ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [489] -- Ranting About Trump's Cruelty

[ Posted Friday, June 22nd, 2018 – 18:20 PDT ]

For a change, we're not going to have much to say in this introduction. The reason is that the talking points section is taken up by a lengthy rant this week, because it seemed timely to offer one up. It is a rare week of the Trump presidency where there is really only one overriding issue in the political world to comment on, but this was indeed that kind of week.

Other political things did happen this week, from Trump pushing his "Space Force" idiocy to the Trump trade wars heating up in a big way to an announcement that Trump is going to try to kill off the Department of Education. But it all paled in comparison to the firestorm over immigration and Trump's "zero tolerance" policy of separating children from their parents at the border, which consumed the political dialog all week long.

There is only one tangential issues which we feel the need to mention up front, because it didn't quite fit into the rant at the end of the program. And because we feel it really needs a much bigger media spotlight to shine upon it.

Why is the following story not at the top of all the headlines right now? We have no idea. It not only ties in to the week's biggest story, but it advances it in a new and horrifying direction. Read for yourself, and you'll see what we mean:

Staff working on the behalf of the Office of Refugee Resettlement are routinely drugging detained child migrants with psychotropics without their parents' consent, according to legal filings.

. . .

"ORR routinely administers children psychotropic drugs without lawful authorization," a memo filed in the lawsuit on April 16 reads. "When youth object to taking such medications, ORR compels them. ORR neither requires nor asks for a parent's consent before medicating a child, nor does it seek lawful authority to consent in parents' stead. Instead, ORR or facility staff sign 'consent' forms anointing themselves with 'authority' to administer psychotropic drugs to confined children."

Most of the allegations center on Shiloh Residential Treatment Center, in Manvel, Texas. But lawyers in the Flores case, who have access to the medical records of their clients, say the problem is widespread.

"It's not specific to Shiloh," Holly Cooper, one of the lawyers representing children in the Flores agreement litigation, said of the drugging allegations. The attorneys have seen the use of psychotropic medications at all facilities where the federal government holds unaccompanied minors but noted that the only cases of forced injections they documented occurred at Shiloh.

One child, identified in court records as Julio Z., said staff at Shiloh threw him to the floor and forced him to take medication. He said he witnessed staff pry another child's mouth open to force him to swallow a pill. When Julio Z. attempted to refuse the medication, he said the doctor ignored him.

"They told me that if I did not take the medicine I could not leave," Julio Z. said, according to the court records. "That the only way I could get out of Shiloh was if I took the pills."

"Sometimes they give me forced injections," another child, identified as Rosa L., said. "One or two staff hold my arms, and the nurse gives me an injection."

The medications often come with severe side effects. Julio Z. reported gaining 45 pounds in a matter of two months. A mother of a child identified in court records as Isabella M. said the medications were so powerful that her daughter repeatedly fell because she couldn't walk.

So why is this not a bigger story?!? We have no idea. It compounds the horror of losing your child to a faceless bureaucratic nightmare into one of truly Orwellian (or Kafkaesque) proportions. Drugging children without consent? That's a gigantic scandal, all on its own. So why hasn't this story made it to mainstream television news yet? Your guess is as good as ours.

So, with that out of the way, let's very quickly run through this week's awards, and then get to the main ranting event, shall we?

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

We have two Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week awards to hand out this week, as well as a close second who at least deserves an Honorable Mention.

The Honorable Mention goes to Senator Dianne Feinstein, for admirably doing the job she is supposed to be doing. In response to the family separation policy from Trump, Feinstein did what senators of the opposition party are supposed to do -- she introduced legislation designed to fix the problem. Her "Keep Families Together Act" is pretty self-explanatory, from the title alone. To date, we believe she is the only Democrat to have filed bill in response to Trump's hideous "zero tolerance" policy. Her bill was quickly cosponsored by every other Democrat in the Senate, which is pretty impressive to begin with.

The only thing that kept her from sharing this week's MIDOTW award was the fact that Feinstein has done a pretty weak job of getting the message of her bill out to the public. She made no appearances on last week's Sunday political shows, and also seemingly failed to brief other Democrats who did appear on the shows, as well as the journalists who could have asked about her bill (but largely didn't). This lack of message continued all week, in fact, and even now her bill is rarely mentioned in news reports.

