incident may be seen by some as a darker shade of grey, we instead see the overall picture as lighter grey, like a pre-dawn brightening that promises much more light and sunshine to come." That's standard-issue spin, in other words. But the Trump people can't even manage that, when Trump himself insists in a tweet: "Black is white. Many people agree with me on this, believe me. Any use of the word BLACK is fake news, and sad." There's not a lot a spin doctor can do to fix something like that, in other words.

This is where we get into the astonishing lies erupting from the Trump administration which are just flat-out bald-faced lies, period. Not opinion, not spin, not misinterpretation -- just lies. Most of these are self-inflicted wounds of the most embarrassing type because they are so easy to refute.

Kellyanne Conway provided the most amusing example of this, last week. She castigated Chris Matthews for the media completely ignoring the "Bowling Green massacre" -- a phrase she has used in multiple interviews. The media didn't report on it because it didn't happen, of course. It was nothing short of a whopper of a lie.

This got more amusing when CNN refused to invite Kellyanne Conway on its Sunday morning show this weekend (although she did appear on the channel later in the day), because they considered her an untrustworthy source who had lost all credibility (because of lies like the Bowling Green massacre). Conway tried to lie her way out of this one, insisting that she was the one who turned CNN down. Sean Spicer was asked about this at a press briefing:

Q: CNN reportedly declined to interview Kellyanne Conway on Sunday because of questions about her credibility. Is the White House willing to offer alternative representatives to networks that refuse to work with specific spokespeople?

SPICER: I, I, well, frankly, I think that, that my understanding is they retracted that, they've walked that back or denied it or however you want to put it. I don't care.

This was also a lie. CNN never retracted, walked back, or denied that this was in fact the truth of the matter -- something they reiterated in a tweet. So Kellyanne lies about a massacre that never happened (while incredulously berating the media for not covering it), CNN doesn't invite her because she's a liar, and then Sean Spicer lies about it to the press, using an easily-checkable "fact" that wasn't true.

But I shouldn't pick on the advisors so much, because Donald Trump himself is the emperor of lies. While speaking to a meeting of law enforcement officials, Trump stated: "And yet the murder rate in our country is the highest it's been in 47 years. I used to use that, I'd say that in a speech and everybody was surprised. Because the press doesn't tell it like it is. It wasn't to their advantage to say that. But the murder rate is the highest it's been in, I guess, 45 to 47 years." This is not true. In fact, the opposite is true -- the murder rate is at a low point for the past 50 years or so. It was twice as high in the 1980s, in fact. An easily-checkable fact that Trump felt the compulsion to lie about.

This wasn't even Trump's biggest falsehood in the past few days (as I said, it's hard to keep up, due to the sheer volume of lies). Trump went off script in a recent speech to complain that the media was refusing to report on terrorist attacks, for unspecified nefarious reasons: "You've seen what happened in Paris and Nice. All over Europe, it's happening. It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported. And in many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn't want to report it. They have their reasons, and you understand that." This is, in fact, not true. Not even remotely. Unless he was referring to the Bowling Green massacre, of course, which wasn't reported by the media because it didn't happen.

Since then, his advisors have been trying to morph Trump's lie into a statement that he just didn't make -- that terrorism stories were merely underreported. Read Trump's own words -- that's not what he said, but whatever. When the press challenged the White House to name terrorist incidents which weren't covered, they hastily put together a list with laughable misspellings ("attaker," for instance). Almost 80 terrorist incidents were on this list, but it bizarrely contained attacks such as the Pulse shooting in Florida and San Bernardino (misspelled "San Bernadino") which were covered pretty much nonstop by all the news networks for over a week. Hard to call those "underreported" stories.

So Kellyanne Conway was dispatched to explain how the explanation didn't actually mean what they had previously said it meant. She helpfully explained that the list had both attacks which were sufficiently covered by the media, as well as others that weren't. Even though the list was supposed to only consist of underreported attacks (indeed, that was the whole point of the White House writing the list in the first place). Again, an easily-refuted lie. Her biggest whopper during this interview, however, was to insist: "I don't intend to spin." After which, her pants burst into flames on camera, and had to be quickly doused with a nearby fire extinguisher.

Well, no -- that last part didn't actually happen. It is nothing short of a lie, born of overly-wishful thinking. Still, it was astonishing the path these lies took over the past few days. Conway lies about a fictional terror attack, while castigating the media for not reporting it. Trump castigates the media for underreporting terror attacks, because the media somehow has "reasons" for not wanting to report it. Challenged on this statement, the White House comes up with a list of 78 terror attacks, all of which were reported on in the media, and some of which dominated coverage for weeks. The official story then shifted to "underreporting" as opposed to "not reporting" (Trump's original lie), and somehow the list morphed into a list of both adequately-reported and underreported incidents (even though that, too, was a lie -- they were all reported on). To top it all off, Conway returns to the airwaves to Trumpsplain it all to us, insisting that she doesn't intend to spin.

This is not a new phenomenon, of course. Hans Christian Andersen pointed it out almost two centuries ago, which is how I'm going to end this story:

The noblemen who were to carry his train stooped low and reached for the floor as if they were picking up his mantle. Then they pretended to lift and hold it high. They didn't dare admit they had nothing to hold.

So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.

"But he hasn't got anything on," a little child said.

"Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?" said its father. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, "He hasn't anything on. A child says he hasn't anything on."

"But he hasn't got anything on!" the whole town cried out at last.

The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, "This procession has got to go on." So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn't there at all.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

91 Comments on “Like A Rug”

  1. [1] 
    michale wrote:

    Once again, the Left Wingery let FORMER President Obama lie like a rug...

    So, there is no moral authority to speak of President Trump's alleged "lies"....

    It's really that simple....

    This is the bed the Left has made... Now, they get to lie in it...

    Pun intended... :D

  2. [2] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Well, Trump did campaign on bringing manufacturing jobs back... though the fabrication of tall tales doesn't employ all that many people.

    I know there's a manufacturing consent joke in there somewhere, but it keeps eluding me.

    neil made a good point about Trump making his gathered law enforcement fans look incompetent by lying about the murder rate.

    Trump and the Trumplings will probably re-embrace the FBI statistics (in three years or so) and claim that Trump cut the murder rate in half... but perhaps only if his policies cause the rate to double by then.

    A

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:

    Good to see that the fashion choices of high end clothing stores is the most important thing to the President today.

    I read somewhere (maybe here) that 45 couldn't be a Russian spy because he can't stop talking - he'd have told us already. I agree - and you know he'd have insisted on "007" as his code name. And he'd have DEFINITELY told us about that.

    The man just can't stop talking drivel. How much do you have to hate yourself to be Sean Spicer or Kelly-Anne Conway? Unbelievable.

  4. [4] 
    neilm wrote:

    I remember where I read it - if you haven't read this Scottish Comedian's take on 45 you are missing a few belly laughs ...

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/08/donald-trump-obnoxious-karma-reincarnated-as-himself-frankie-boyle

    This article is turning into a gold mine of hilarious quotes and ideas. The CW of Scottish political humor!

    You have to say it’s surprising that, with so much to work with, the response from the Democratic establishment has been to suggest that Trump is a Russian spy. How could he possibly keep a secret? He almost never stops talking, seemingly delivering a live feed of his internal monologue, using national television appearances to ramble about murdering terrorists’ families and blurt out fantasies about torture.

  5. [5] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey again CW

    As I understand it, Tammy Faye Conway said Trump explained the media's agenda in not reporting on terror attacks as somehow covert support for his opponent during the campaign.
    ( so super secret covert in fact that they didn't not report the stories)

    Apparently, the former SOS wouldn't name names or something, so his lies are justifiable.

    Tammy Faye said she spoke to Trump directly about the matter, but I think she pointed that out to the reporter as an excuse or apology for being unclear.

    A

  6. [6] 
    neilm wrote:

    Steph Curry wins the Internet today:

    Q: Do you think President Trump is an asset?
    Curry: Yes, if you remove he E and the T.

  7. [7] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Trump is lying ?!
    Looks like he made the pivot to acting presidential after all.

  8. [8] 
    neilm wrote:

    Curry threw the gauntlet down to Under Armour.

    He basically said that he is going to look in the mirror every morning and decide if his brand and Under Armour's are in line.

    Corporate America are discovering 45 is a curse. It is better just to dissociate from his brand. Sure you will take some short term heat, but the potential for repeated harassment when 45 goes out of control is much higher.

    Even if you want to take the heat because your customers are either supportive or indifferent, you're going to pay a price from your celebrities and employees.

    This man has the reverse Midas Touch - everything he touches turns to @#$%. The only people who win are him and his lawyers - and even they get stiffed every so often.

    What is wrong with people that money and power will corrupt them so much they will have anything to do with this ... ... ... still tying ... mum might read this ... ... man.

  9. [9] 
    neilm wrote:

    Well we have a right wing Attorney General. I'm not thrilled.

    He isn't a flagrant racist, and he is very well liked as a person be people who know him. This is somewhat comforting. But likablity does not always equate with sympathetic and empathic - two qualities that are high on my list for an AG.

    His worldview seems based on non-scientific convictions and also rigid. This is not a good combination for those of use who believe there is still work to do learning about how to make the world better. Those others who know the world was better in the past, either 50 or 2,000 years ago, will love him. I'd just love to say "Fuckwads!" here, but I'm trying to make my posts mum friendly (but sorry mum, I know I messed up, but you really have to be a Fuckwad to refuse to believe science and reality about things this important).

  10. [10] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The Orange One ran a transparently dishonest Twitter troll gaslighting campaign. It's astonishing that anybody thinks that will change.

    Rachel Maddow complained about how Baghdad Bob Conway came on her show and lied to her face and then she invited her back for an encore. Sad!

  11. [11] 
    neilm wrote:

    If you invite Conway on and expect her to tell the truth you are just ignoring reality.

    Most likely it is a desperate hope that she tells such a whopper (e.g. Alternative Facts, Bowling Green Massacre, etc.) on your show that you get a few days of replay.

    She is the shark jumping guest.

  12. [12] 
    michale wrote:

    (but sorry mum, I know I messed up, but you really have to be a Fuckwad to refuse to believe science and reality about things this important).

    You mean, like the Left Wingery doesn't believe in the REAL science of Judith Curry?? Or Richard Lindzen?? Or Lennart Bengtsson?? Or Roger A. Pielke?? Or Craig Loehle??

    So, what you are saying is that the Left Wingery are "fuckwads"???

    Hokay, I can buy that.. :D

    Let's face reality, people.. Your Democrat Party is utterly and completely impotent...

    They couldn't even stop Betsy DeVoes for EdSec!!

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump is lying ?!
    Looks like he made the pivot to acting presidential after all.

    Oh, snap!! :D

  14. [14] 
    michale wrote:

    This man has the reverse Midas Touch - everything he touches turns to @#$%. The only people who win are him and his lawyers - and even they get stiffed every so often.

    And once again, we have the reality of Donald Trump successful businessman and President Trump who defeated the biggest, meanest and most well-funded political juggernaut in the history of the planet..

    On the other hand, we have your emotional, biased and sometimes near-hysterical assessment of a man you have admitted you hate with every fiber of your existence....

    So who is to be believed??

    Reality?? Or your emotional outbursts?? :D

    Hmmmmmm It's a toughie... :D

  15. [15] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm [3]

    Good to see that the fashion choices of high end clothing stores is the most important thing to the President today.

    Nordstrom stock ended the day up 4%, and at 5:54 PM Donald Trump Jr. tweeted a link to a Breitbart story titled: "Women Nationwide Cut Up Nordstrom’s Cards" that discusses boycotting Nordstrom.

    So the Trumps are upset with Nordstrom 'cause Ivanka and are now calling for a boycott via Bannon's Breitbart. People might lose their jobs if Nordstrom's profits suffer because the leader of the free world is upset, but hey... it's all part and parcel of their "America First" agenda.

  16. [16] 
    Kick wrote:

    altohone [5]

    Tammy Faye Conway

    John From Censornati [10]

    Baghdad Bob Conway

    ROTFL :)

  17. [17] 
    Kick wrote:

    altohone [5]

    Tammy Faye Conway

    John From Censornati [10]

    Baghdad Bob Conway

    ROTFL :)

  18. [18] 
    Kick wrote:

    [15] Kick

    EDIT

    CUT leader of the free world

    INSERT so-called leader of the free world

  19. [19] 
    michale wrote:

    INSERT so-called leader of the free world

    Nope.. President Trump IS the leader of the free world.

    He's your President.

    This is the reality...

    Deal with it...

  20. [20] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [19]

    Nope.. President Trump IS the leader of the free world.

    I'm not questioning his job title, goober, I'm questioning whether or not he's a leader... not unlike Trump's tweet questioning the "so-called judge" who ruled against him.

    If a lot of Americans who work in retail lose their jobs because the tag team of POTUS, Jr, Bannon, and Breitbart attacks Nordstrom on Twitter, is that really putting the American worker first or the Trump brand first? Can you say conflict of interest?

    Did you condemn Trump for questioning the federal judge in his juvenile tweet or are you breaking your own cut-and-paste rule about "moral authority"?

    And before you ask... yes, I condemned Obama that time he tweeted about boycotting Macy's when they stopped selling the Obama menswear line. Oh, wait! :D

  21. [21] 
    michale wrote:

    I'm not questioning his job title, goober,

    Yes, you are sweet cheeks.. :D

    Did you condemn Trump for questioning the federal judge in his juvenile tweet or are you breaking your own cut-and-paste rule about "moral authority"?

    I condemn President Trump for the language he used.. I believe I already said that...

    But President Trump is dead on ballz accurate in his description of the judge's actions..

    It's funny.. You Left Wingers went batshit hysterical when Arizona wanted to enforce Federal Immigration law.. At the time ya'all claimed that Federal Immigration is at the SOLE and COMPLETE discretion of the President..

    NOW that the POTUS has a '-R' after his name and is exercising that discretion, ya'all are AGAIN, 1000% hysterical...

    Hypocrite much?? :D

  22. [22] 
    michale wrote:

    NOW that the POTUS has a '-R' after his name and is exercising that discretion, ya'all are AGAIN, 1000% hysterical...