But for this lack of messaging prowess, she would have qualified for the coveted MIDOTW. Her actions were exactly right -- file a bill for other Democrats to rally around -- and she did a bang-up job of getting them all on board in a very short period of time. But this may be the first time many readers have even heard of her bill, which we feel is a real shame.

Instead, we're going to give the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week (in a somewhat belated fashion) to Senators Jeff Merkley and Bob Menendez. Over two weeks ago, both of these senators, on their own initiative, showed up unannounced at child detention centers and demanded to be let in to see what was going on. They were both turned away, although Merkley reported that he had witnessed "children in cages."

This was the initial spark that set off the fiery resistance to the Trump policy of family separation. Stunts like this from sitting members of Congress rarely work, and this one took a few weeks to get going (the two senators attempted their visit in the first few days of June), but once the issue gained momentum it hasn't stopped since.

Senators Menendez and Merkley wanted to see with their own eyes what was being done in all our names. When they were refused access (the cops were actually called on Merkley), they began to make a political stink about it. Again, even before the Trump era of nonstop crises, such political stunts are rarely reported on and even more rarely capture the media's full attention. This one, obviously, was different.

While it is somewhat amazing how quickly the issue grew in importance in the media, it likely never would have happened at all if these two senators hadn't demanded to see for themselves what was going on. This happened over two weeks ago, but the ripple effects finally became a tidal wave this past week, which is why we're awarding Senators Jeff Merkley and Bob Menendez this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. Sometimes a sense of moral outrage is enough to get the whole country's attention. Merkley and Menendez sparked the nation's outrage in impressive fashion, especially when you consider how hard it is for any peripheral subject to get any media or political attention with Donald Trump in the White House. For pointing the finger of shame, and for getting everyone to see for themselves what was being done in all our names, Menendez and Merkley are the clear winners of the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Congratulate Senator Bob Menendez on his Senate contact page, and Senator Jeff Merkley on his Senate contact page, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

National Democrats held together this week in staunch opposition to both Trump's cruelty and to Paul Ryan's Machiavellian machinations in the House. So we don't really have any Democrat on the national stage who massively disappointed us this week. The Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award will thus stay on the shelf until next week.

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 489 (6/22/18)

We really can't remember when a political issue was so all-consuming that both the mainstream media and our own humble column spent the entire week commenting on the ongoing nightmare of an official federal government policy of wresting children from their parents' arms in order to lock them in a cage. What we called yesterday the "glorious Republican Immigration Reform Week" has now (thankfully) drawn to a close, but the fallout from the past seven days is going to live on for many months to come.

The following was written as a stream-of-thought rant, so our apologies in advance if we omitted any significant events from last week, or if it's not in a perfectly outlined order. But then, that's the nature of an authentic political rant, isn't it?

 

Ranting about the GOP's Immigration Week

This week, the Republican Party proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that when it comes to immigration their entire agenda is to use immigrants as political pawns and -- even worse -- as political hostages. The only thing Republicans seem to care about, in fact, is scoring a few cheap political points in the desperate hopes of firing up their xenophobic base enough to survive an upcoming election. This cynical political ploy plays out again and again and again from Republicans, but this time around it backfired spectacularly. In doing so, it exposed the party's true goal of using human misery as political leverage in order to advance their own unpopular agenda.

Republicans, no matter how much they protest to the contrary and no matter how many crocodile tears they shed for the victims of their own party's abuses, simply do not care about the pain and suffering they cause. They prove this time and again by refusing to compromise and refusing to even talk to Democrats about viable solutions. Because they would much rather have the issue as red meat to toss to their base on the campaign trail. This is now beyond the shadow of a doubt, after the week we just witnessed.

This entire cynical "make them suffer so we might get a political win" strategy began last year, when President Trump unilaterally decided to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program instituted by President Barack Obama. He didn't have to do this, but he thought it was good politics to do so. At the time, he stated that he wanted Congress to act and bring him legislation he could sign to continue the program on a more permanent basis. This was a lie. When Democratic and Republican congressional leaders actually struck an agreement on DACA -- one that even funded Trump's beloved border wall -- Trump torpedoed the deal because he was scared the Republican base might not be happy about it. Trump yanked the rug out from under his own party's negotiators, after supporting the deal right up until one of his hardliner advisors cornered him about it. Lindsey Graham, at the time, was dumbstruck at the speed of this turnaround, stating: "So what happened between 10:00 and 12:00? I don't [know], either, and I'm going to find out."