    Hypocrite much?? :D

    Apparently, MUCH to much.. :D

  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    It's funny how ya'all take Nordstrom's side in this matter..

    If Michelle Odumbo actually WORKED in her life and had a clothing line and Nordstrom's decided to discontinue it because of who he husband is, ya'all would be picketing and boycotting Nordstroms, playing the Race Card (the ONLY card the Left has) until the cows came home..

    Once again, ya'all's political bigotry is completely transparent...

  24. [24] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [21]

    Yes, you are sweet cheeks.. :D

    So, how does lying about my motive prove anything except your propensity to fabricate in order to fit your narrative? I obviously know his job title, and I obviously know my own motive, goober.

    I question his leadership when he uses his office to favor his own personal interests and those of his family over the interests of American citizens. All of Ivanka Trump's brand is made outside the United States by foreign workers. So the tag-team tweeting in favor of brand Trump and against Nordstrom, calling for a boycott advances the interests of Ivanka Trump and her employees overseas and undermines America's retail workers.

    It's funny.. You Left Wingers went batshit hysterical when Arizona wanted to enforce Federal Immigration law.. At the time ya'all claimed that Federal Immigration is at the SOLE and COMPLETE discretion of the President..

    It's funny.. how you have to lump every single person into the same category and lie in order to advance your narrative.

    NOW that the POTUS has a '-R' after his name and is exercising that discretion, ya'all are AGAIN, 1000% hysterical...

    Yawn... cut-and-paste BS... I've never questioned the leadership of any other president until President Trump. While I may not have agreed with a decision a president made over the years... some of which directly affected me and put me in the line of fire... I've never in my life questioned the leadership of any other president, and I've met four of them in person... both parties.

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Fascinating discussion ...

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's much less of a discussion than a juvenile name-calling fest. Sad!

  27. [27] 
    michale wrote:

    So, how does lying about my motive prove anything except your propensity to fabricate in order to fit your narrative?

    If it was a lie, you would have an argument..

    But it wasn't, so you don't...

    In fact, you claiming I am lying is a lie in itself.. Because you KNOW what you are claiming is a lie...

    Yawn... cut-and-paste BS...

    Actually, YOU are lying AGAIN..... I did not cut and paste it.. I typed it out as I do every time..

    I've never questioned the leadership of any other president until President Trump.

    Yea, that's yer claim.. But it's the claim of someone with a 3rd grade playground mentality approach to discussion and debates, sooo....

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    It's much less of a discussion than a juvenile name-calling fest. Sad!

    Yes, it is... Unfortunately, these appear to be the rules of the road...

    When in Rome and all that.. :D

    I have an idea on how to combat it that would be scrupulously fair to ALL parties involved..

    But I don't anyone would want to go there.... Present company excepted, of course.. :D

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think that if the leader of the comments section here - I'm looking at you, Michale! - would show some leadership on this issue, we might see a dramatic and positive change in the tone and substance of the discussion at CW.com.

    Which, by the way, would set a high standard for comments sections everywhere.

  30. [30] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW and gang

    Worth a read-

    From The Intercept

    https://theintercept.com/2017/02/09/tom-perez-apologizes-for-telling-the-truth-showing-why-democrats-flaws-urgently-need-attention/

    by Glenn Greenwald

    Sorry Liz.
    Biden doesn't look very good in it... being part of the problem and all.

    A

  31. [31] 
    michale wrote:

    I think that if the leader of the comments section here - I'm looking at you, Michale! -

    Why thank you, Liz... I am sincerely flattered.. :D

    would show some leadership on this issue, we might see a dramatic and positive change in the tone and substance of the discussion at CW.com.

    But I have... For YEARS, I never resorted to such childish and immature playground antics...

    But it just got worse and worse..

    So, now, it's readily apparent that the ONLY way it will stop if those Weigantians who really WANT it to stop call out those who continue the childish and immature antics...

    If someone else besides me calls the kids on their childish behavior then *I* won't have to say a word and the childish behavior will cease..

    Why not give it a try for a month and see what happens?? You call them out on it and I won't respond in kind..

    What ya got to lose?? Except a childish and immature comments section..

    And if YOU tried it and it worked, then maybe Joshua would try it.. Then maybe ..... Hmmmmm I guess that's it for the original founders....

    It could work... :D

  32. [32] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    29

    "if the leader of the comments section here"

    I do love your sense of humor though.
    Thanks.

    A

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    altohone,

    You think Joe Biden is someone who supports the status quo in the Demoncratic Party or that he is someone who doesn't consistently challenge his fellow Democrats with constructive criticism on process or substance?

  34. [34] 
    michale wrote:

    From Al's link:

    THE MORE ALARMED one is by the Trump administration, the more one should focus on how to fix the systemic, fundamental sickness of the Democratic Party. That Hillary Clinton won the meaningless popular vote on her way to losing to Donald Trump, and that the singular charisma of Barack Obama kept him popular, have enabled many to ignore just how broken and failed the Democrats are as a national political force.

    An endless array of stunning statistics can be marshaled to demonstrate the extent of that collapse. But perhaps the most compelling piece of evidence is that even one of the U.S. media’s most stalwart Democratic loyalists, writing in an outlet that is as much of a reliable party organ as the DNC itself, has acknowledged the severity of the destruction. “The Obama years have created a Democratic Party that’s essentially a smoking pile of rubble,” wrote Vox’s Matthew Yglesias after the 2016 debacle, adding that “the story of the 21st-century Democratic Party looks to be overwhelmingly the story of failure

    Exactly...

    It's what I have been saying for the last year now and, apparently, Al agrees with me..

    Of course, we differ on the solution, but that is to be expected...

    But the fact is, Al and I are on EXACTLY the same page that the Democrat Party is in REALLY big trouble....

    The *FACTS* that prove this are simply too compelling, too plentiful and too overwhelming to ignore...

    Yet, there are quite a few Weigantians (and the vast majority of Democrats) who do just that..

    IGNORE the facts...

  35. [35] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Let's see how it unfolds, Michale ...

  36. [36] 
    michale wrote:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/obama-democrats-party-building-234820

    I think one of the biggest impediments to real change and real soul searching in the Democrat Party is that the Democrat Party as a whole can't bear to call President Obama on his many faults..

    For YEARS, the Democrat rank and file have pushed and pushed the ludicrous idea that ANYONE who speaks against Obama is a racist... They have pushed and pushed the idea so much that they have actually come to believe it themselves..

    Consequently, they are afraid that they will be accused of racism if they give logical and rational critique of Obama's job performance..

    Of course, there are a few like Glenn Greenwald who don't give a rat's ass because they know that such accusations are total and complete bupkiss....

    But, by and large, the vast majority of the Left Wingery is a victim of their own hysteria....

  37. [37] 
    michale wrote:

    Let's see how it unfolds, Michale ...

    Sounds like a plan.. :D

    I have taken a first step.. We'll see how it works out... :D

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I noticed. :)

  39. [39] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    33

    I know you don't like GG, so I'm guessing you didn't read the linked TI article if you're asking me that question.

    I think endorsing Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and holding a fundraiser for her after the DNC primary rigging scandal for which she lost her job makes Biden part of the problem... which is the Democratic establishment embrace of Big Money and the policies they want.