So this isn't the first time Trump has made every effort to keep the issue alive politically, because he knows that attempting to solve it will not win him points with his most fervent voters. This time around, Trump's fingerprints were all over the effort to yank the rug out from under any actual progress on the issue -- and this time around it was even more notable because Democrats weren't involved in the slightest. This time around, Trump torpedoed legislation which was solely written by Republicans, because he obviously thinks keeping the issue alive would be better for him in the upcoming midterm elections. Consider the timeline:

Trump once again created a crisis out of nowhere. Jeff Sessions announced the new "zero tolerance" policy, and would eagerly tell reporters that separating children from their parents was supposed to work as a deterrent. When the blowback began, Sessions tried to justify his actions with a Bible reference -- which has led to 600 members of his faith to sign a letter denouncing his understanding of his church's theology.

Also when the blowback began to heat up, Donald Trump insisted over and over again that (1) it was all the Democrats' fault, somehow, and (2) his hands were tied, and Congress would have to act to fix it. This is all in reference to his own policy, mind you. This time around, Graham was even more direct in his reaction to Trump's lies: "President Trump could stop this policy with a phone call. I'll go tell him. If you don't like families being separated, you can tell D.H.S., 'Stop doing it.'"

Meanwhile, Paul Ryan had been forced by his own caucus to bring up immigration bills this week, even though every political instinct he had said it would be a very bad idea -- and that was before the backlash against the child separation policy began. Ryan tried to bridge the ever-widening gap on DACA within his own party's caucus with a sneaky parliamentary maneuver. He would bring up not only a so-called "moderate" bill, but also a bill favored by the Tea Party hardliners. The plan was for the hardline bill to fail and the moderate bill to advance, where it could die in the Senate -- since this would then give every House Republican the chance to vote for at least one anti-immigrant bill, to protect them on the campaign trail.

Ryan tried a bit of doublethink of his own with this performance, explaining that the bipartisan bill his own moderates really wanted a vote on would never be signed by Trump, therefore holding a vote on it was a pointless political exercise. The bipartisan bill might actually have become law, proving that Trump isn't the only Republican terrified of what his own voters would think if Congress actually did something rather than just use immigration as a political football. So Ryan had to shoot it down somehow. Later, when it became obvious that both of his bills were going to fail, Ryan astonishingly changed his tune, now saying: "I think we're advancing the cause even if something doesn't pass. I think these are the seeds that are going to be planted for an ultimate solution." He went from "we won't pass anything that the president can't sign" to "we're doing this as a political exercise, because we think it'll play well with our base" in a heartbeat. Such rank cynicism is rarely so obviously on display in Washington -- usually they try to be a bit more subtle.

But Trump was even more scared than Ryan of his base's reaction, so the president decided to do everything he could to undermine the process. First, he dropped a bombshell in an off-the-cuff remark, stating that he would need to "make some changes" to any bill the House managed to pass. Then he went up to Capitol Hill and refused to offer his support for a single bill, because he saw it as a lose-lose situation for him personally. He also took the time to denigrate a sitting House Republican, which actually resulted in Republicans booing Trump.

On the morning the two votes were scheduled, Trump tweeted out:

What is the purpose of the House doing good immigration bills when you need 9 votes by Democrats in the Senate, and the Dems are only looking to Obstruct (which they feel is good for them in the Mid-Terms). Republicans must get rid of the stupid Filibuster Rule-it is killing you!

Got that? Just before the votes were going to happen, Trump blasts out that passing either bill is going to be completely pointless because neither one will make it through the Senate. This is true, but it's supposed to remain unsaid if you're trying to get away with the political ploy Ryan had so carefully designed. This signaled loudly that Trump wasn't going to have anyone else's back after the vote, and it so completely undermined Ryan that he was forced to postpone the vote on the moderate bill (after the hardliner bill had failed). At first, they were going to vote on it Friday, but then this slipped to "sometime next week." Obviously, whipping the bill is getting tougher and tougher, the more Trump tweets.