    Biden endorsing Perez in the hopes of keeping an Obama/Hillary type leading the party is also fully in line with his record.

    The establishment Democrats would rather lose than give up any power to the Left... and they've lost and lost and lost as a result... and they still think they deserve to run the party (further into the ground).

    Those who believe a successful Democratic party would be positive for the country need to question their loyalty to Obama, Biden, Hillary, Pelosi, Schumer, and the rest of the gang, and more importantly they need to question the policies that gang supported which caused the massive losses at the federal and state level.

    But establishment Democrats putting their thumbs on the scale to stop progressive challengers in primary elections is somehow worse than misguided policies. It's not just maintaining the status quo, it's an active effort against the necessary changes... using power and Big Money to thwart a fair competition of ideas.

    A

  40. [40] 
    neilm wrote:

    THE MORE ALARMED one is by the Trump administration, the more one should focus on how to fix the systemic, fundamental sickness of the Democratic Party. That Hillary Clinton won the meaningless popular vote on her way to losing to Donald Trump, and that the singular charisma of Barack Obama kept him popular, have enabled many to ignore just how broken and failed the Democrats are as a national political force.

    Yeah, yeah, but if 80,000 people had voted the other way we'd be talking about how long and intense the damage to the Republican Party was. These were the same stories from the same types of people in 2008 when the Democrats won everything.

    Politics swings back and forth in this country, just like most others with a free press and fairly clean elections. No Comey nonsense, no email drivel with fire being poured on by Putin and no ennui after eight years of the same party in the White House and we'd all be saying President Clinton.

    Calm down, anger is the most powerful force in American politics at the moment and the angry right wingers and now as smug as the left wingers when we got gay marriage, weed legalization, etc.

    Follow the anger. For over a decade politics has been a taboo subject in my social strata, now hatred of 45 is the main topic of conversation.

  41. [41] 
    neilm wrote:

    Altohone [39]

    I think expecting politicians to give up power might just be the wrong way to go about this.

    Obama in 2008 and Bernie in 2016 showed that Democrats will rally behind a populist who can excite them. The politicians will follow the people (look at the prostitution going on around 45 at the moment).

    What we don't need is a list of reasons our septuagenarian leaders failing us, what we need is a new young leadership with a 21st Century vision articulated in 21st Century ways to excite the base and cash in on the mounting anger growing against the Republicans.

    I'm not seeing that person or group yet.

  42. [42] 
    neilm wrote:

    Latest inside scoop from the White House:

    45 is saving his urine in Mason jars and is using old Kleenex boxes as slippers.

    https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1i1uKh-9gaU/WJzGVX12COI/AAAAAAAAdf0/RRecD3HRu6sQ5FNk4r56zyD5vPkXD46_gCLcB/s1600/pville2-9-17-4.jpg

  43. [43] 
    neilm wrote:

    News Alert: He has been playing Risk with his 10-year-old kid and he has just ordered an invasion of Australia - that is why he was pissed with them last week. Ivanka has it blocked off and his forces in the South China Sea just got decimated. Also, things not looking good in Madagascar so they might be added to the Muslim Ban.

    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oP6UAF5OZBo/WJzG6wwAPRI/AAAAAAAAdf8/0AYiPd4nWz86-LW9fRCifER-7uSLMw5LwCLcB/s1600/pville2-9-17-5.jpg

  44. [44] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [27]

    If it was a lie, you would have an argument..

    But it wasn't, so you don't...

    In fact, you claiming I am lying is a lie in itself.. Because you KNOW what you are claiming is a lie...

    We obviously all know Trump is president because it's been repeated ad nauseam for 3 months, 1 day, 15 hours, and 47 minutes (give or take a few).

    Actually, YOU are lying AGAIN..... I did not cut and paste it.. I typed it out as I do every time..

    Well, thank you for that little nugget of info about your keyboarding habits, but if you are actually typing out that monotonous argument as you do "every time," since being an "original founder," I would guess you may well have spent close to a year in the process of doing so... but FYI... "cut-and-paste" is a descriptive term sometimes used to denote an oft repeated phrase or argument and not meant to describe how someone types... but, of course, you already knew that.

    Question: Why do you insist I am lying if I say I am questioning Trump's leadership and not his title? I do happen to know my own motive.

    Why won't you address the contents of comments versus:
    (1) insisting it's lies, or
    (2) using your same "-D" and "-R" language, which basically is a cut-and-paste argument lumping everyone in a single category and labelling them a Party bigot.

    And apparently Trump is overruled by the 9th Circuit... per curiam decision... go figure. :D

  45. [45] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It's not exactly a newsflash lately that the far left and the far right both include folks who quote each other. It's actually part of the problem.

    Each has centered its fire, not on each other, but on the harassed center, where pragmatism and reason overrule ideology and partisanship. Of course ideologues despise it. It's a land where Indies, RINOs and DINOs roam free, a place where rational people can make government work again, where corporations won't lose customers and mom & pop stores won't lose sleep.

    Of course, ideologues despise it.

  46. [46] 
    neilm wrote:

    Balthasar [45] Hear, hear!

  47. [47] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm [42] [43]

    Heh... Mason jars. Neil wins the Internets! Keep those coming, please. :)

  48. [48] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    News Alert: He has been playing Risk with his 10-year-old kid and he has just ordered an invasion of Australia - that is why he was pissed with them last week. Ivanka has it blocked off and his forces in the South China Sea just got decimated. Also, things not looking good in Madagascar so they might be added to the Muslim Ban.

    Hmm. It sounds to me as if he's starting with a strong position in Australia and wants to give it up to attack in China, or the Middle East, an always-tempting and rarely successful Risk maneuver. He seems to also want to stop defending Europe and grab the Middle East, but..why? The ME is a key location, but notoriously hard to hold, and only gains entry to Asia, the Ukraine and Africa, all of which are harder to defend than America, Australia, or South America. Anyone with a foothold in Ukraine is probably about to be handed Europe on a silver platter, or at least control of all of Asia.

  49. [49] 
    michale wrote:

    Yeah, yeah, but if 80,000 people had voted the other way we'd be talking about how long and intense the damage to the Republican Party was.

    And if the dog hadn't of stopped, he would have caught the rabbit...

    The point you continually miss is *WHY* Hillary lost those 80,000 voters...

    Once you can address that, you are well on your way... :D

  50. [50] 
    michale wrote:

    Well, thank you for that little nugget of info about your keyboarding habits,

    You accused me of something I don't do, I correct you..

    As always.. :D

    Question: Why do you insist I am lying if I say I am questioning Trump's leadership and not his title? I do happen to know my own motive.

    I wasn't.. I was insisting you are lying when you say *I* was lying about you having a nervous breakdown..

    I WASN'T lying, I was mistaken.. I corrected the mistake once the facts pointed out my mistake..

    But YOU insist on saying that I was lying, when in fact I wasn't.. And since you KNOW it's a fact, by continuing to accuse me of lying you are, in fact, lying...

    Got it??

    And apparently Trump is overruled by the 9th Circuit... per curiam decision... go figure. :D

    Yea, as I predicted it would.. It's not known as the 9th Circus or the Wacky 9th for a reason... It's also the most overturned court in the land.. :D

    President Trump will prevail, because the law is on his side..