Just in case he hadn't undermined Ryan's efforts enough, today Trump drove it home with a sledgehammer, tweeting:

Republicans should stop wasting their time on Immigration until after we elect more Senators and Congressmen/women in November. Dems are just playing games, have no intention of doing anything to solves this decades old problem. We can pass great legislation after the Red Wave!

So, after Trump created not one crisis involving undocumented children, but two separate crises involving undocumented children (DACA and the child removal policy) so he could use both of them as political leverage against Democrats, Trump admits that Republicans are doing nothing short of "wasting their time" on immigration. Any time any deal looks even remotely like it will pass, Trump torpedoes it with a vengeance. He wants the issue to fire up his voters in November, and any deal (even a Republican-only deal!) might dampen xenophobic voters' enthusiasm, so all efforts to achieve such deals must be killed.

Today -- just in case this wasn't painfully obvious to everyone -- Trump once again held a media presentation complete with the relatives of people who had died because of an undocumented immigrant. Trump doesn't want a solution to the problem, he wants to use it as a political tool, plain and simple.

Of course, in the midst of all this happening at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, Donald Trump finally had to admit he had been lying to the American public, and for the first time during his presidency he was forced to very publicly back down. He signed an executive order -- which only days previously he had sworn simply was not possible -- which changed his policy from "separate the parents from the children and lock both of them up" to "lock up the families together, parents and children."

During the entire week, the Trump administration was so chaotic its right hand didn't know what its far-right hand was doing. Jeff Sessions went from bragging about the policy and quoting the Bible, to weakly defending that his policy wasn't anything like the Nazis (all he could come up with was: "Well, it’s a real exaggeration, of course. In Nazi Germany, they were keeping the Jews from leaving the country.") to bearing some mighty big false witness against it, during an interview with a Christian news network: "It hasn't been good and the American people don't like the idea that we are separating families. We never really intended to do that." It's a wonder he didn't burst into flame with a heavy odor of brimstone, right there and then.

Meanwhile, Kirstjen Nielsen was adamantly denying reality, stating unequivocally: "We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period." Later, during a press conference, she blamed the messengers, accusing the media of having "an agenda." One reporter even played the infamous audio of a wailing child during this press conference, but it was unclear whether she could hear it from the podium or not. ProPublica, who posted the audio, reacted to her accusation by stating: "That is true. Our agenda is to bring the American people facts for their consideration."

Nielsen was also in the news this week for being publicly shamed in (of all places) a Mexican restaurant by people loudly chanting "Shame! Shame!" at her. She wasn't the only one, either, as White House policy advisor (and immigration hardliner) Stephen Miller was called out at the Espita Mexcaleria restaurant by a fellow diner who yelled: "Hey look guys, whoever thought we'd be in a restaurant with a real-life fascist begging [for] money for new cages?" Perhaps Trump administration officials might want to rethink their choice of places to eat, for the foreseeable future? Just a thought....

But they weren't the only ones from the Trump White House adding gasoline to the fire. In what could have been a real diplomatic coup, First Lady Melania Trump traveled to the border to see for herself what all the fuss was about. This could have resulted in some badly-needed positive press for the president, except (of course) it didn't. Not only did Melania prove to be utterly tone deaf in her reactions to what she was told -- telling the children "Good luck" when leaving, and replying to the news that the average stay in the facility was 42 to 35 days with: "That's great!" -- but she felt she had to make a fashion statement on her way to and from the photo op. Despite the temperatures in Washington being over 80 degrees, Melania felt the urge to wear a topcoat as she both entered and exited the plane in Washington (both before and after her trip, in other words). This charmingly-hip jacket had graffitied on the back of it the phrase: "I REALLY DON'T CARE, DO U?" A clearer message of her indifference is hard to imagine, actually, and it turned the entire trip into yet another example of the Trumps shooting themselves in the foot for no apparent reason.

Meanwhile, former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski ratcheted things up a notch himself, when he dismissively sneered: "Womp, womp" at the news that a 10-year-old girl with Down Syndrome was separated from her mother and put in a cage. Former senior Democratic National Committee advisor Zac Petkanas exploded back in fury, during their joint Fox News appearance: "Did you say 'womp womp' to a 10-year-old with Down Syndrome being taken from her mother? How dare you! How dare you! How absolutely dare you, Sir! How dare you! We have infants that are being taken from their mothers! We have infants that are being stolen from their mothers and being put into cages and you go 'Womp womp!'"

Nikki Haley apparently felt left out by all the public hatred and disdain, so she chose this particular week to announce that the United States was pulling out of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Apparently she thought this would be a dandy time to send the "REALLY DON'T CARE" message out, too.

Getting back to the practical effects, though, by week's end it was unclear exactly what was happening at the border. Word had gone out that the Border Patrol was essentially throwing in the towel and would no longer detain families caught crossing the border illegally -- the same "catch and release" policy that "zero tolerance" was supposed to fight. As the Washington Post put it:

Once again, the Trump administration has embarrassed its cult followers. We have gone from zero tolerance to "What zero tolerance?" to "Trump can't do anything!" to "Trump can end child separation!" to "Let's incarcerate families indefinitely!" to "No more zero tolerance -- just don't tell Sessions."

The damage Trump has done to himself, Republican candidates who are worried about losing their seats in November, and to the Republican Party's overall public image are impossible to measure, at this point, but the fallout has already begun.

Former first lady Laura Bush this week (before Trump signed his executive order) wrote an extraordinary article denouncing Trump's policy. The language used was stronger than anything Democrats had said to date, in fact. Here is just one excerpt from what Bush had to say:

I appreciate the need to enforce and protect our international boundaries, but this zero-tolerance policy is cruel. It is immoral. And it breaks my heart. Our government should not be in the business of warehousing children in converted box stores or making plans to place them in tent cities in the desert outside of El Paso. These images are eerily reminiscent of the Japanese American internment camps of World War II, now considered to have been one of the most shameful episodes in U.S. history.

George Takei ("Mr. Sulu" from Star Trek) chimed in with some additional context for Bush's extraordinary comparison. Takei was sent to one of those Japanese-American internment camps as a child. But even in these camps (horrific as they were), children were not separated from their parents. Families were allowed to remain together.

Again, before Trump backed down, Mitch McConnell announced to the press that every Republican in the Senate would be joining in passing a bill to overturn Trump's policy. In an extraordinary rebuke to the president, McConnell stated: "I support, and all of the members of the Republican conference support, a plan to keep families together while their immigration status is determined." Of course, this bill they intended on passing did exactly what Trump did with his executive order -- allow children to be jailed with their parents instead of being jailed separate from their parents.

By week's end, the Republican Party had lost two very respected conservative voices. Steve Schmidt, onetime advisor to John McCain's presidential campaign, dropped a bombshell in an extraordinary series of tweets that is worth reproducing in full (and unedited, which is why the hard paragraph breaks exist):

29 years and nine months ago I registered to vote and became a member of The Republican Party which was founded in 1854 to oppose slavery and stand for the dignity of human life. Today I renounce my membership in the Republican Party. It is fully the party of Trump.

It is corrupt, indecent and immoral. With the exception of a few Governors like Baker, Hogan and Kasich it is filled with feckless cowards who disgrace and dishonor the legacies of the party's greatest leaders. This child separation policy is connected to the worst abuses of

Humanity in our history. It is connected by the same evil that separated families during slavery and dislocated tribes and broke up Native American families. It is immoral and must be repudiated. Our country is in trouble. Our politics are badly broken. The first step to a

Season of renewal in our land is the absolute and utter repudiation of Trump and his vile enablers in the 2018 election by electing Democratic majorities. I do not say this as an advocate of a progressive agenda. I say it as someone who retains belief in DEMOCRACY and decency.

On Ronald Reagan's grave are these words. "I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph and there is purpose and worth to each and every life." He would be ashamed of McConnell and Ryan and all the rest while this corrupt government

Establishes internment camps for babies. Everyone of these complicit leaders will carry this shame through history. There legacies will be ones of well earned ignominy. They have disgraced their country and brought dishonor to the Party of Lincoln.

I have spent much of my life working in GOP politics. I have always believed that both parties were two of the most important institutions to the advancement of human freedom and dignity in the history of the world. Today the GOP has become a danger to our democracy and values.