  51. [51] 
    michale wrote:

    Calm down, anger is the most powerful force in American politics at the moment and the angry right wingers and now as smug as the left wingers when we got gay marriage, weed legalization, etc.

    Yes you did..

    And ALL it cost the Left was being stuck in the minority for the next 50 years and a splintered, fractured, leader-less and rudder-less Party.. :D

    Do you want to lay any bets for the 2018 elections?? :D

  52. [52] 
    michale wrote:

    But YOU insist on saying that I was lying, when in fact I wasn't.. And since you KNOW it's a fact, by continuing to accuse me of lying you are, in fact, lying...

    Got it??

    But this is the new and improved michale, so we have a clean slate here and can move forward with no history between us....

    We'll see how it goes from here... :D

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Al,

    I did read the article. I wouldn't have responded otherwise.

    I do believe, however, that your assessment of Biden's support for the status quo is too loosely based on the arguments in this article to provide an accurate portrayal of the former vice president's view of the establishment and the political status quo or of why Democrats lost in 2016 or of what they need to do to move forward and promote progressive change.

  54. [54] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    40, 41

    I don't know what "social strata" you're living in, but people are angry about more than just Trump.
    The whole point of GG's piece was that anti-Trumpism isn't sufficient to get back those 80,000 votes, the House, the Senate, the governorships and state legislatures.

    Dem's wouldn't be in the hole they are in if "Better than Trump" was a winning slogan.

    And, btw, if all you care about is the 80,000 votes, those young up and coming leaders around which you think Dems need to rally will have far fewer opportunities.

    If you think my comment was about expecting the establishment Dems to give up their power you missed my point entirely.

    A

  55. [55] 
    michale wrote:

    The whole point of GG's piece was that anti-Trumpism isn't sufficient to get back those 80,000 votes, the House, the Senate, the governorships and state legislatures.

    EXACTLY...

    President Trump only explains what happened in 2016..

    What happened in 2010, 2012 and 2014???

    What caused the Democrat Party to lose over 1000 political seats in 6 years???

    President Trump doesn't explain all of it...

    The simple fact is, if Democrats change nothing and Republicans don't blow up the world, Democrats will continue to lose...

  56. [56] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy (and I guess neil for cheering on the insanity)
    45

    The "pragmatism" and "reason" of your poor harassed "center" gave us Trump and Republican domination.
    Thanks bunches.

    Your disparagement of the center left as the far left is offensive in addition to being factually incorrect.

    You pretending that the right wing corporatism of the Democratic establishment isn't a strictly enforced ideology and that it amounts to government that works again is bizarre. If it was working for the people, they wouldn't have turned against you.

    And whining about ideologues when your ideology requires you to misrepresent reality is beyond hypocrisy.

    Unless losing to Trump and decimating the Democratic party was your goal, you and your kind are complete failures.

    You can't even shoot the messenger.

    A

  57. [57] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    53

    I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying.

    Do you want me to believe that Biden is an anti-establishment rebel despite his record?

    That doesn't sound like something you would say, so please clarify.

    A

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm saying that you are not reflecting Biden's record accurately.

    And, that's all I have to say about that.

    Have a great evening!

  59. [59] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [50]

    I wasn't.. I was insisting you are lying when you say *I* was lying about you having a nervous breakdown..

    I WASN'T lying, I was mistaken.. I corrected the mistake once the facts pointed out my mistake..

    But YOU insist on saying that I was lying, when in fact I wasn't.. And since you KNOW it's a fact, by continuing to accuse me of lying you are, in fact, lying...

    Got it??

    No! In [20] above, I told you I was not questioning Trump's job title and that I was questioning his leadership. I know my motive, yet you insisted otherwise in [21]... full stop. Then in [24] I asked you: "So, how does lying about my motive prove anything..." Again, we're discussing an entirely different topic here, which is me questioning Trump's leadership, not his job title.

    BUT... Does it surprise me in the least that you've now changed the entire subject to a completely different conversation held on a totally different day in order to obfuscate the issue? Not even the tiniest scintilla or skosh. Even so... did I actually call you a liar in that conversation from yesterday after you explained the situation? No, I actually did not. While I did tease you mercilessly about projecting your fantasy onto my reality, I did not think you were lying.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/02/03/ftp423/#comment-93732

    I said you should apologize to Paula since I didn't mind you calling me names. Seriously... read it again. I don't generally mind being called names because I'm used to it and will dish it right back, but what does irk me to no end is someone questioning my motive when I've clearly stated my motive and in no uncertain terms.

    M'kay. Enough said about that. :)

  60. [60] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale:

    Yea, as I predicted it would.. It's not known as the 9th Circus or the Wacky 9th for a reason... It's also the most overturned court in the land.. :D

    It makes sense that it's the most overturned court when you consider the SCOTUS until recently has been 5 conservative judges and 4 liberal judges who rule largely along party lines, right? The 9th Circuit also handles far more cases than any other federal appeals court. More cases means more chances to be overturned... pretty basic stuff.

    Honestly, did you listen to that hearing? It too was pretty basic stuff. Regardless of whose side you're on, the government dropped the ball on this "ban" not a "ban" case. The Trump Administration was asking the court to rule that the president can unilaterally make decisions unchecked with no evidence of necessity. How is that any different than a King?

    President Trump will prevail, because the law is on his side..

    No, it's actually not on his side with this partially unconstitutional EO... unless that EO is amended to remove and/or change some of its unconstitutional wording. Based on the evidence that can't be unheard and unseen, Trump called for a Muslim ban, and his motive was clear. That's not to say that a conservative stacked SCOTUS wouldn't rule in Trump's favor; it might rule strictly on party lines, but there's always a chance that Anthony Kennedy might strike again. If the SCOTUS were to grant deference to the Executive Branch with no checks whatsoever, it would give the POTUS the right to unilaterally make any decision he wanted for any reason as long as POTUS stated it was in the interest of national security... in my opinion.

    Would we want the SCOTUS to grant unchecked power to the POTUS, regardless of the Party of POTUS? I wouldn't. There's a way to write an EO that is both constitutional and in the interest of national security. Can't remember the name of the Trump Administration guy that already admitted it was "on him" in drafting of that EO, but in providing the cover for Trump, he also concedes the point. What's left to argue when a guy takes the blame for the drafting of the EO? Better yet, let the people's representatives get involved and hammer out a solution. That's the way for the Trump Administration to go on this... of course, all just my opinion. :)

  61. [61] 
    neilm wrote:

    If you think my comment was about expecting the establishment Dems to give up their power you missed my point entirely.

    Fair enough. But my point is that we need to look to the future. The common ground that we both agree on is more than enough of a constituency to win any election.

    We need a leader who will articulate the common ground that sensible America believes in. I won't get everything I want, you won't get everything you want, but we'll both get a lot more than 45 will deliver.

    I'm hoping the 35-50 year olds of American can give is a rabble rousing inspirational leader and bring a whole new generation of progressives into the political arena.

  62. [62] 
    neilm wrote:

    President Trump will prevail, because the law is on his side..

    Hey Mr Perfect Prediction, how's that going for ya'?

    ;)

  63. [63] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    61

    I've never had a problem with the concept of a Big Tent... but establishment Dems insisting that neoliberal economic and foreign policy amounts to the "compromise" position... in other words getting everything they want... violates the idea of a Big Tent and the words in your comment.

    If you want to talk about compromise, I'm in-

    I wanted all the Wall Street criminals locked up.
    Obama wanted none of the Wall Street criminals locked up.
    The compromise position would be locking up half of the Wall Street criminals.
    What we got was none of them locked up... not a compromise.

    I wanted no war.
    Obama wanted constant war.
    The compromise position would have been four years of war but we got eight years of war... not a compromise.

    And yes, I am aware those are both simplistic examples to illustrate a point.

    I don't remember who first said it, but I didn't leave the party, the party left me.

    "But my point is that we need to look to the future"

    I really don't understand how discussions about the next leader of the DNC and the policies the Dems need to embrace in order to win again isn't "looking to the future".

    The things I've been saying aren't about rehashing the past.

    Do we allow the people who failed miserably to decide the future of the Democratic party or do we insist on a change in direction?

    The rest of your comment seems to be about the 2020 election... well, these decisions need to be made in time for 2018... months, not years away.

    And maintaining the status quo until a young rabble rousing charismatic progressive leader emerges is a recipe for disaster.

    A

  64. [64] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    58

    On the issues under discussion, Biden is on the wrong side.

    If you are trying to absolve Biden from culpability in the massive electoral losses by Dems I'm going to at least need some form of justification.

    The only alternative would be he is trying but completely ineffective.

    A

  65. [65] 
    michale wrote:

    Hey Mr Perfect Prediction, how's that going for ya'?

    Now there is the rub.. :D

    I have a perfect record for President Trump predictions...

    I have a perfectly dismal record for SCOTUS predictions...

    What's gonna happen when the two shall meet?? :D

    However I will amend my prediction..

    If this case goes before a full 9-member SCOTUS, President Trump will prevail...

    If it goes thru the limited 8-member SCOTUS, it will be a push and President Trump will have to have Congress pass the laws he wants, just like President Bush did with the Military Commissions Act...

  66. [66] 
    michale wrote:

    Do we allow the people who failed miserably to decide the future of the Democratic party or do we insist on a change in direction?

    That is so dead on ballz accurate it's scary...

  67. [67] 
    michale wrote:

    Americans Trust Trump Administration More Than News Media in New Poll
    http://www.thewrap.com/new-poll-says-president-trump-is-more-trusted-than-untruthful-news-media/

    Heh :D

  68. [68] 
    michale wrote:

    Kick,

    It makes sense that it's the most overturned court when you consider the SCOTUS until recently has been 5 conservative judges and 4 liberal judges who rule largely along party lines, right?

    Wrong..

    I can point to DOZENS of rulings from the SCOTUS that defied "Party lines"...

    Honestly, did you listen to that hearing? It too was pretty basic stuff.

    It was a farce.. BOTH sides of the issue were completely ignorant and completely unprepared for the obvious and logical questions from the bench..

    The Trump Administration was asking the court to rule that the president can unilaterally make decisions unchecked with no evidence of necessity. How is that any different than a King?

    How is it any different than what President Obama did for 8 years??

    Based on the evidence that can't be unheard and unseen, Trump called for a Muslim ban,

    And President Obama AND Hillary Clinton opposed gay marriage...

    Does that still apply today??

    No it does not...

    The Democrat Party is the Party of the KKK...

    Does that still apply today?

    No, it does not...

    Why is it that Democrats can "evolve" but Republicans can't??

    That's not to say that a conservative stacked SCOTUS wouldn't rule in Trump's favor; it might rule strictly on party lines, but there's always a chance that Anthony Kennedy might strike again.

    I doubt it. Title 18, Section 1182, SubSection (f) is pretty clear on the authority of the President with regards to immigration matters...

    You should know this. It was the Left Wings stance throughout the Obama years...

    Did the Executive Order go to far? Yes it did... That's why it was amended.. But, as I pointed out before, it was very similar to Bush's order that grounded all planes in the aftermath of 9/11.. The goal is to stop EVERYTHING and then piecemeal allow proper flights to resume..

    That's the way for the Trump Administration to go on this... of course, all just my opinion. :)

    Yes, it is and yes, I respect that...

    But the law, in the form of Title 18, Section 1182, is clearly on President Trump's side..

    I can quote the law, if you wish...

    The EO is solid.. The minor quibbles, though accurate, does not negate the fact that the base of the EO is solid..

  69. [69] 
    michale wrote:

    Based on the evidence that can't be unheard and unseen, Trump called for a Muslim ban,

    This is ALSO negated by the fact that the list President Trump was operating from was a list created by President Obama and his administration..

    Now, if you want to state for the record that President Obama put in the paperwork for a "muslim ban", by all means...

    Have at it.. :D

    You see, when one ignores the hysteria from the Left (present company excepted, of course :D ) and look at the facts in a logical and objective manner, one sees that this is a big ado over nothing....

    Banning certain people from countries for logical and rational reasons is not only a Presidents' right, it's a Presidents' responsibility...

    Presidents throughout history have done this exact same thing for this exact same reason. Hell, FDR even banned BASED ON RELIGION...

  70. [70] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump tells Chinese president US will honor 'one China' policy
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/10/trump-tells-chinese-president-us-will-honor-one-china-policy.html

    Grrrrrrrr Trump is really beginning to piss me off!!

    This is JUST how things got started with President Obama....

  71. [71] 
    michale wrote:

    The Trump Administration was asking the court to rule that the president can unilaterally make decisions unchecked with no evidence of necessity.

    Well, except for Nice, Berlin, Brussels, Ansbach, Wurzburg, Paris x2, Orlando, San Bernardino, Ohio State University, etc etc...

    The list of "necessity" is long and growing... And THAT's just for the last 2 years...

    Now, you may argue that this really isn't indicative of a "necessity" and that would be a worthwhile argument to have... (SPOILER ALERT: You would lose.. :D )

    But to claim that there is "no evidence" of necessity is simply flat out wrong...

    There is a PLETHORA of evidence..

  72. [72] 
    Kick wrote:

    altohone [63]

    I wanted all the Wall Street criminals locked up.
    Obama wanted none of the Wall Street criminals locked up.
    The compromise position would be locking up half of the Wall Street criminals.
    What we got was none of them locked up... not a compromise.

    I'm almost certain this will be of little consolation, but: Kareem Serageldin, senior trader at Credit Suisse. Other than this guy, I got nothing. Sad!

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-wall-streets-bankers-stayed-out-of-jail/399368/

  73. [73] 
    michale wrote:
  74. [74] 
    michale wrote:

    The panicked emails and phone calls began streaming in from community members at about 11 a.m. Thursday morning, inundating Los Angeles immigration lawyers with far more cases than usual. Immigrant advocate groups claim that more than 100 people had been taken into custody by federal immigration officials in Southern California Thursday, indicating a “coordinated sweep” in arrests and heightening fears that Donald Trump’s promise to crackdown on deportations had begun to take effect.

    Sanctuary City my ass!! :D

  75. [75] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [65]

    If this case goes before a full 9-member SCOTUS, President Trump will prevail...