This Independent voter will be aligned with the only party left in America that stands for what is right and decent and remains fidelitous to our Republic, objective truth, the rule of law and our Allies. That party is the Democratic Party.

Today, none other than George Will agreed with Schmidt, in a column bluntly titled: "Vote Against The GOP This November," which ends with a similar plea to voters to elect the party he's been opposed to all his life, because of the damage Donald Trump is doing to his own party and -- more importantly -- to America:

In today's GOP, which is the president's plaything, he is the mainstream. So, to vote against his party's cowering congressional caucuses is to affirm the nation's honor while quarantining him. A Democratic-controlled Congress would be a basket of deplorables, but there would be enough Republicans to gum up the Senate's machinery, keeping the institution as peripheral as it has been under their control and asphyxiating mischief from a Democratic House. And to those who say, "But the judges, the judges!" the answer is: Article III institutions are not more important than those of Articles I and II combined.

This is the point where Donald Trump has led us all. Staunch lifelong Republicans are now falling all over themselves denouncing their own party's leader and their own president. They are now actually begging voters to vote Democratic to put some restraints on their own feckless leader.

The public got in on the act, as well. Some hapless person at the State Department had to hold an online family policy chat this week, and some of the questions posed were downright scathing, such as: "What tips do you have to beat the heat for toddlers imprisoned in a concentration camp in Texas in 100+ degree heat? And what type of baby pajamas will go best with a tin foil blanket?" and: "How should I expect the ID number to be given to visiting family members? Tattoos on the forearm or just written illegibly with a big Sharpie?" and: "How can I be sure my child's skin is white enough for the government not to steal him from me when I attempt to return to the United States?" But, public snark aside, it was the Republican response which was the most notable.

We have personally been watching politics for many decades, and we can't remember having ever seen such a revolt from within either party's ranks. This is extraordinary, folks. This does not happen every day. This has, in fact, not happened since Richard Nixon was unceremoniously shown the door by his own party, and that was over forty years ago.

Perhaps the dam is bursting. Perhaps Trump has finally gone too far for his fellow Republicans to stomach any more. Or perhaps George Will and Steve Schmidt are right -- perhaps what is needed for Republicans to find both their spine and their moral compass is to be defeated badly in the upcoming elections. Nothing would send the anti-Trump message so clearly as paying an electoral price for the ongoing chaos emanating from the White House on an almost-hourly basis. When even Laura Bush seems to have joined the resistance, then perhaps we've reached a point where Republicans will begin listening to that small child once again. No, not the small child screaming in terror in Trump's toddler jails -- but instead the small child who has been yelling all along: "But he hasn't got any clothes on!" as Trump once again shows his naked hatred of non-white people to the world, for all to see.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

325 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [489] -- Ranting About Trump's Cruelty”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    Excellent Rant Chris!
    Perhaps the dam is bursting. Perhaps Trump has finally gone too far for his fellow Republicans to stomach any more. Or perhaps George Will and Steve Schmidt are right -- perhaps what is needed for Republicans to find both their spine and their moral compass is to be defeated badly in the upcoming elections.

    As I have been writing for a long time, the GOP has gone rotten. The rot started with their wholesale adoption of dishonesty the basis of everything they do. And they've been doing it for so long it's become a part of their DNA, regardless of their individual preferences, characters, etc. George Will has been passing along GOP spin for years - that mixture of misinformation, disinformation and outright lies - and they all trade in it. People who you could say are, otherwise, "good", have been consistently and ever more blatantly dishonest. In addition to that they've been abusive in multiple ways, and they have been willing to appeal to humanity's worst instincts for electoral advantage.

    In the course of this they created the deplorables. And among the deplorables are a bunch of armed, wanting-to-be-violent imbeciles.

    So we have 2 problems.

    First, Republicans DO have to "find their moral compass" - which remains to be seen. For the most part they seem to be responding to pressure from the public because they know it makes them look bad and because they know it hurts their electoral prospects, not because they actually give a damn about savage treatment of refugees. After too many instances of meaningless "thoughts and prayers" post-shootings as well as all their other bs, I'm deeply skeptical these people care about anyone outside their personal circles. They might. It would be good if they did. But skepticism is in order.