    If it goes thru the limited 8-member SCOTUS, it will be a push and President Trump will have to have Congress pass the laws he wants, just like President Bush did with the Military Commissions Act...

    Here's my prediction, not a new prediction. If the object of the exercise is actually national security versus Trump's ego... "winning," they'll rewrite the Executive Order to make it constitutional. They've already reversed the Order's ban on green-card holders so they need to update the order to reflect this fact. Rather than suffer a long wait in a lower court, fix that green-card issue that can't be enforced across the board due to constitutionality issues in certain circumstances... tweak the Executive Order... problem solved (except the Trump's ego part).

    I can point to DOZENS of rulings from the SCOTUS that defied "Party lines"...

    Okay, obviously true. So I should have been more specific and said what I meant: high-profile controversial cases... like this one... out of the Ninth Circuit. Is the SCOTUS actually routinely overruling controversial cases like this one by the dozens that defy "party lines"?

    How is it any different than what President Obama did for 8 years??

    Yep... that's your usual obsession. :) What does it remotely have to do with this case? What kind of moron would argue in court that "Obama did it too!" You seem to almost always respond from that same angle where you ASSUME a commenter is taking sides. I'm talking about THE evidence presented in THIS case. Not the Obama cases that were overturned in the cherry picked Texas courts. Not Hillary. Not anything else except this case.

    And President Obama AND Hillary Clinton opposed gay marriage...

    Has nothing to do with THIS case.

    Does that still apply today??

    No it does not...

    Has nothing to do with THIS case.

    The Democrat Party is the Party of the KKK...

    No, but the goobers who started the KKK in Tennessee were predominantly Democrats; it started as a social club... go figure. It's "Democratic Party" not "Democrat Party."

    Oh, and has nothing to do with THIS case.

    Does that still apply today?

    No, today the Republican Party is the party of the KKK... ;) kidding

    No, it does not...

    No, it does not have anything to do with THIS case.

    Why is it that Democrats can "evolve" but Republicans can't??

    What does that have to do with THIS case? :) I'm talking about what the lawyers argued before the court in THIS case.

    I doubt it. Title 18, Section 1182, SubSection (f) is pretty clear on the authority of the President with regards to immigration matters...

    You should know this. It was the Left Wings stance throughout the Obama years...

    Yes, same stuff, different day, and Republicans argued against everything Obama did and made arguments in the conservative courts, and wasn't Obama overruled enough?

    Did the Executive Order go to far? Yes it did...

    Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

    That's why it was amended..

    Yes and no... it was decided to be amended in practice, but it wasn't amended on paper and signed by the President of the United States. The Trump administration's counsel wanted the 9th Circuit to allow the Executive Order to be enforced exactly as written with Counsel's testimony and I believe the guy from DHS stating that the Order's ban on green-card holders would not be enforced.

    The court would not accept counsel's word.

    Rewrite it to make it constitutional, sign that EO, time saved, problem solved.

    But there's 9 or 10 other court cases where they just might rule for the challengers, and it all starts over... bleh... :)

    This is ALSO negated by the fact that the list President Trump was operating from was a list created by President Obama and his administration..
    Yeah, it's more complicated than that, but I do see what your saying. I keep hearing the argument that "it's Obama's list," but apparently Obama didn't use that list to ban people with green cards, just made them go through extra vetting before entering... so...

    Fix the unconstitutional verbiage that affects green card holders and sign it and problem solved. :D

    But that blurb that was added on the end is being argued in lots of courts and will probably keep it tied up in one form or another for a long time... so it might take several separate EO's skillfully worded to lock it down.

    Rescind the order. Rewrite!

    You see, when one ignores the hysteria from the Left (present company excepted, of course :D ) and look at the facts in a logical and objective manner, one sees that this is a big ado over nothing....

    Oh, you oversimplify. The EO as written on its face was unconstitutional. It was being enforced in an unconstitutional manner. The optics were really, really bad. An unforced error. Are you sick and tired of "winning" yet? :D

  76. [76] 
    michale wrote:

    Yep... that's your usual obsession. :)

    Because it shows that you are not complaining about the problem per se... You are complaining that someone with a '-R' after their name did it..

    Look at mine and Neil's discussion about inherent bias in the current commentary...

  77. [77] 
    michale wrote:

    Basically, ya'all's argument is, "I don't like it when Trump does this, this and that."

    But that's an admittedly silly argument to make, so ya'all dress it up to hide the bias and claim "I don't like this, this and that..."

    Example... "I don't like our President lying to us."

    The facts CLEARLY prove that ya'all don't mind when a President lies to you, as long as the President has a '-D' after his name...

    Ya'all would eliminate 80% of my comments if ya'all admitted the inherent bias...

    But, again, please don't do that during the holiday fundraiser... :D

  78. [78] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [76]

    Because it shows that you are not complaining about the problem per se... You are complaining that someone with a '-R' after their name did it..

    Okay... NO! I am not complaining about anything. Why do you assume I'm complaining? I'm discussing the case and why I think the 9th Circuit ruled the way they did and remanded the case for further consideration while leaving the TRO in force. It's my opinion of why I think they did what they did.... *bangs head against wall* *bang* *bang* *bang* *ouch*

    So listen. Let this get through to you. I'm discussing the Trump administration's travel "ban" EO and why the Court ruled against them. I'm not arguing whether I thought they were correct or incorrect, and *lightbulb goes off over my head*.....

    OKAY... Maybe this will get through: The 9th Circuit did not consider my biases OR LACK THEREOF when deciding this case. They couldn't care less what I think. Got that?

    Look at mine and Neil's discussion about inherent bias in the current commentary...

    No offense, but I don't think the 9th Circuit cared what you or Neil thought about their decision either, and that's what I was discussing... the Court's opinion in THIS case. :)

  79. [79] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [77]

    Basically, ya'all's argument is, "I don't like it when Trump does this, this and that."

    But that's an admittedly silly argument to make, so ya'all dress it up to hide the bias and claim "I don't like this, this and that..."

    Example... "I don't like our President lying to us."

    The facts CLEARLY prove that ya'all don't mind when a President lies to you, as long as the President has a '-D' after his name...

    What facts are those? Utter nonsense. I would think these generalizations would be beneath you, but I guess they're not. I think it's just utter nonsense that you see Party bias in every single situation and type the same BS over and over, particularly when someone has told you their motive. The same argument from you over and over saying ad nauseam:

    You're a Party bigot.
    You're a Party bigot.
    You're a Party bigot.
    You're a Party bigot.
    You're a Party bigot.

    This accomplishes very little except that people will think you're a troll... a monotonous troll... a monotonous ignorant troll... a monotonous ignorant obtuse troll. Ninty-nine bottles of beer on the wall, 99 bottles of beer.... :)

    I don't see a big difference in some of the Lefties and some of the Righties, and you yourself are always droning on and on about how Trump is not a Republican and he should change from "-R" to "-I". I don't care what bleeding letter he has; it's not going to change my opinion of him. It's got nothing to do with Party bias where my opinion of Trump is concerned. Got that? :)

  80. [80] 
    michale wrote:

    Dems Call for Their Party’s Autopsy--But Won’t Admit the Patient Is Dead
    http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2017/02/09/Dems-Call-Their-Party-s-Autopsy-Won-t-Admit-Patient-Dead

    Heh..... :D

  81. [81] 
    michale wrote:

    What facts are those?

    The fact that the Left Wingery goes apeshit hysterical over anyone's who has an -R after their names lies, but gives anyone with a -D after their name for lying...

    I don't see a big difference in some of the Lefties and some of the Righties,

    Which is what I have been saying for years now. Glad we can have some common ground.. :D

    It's got nothing to do with Party bias where my opinion of Trump is concerned. Got that? :)

    And yet, you haven't castigated and denigrated President Obama nearly as much as you have castigated and denigrated President Trump..

    Since the only differences between Trump and Obama is that Obama is black and a Democrat and Trump is white and a Republican... I am fairly certain that race has nothing to do with it, so that only leaves Party bias..

    Don't get me wrong. I am not faulting you for your Party loyalty.. Loyalty, more often than not, is a good thing in a person..

    No, I am faulting you because you refuse to concede your bias when the facts clearly show that it is there...

  82. [82] 
    michale wrote:

    As Neil pointed out, this IS a Left Wing commentary blog... So there is no shame or controversy in having a Left Wing bias....

    The problems erupt when one tries to deny that they are biased...

  83. [83] 
    michale wrote:

    So listen. Let this get through to you. I'm discussing the Trump administration's travel "ban" EO and why the Court ruled against them. I'm not arguing whether I thought they were correct or incorrect, and *lightbulb goes off over my head*.....

    And, based on the text of the law, the court was INCORRECT... This is fact...

    But, OK... OK...

    Let me try THIS tact...

    What is your opinion regarding President Trump's executive order to limit immigration from countries that were on President Obama's travel restriction list??

  84. [84] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Why are you commenting on an old thread?

  85. [85] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [81]

    And yet, you haven't castigated and denigrated President Obama nearly as much as you have castigated and denigrated President Trump..

    Since the only differences between Trump and Obama is that Obama is black and a Democrat and Trump is white and a Republican... I am fairly certain that race has nothing to do with it, so that only leaves Party bias..

    "Trump is white"? LOL ;)
    "The only differences" are color and Party? Seriously?!!! Sad!

    You can't really be this obtuse, right? If the only differences you see in these human beings are their race and their party, people might think you're the bigot.

    Don't get me wrong. I am not faulting you for your Party loyalty.. Loyalty, more often than not, is a good thing in a person..

    I am not biased against Trump because of his Party. Over the years, Trump has been a member of the Democratic Party, the Independent Party, and the Republican Party, and my opinion of him didn't change with his multiple party movements.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/16/donald-trump-changed-political-parties-at-least-fi/

    All his many Party movements did make him seem more of an opportunist to me, but otherwise didn't change my opinion of him.

    No, I am faulting you because you refuse to concede your bias when the facts clearly show that it is there...

    Well, I have said incessantly and have typed ad nauseam that I think Donald Trump is a con artist whose primary concern is the pursuit of power and money. I called him "Benedict Donald" and said he was the most dangerous threat to our democracy. If you must label me a bigot, label me as one of those people who are biased against con artists who take advantage of people less fortunate in order to advance their own interests.

    If all things were equal and Donald Trump was a Democrat, it would not change my opinion of him in the least. In fact, I don't belong to any party, but if I actually was a member of either the Democratic or Republican Party and Donald Trump became my Party's nominee, I would be changing my Party affiliation so fast it would make Usain Bolt look as speedy as a turtle.

    Those are the facts. :)

  86. [86] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [82]

    As Neil pointed out, this IS a Left Wing commentary blog... So there is no shame or controversy in having a Left Wing bias....

    The problems erupt when one tries to deny that they are biased...

    I think everyone is biased in one way or another for whatever reason. So who here denied that they're biased? I must have missed that comment. I have seen different posters who said they don't hold a particular opinion because they are a Party bigot, and this occurs when you play your "Party card." I think I understand why you do it; it's infinitely easier to play that Party card of yours than it is to formulate a decent argument or rebuttal.

    I also don't think a person should be considered a Party bigot if they read a Left Wing commentary blog and fail to criticize the Left Wing enough to suit a right-leaning poster. Since I'm an Independent on a Left Wing commentary blog, who am I to expect the other posters to criticize their Party representatives in quantities in order to suit me? I don't think that would prove anything.

    I really love football and have since I can remember, but I have been known to go to other types of sports venues... but I've never once walked into a basketball arena and expected them to play enough football to suit my tastes. *LOL*

  87. [87] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [83]

    And, based on the text of the law, the court was INCORRECT... This is fact...

    And if the court based its opinion on that 1952 law alone, you'd have a point, but they don't... so you don't.

    But, OK... OK...

    Let me try THIS tact...

    What is your opinion regarding President Trump's executive order to limit immigration from countries that were on President Obama's travel restriction list?? "

    * I think Section 1 of the EO identifies terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 but then curiously fails to include a ban on immigrants from countries that those foreign nationals and known terrorists had immigrated: Saudi Arabia, UAE, Lebanon, and Egypt.

    The 1952 law on which Trump relies was amended in 1965 stating that no person can be "discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence." Congress amended the law to protect not just immigrants but also American citizens who have a right to marry a foreign-born spouse and/or sponsor their family members without being subject to pointless discrimination.

    An appeals court stopped President Obama's EOs to spare millions of undocumented immigrants from deportations on the grounds that he was circumventing laws enacted by Congress so I think it's reasonable to conclude Trump's travel "ban" EO might meet the same fate in a trial, which is reason enough in my opinion to grant a TRO of enforcement so that challengers of the EO can be heard in court.

    * I think the Executive Order was an unforced error that was hastened into existence in order to check a "campaign promise" box... just my opinion.

    * I think that President Trump might have even biased some Justices with his ridiculous tweeting about "so-called" judges, and I think he should therefore avoid the Supreme Court as if it were the plague.

    * I think President Trump has an obligation to protect American citizens, and I therefore think the Executive Order should be rescinded and rewritten to add (at minimum) Saudi Arabia, UAE, Lebanon, and Egypt, and I think those portions of the EO that conflict with the Constitution or any laws written by Congress should be eliminated.

    * I think I need a drink now. :)

  88. [88] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think I need a drink now. :)

    Actually, what you need is to find a current thread.

  89. [89] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    We're playing it forward, you know. That was a little joke.

    So that no one misses reading your comments ... :)

  90. [90] 
    michale wrote:

    I am not biased against Trump because of his Party. Over the years, Trump has been a member of the Democratic Party, the Independent Party, and the Republican Party, and my opinion of him didn't change with his multiple party movements.

    Any evidence that you attacked Trump like this when he was a Democrat??

  91. [91] 
    michale wrote:

    * I think Section 1 of the EO identifies terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 but then curiously fails to include a ban on immigrants from countries that those foreign nationals and known terrorists had immigrated: Saudi Arabia, UAE, Lebanon, and Egypt.

    President Trump was working from President Obama's list..

    If you have an issue with those that are not on the list, but should be, you'll have to take it up with President Obama..

    Heh.. I would LOVE to see that.. :D

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]