    Second, Repubs DO have to "find their spine". I think they'd actually have no problem ganging up on Blotus, but they are afraid of the deplorables because the deplorables are thugs. I think they have a big problem with becoming targets of the (as someone put it on twitter) the tRump-death-cult.

    What the events this week may have done - we'll see as time passes - is move the dynamic closer than we've yet been - to the place where Repubs decide the pain they'll experience for inaction against Blotus will be worse than the pain they'll experience if they take action.

    But that may well not happen before midterms and they need to be voted out in either case. I suspect a lot of them secretly hope they'll lose control of one or both houses because that would land the problem in the Democrats' laps.

  2. [2] 
    Kick wrote:

    Wow, CW. Awesome recap on this week in history.

    I wonder if next week will be another "Infrastructure Week."

  3. [3] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Yeah, CW, this week's FTP is so good that I nearly skipped commenting, lest my poor punditry tarnish the high shine.

    But I am compelled to ad just two cents -

    All of this reminds me so much of the nonsense that I heard in college, from sophomores who had just discovered Strauss and Hayek and Rand, and began uncontrollably spouting sentences that began, "what we ought to do is...", and ended with some totally impractical and ill-considered prescription for society.

    And now it seems that all of those guys, having failed to mature in their political thinking, are now pundits on RW media, feeding bad ideas to the Trumpettes.

    It boggles my mind particularly that no one at DOJ brought some hard questions to Sessions when he first proposed this policy: do we have the resources for this? how will it be done? IS THIS A BAD IDEA?

    The same is true for the professionals (if there are any left) at all of the other participating cabinet departments like DHS, HHS, and of course DoD, who ought to have been throwing up red flags like they were preparing for a Chinese summit.

    I imagine that there's a Pulitzer waiting for the erstwhile reporter who finds those memos.

    The sticking point on immigration seems to be Trump's stupid wall, which Democrats, to their eternal credit, have given their collective upraised middle fingers. Now that they know that Trump has no stomach for sustained political pressure (and taking into account the debacle of Obamacare repeal as well), the chances of that wall ever being built are diminishing by the day, and you can put a fork into future initiatives as well.

    Which will probably make a great topic for a Poli-Sci class someday.

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay, CW??

    Where was the rant when Obama was separating families and locking children in wire cages??

    You and I both know it really happened, as there is photographic and documentary evidence that proves it beyond a doubt.. I mean, it's not like TIMES phony cover and it's not like ABC's Manafort/Manslaughter fake news..

    FACTS...

    So, what can one conclude when there is a hysterical rant about President Trump separating families but there was absolute silence when Obama did the exact same thing??

    What can one conclude???

    I'm just sayin'....

  5. [5] 
    neilm wrote:

    The political price Trump will have to pay for his wall is going up and up. Republicans aren't even that interested in it any longer. If either house swings in November then the cost will probably be too high to bear (e.g. every $ you get for your wall is a $ less in military spending and another $ increase in taxes for the rich).

    We are also going to see just how xenophobic America is at the moment. The complete farce that Trump perpetrated yesterday was reminiscent of the extremes of antisemitism in bygone eras. Communities with large numbers of immigrants are safe zone from crime in this country. Trump of course knows this as he is from NYC where about 30% are immigrants, including a sizable undocumented community, and NYC is at crime levels last seen in the 1950s. This is pure kabuki to try to rile up the most gullible and fearful, a display that shows the darkest aspects of populism and the cult of the leader.

  6. [6] 
    neilm wrote:

    Cranberries, hogs, Ryan and Wisconsin

    The Europeans have to be given credit for sticking it to the Republican leadership. They have targeted Wisconsin's weak underbelly - Harley-Davidson motorcycles and the cranberry industry.

    Harley is obviously going to survive this without too much pain - this is more symbolic and headline grabbing than an attempt to inflict real pain. The real pain is going to be felt by cranberry farmers - an industry already suffering from a glut was counting on increased sales to the E.U. to keep it afloat. These are also the core of Republicanism in Wisconsin.

    As the E.U. bureaucrats are probably saying to each other over a nice brandy in Brussels: "How'd you like those cranberries, Ryan?"

  7. [7] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [6] Another of the targets is Kentucky Bourbon, which is bad news for right winger/Trumpeteer Governor Matt Bevin, who is at present denying that his state's largest industry will be affected very much by retaliatory tariffs.

    This is a particularly well targeted one, because it also of course reflects on Mitch McConnell.

    And here's the head-scratching part of it: Congress has an absolute right to step in and pre-empt Trump on the Tariffs, but won't, even though it will ultimately cost them jobs and business back home.

    So the Republicans also own the blow-back stock, lock and barrel. Can't point at the Dems on this one, it's all theirs. Do they realize that they're holding an exploding cake? Can't have that and eat it too....

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    The political price Trump will have to pay for his wall is going up and up.

    Except for the fact that it was Democrats who lost both times... :D

    First, the Dems sold out the Dreamers and took a major hit..

    Now, President Trump gave what the Democrats were asking for and ended up with a HARSHER illegal immigration strategy.. :D

    Dims got played. Majorly.. :D

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now that they know that Trump has no stomach for sustained political pressure (and taking into account the debacle of Obamacare repeal as well), the chances of that wall ever being built are diminishing by the day, and you can put a fork into future initiatives as well.

    You DO know that the claim you just made is very similar to all the other predictions you have made about President Trump...

    And ALL of those have come back to bite you on the ass.. :D

    There is no reason to think that this latest prediction will be any different..

    TRUMP IS TOAST Prediction #1,974,375

    CORRECT PREDICTIONS TO DATE 0

    :D

  10. [10] 
    neilm wrote:

    And here's the head-scratching part of it: Congress has an absolute right to step in and pre-empt Trump on the Tariffs

    They won't because they will become Trump's scapegoats for "losing the trade war with China".

    The E.U. and the Chinese are likely to keep the tariffs and ratchet them to match Trump's until the mid-terms at least. Ironically Trump is going to really suffer this time from foreign interference in the elections. I wonder if his base will suddenly start to complain?

  11. [11] 
    neilm wrote:

    Well guess what. In a surprise nobody finds surprising any longer, Trump flip-flopped and decided that North Korea is now an "extraordinary threat" according to Trumps latest executive order - guess we can't sleep at night after all.

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well guess what. In a surprise nobody finds surprising any longer, Trump flip-flopped and decided that North Korea is now an "extraordinary threat" according to Trumps latest executive order - guess we can't sleep at night after all.

    Any facts to support that claim???

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    . Ironically Trump is going to really suffer this time from foreign interference in the elections. I wonder if his base will suddenly start to complain?

    TRUMP IS TOAST prediction #1,974,376

    :D

  14. [14] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Any facts to support that claim?

    Yeah I also saw that on the news this morning.

  15. [15] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    They won't because they will become Trump's scapegoats for "losing the trade war with China".

    Oh,yeah, that's true. Better to let Trump own the mistake, than rescue the country. Typical backbone of this current congress. George Will said yesterday that Republicans should vote against the current GOP congress because they have no spines.

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah I also saw that on the news this morning.

    Then it shouldn't be difficult to link to it.. :D

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    I also saw on the news where Manafort plead guilty to 5 counts of manslaughter....

    Turned out to be total bullshit..

    Your claim is likely more of the same.. :D

  18. [18] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    Hope you feel better getting all that off your chest.

    Hope you are not offended that I didn't bother to read it.

    One thing that this week's focus on this one issue clearly shows is that other issues must not be that important that they can't be put off for a day or even a week.

    So there is no reason why you can't set aside one day next week for one article about One Demand and the current opportunity to mobilize the citizens that vote in presidential elections but do not vote in off year elections.

    So come on CW, pick a day next week and commit to addressing the reality of these citizens and the opportunity to mobilize them in 2018. My comments over the past month or so provide a plethora of reasons for you to easily put together an article explaining this opportunity and my comments from "Trump Blinks" provide a basis to begin.

    These are real people. If you prick them- do they not say ouch?

    Just because they don't present a photo that elicits an emotional response is not a valid reason to ignore this reality.

    Is there some other reason than it could provide an alternative to the Republicans and the Democrats do not have a message other than citizens have no other choice that you are not addressing this?

    When are you going to learn that playing not to lose is one of the best ways to make sure that you don't win?

    If you don't challenge the Democrats to be better then they will keep offering the same crap that these citizens have rejected that resulted in the election of Trump and all the other Democrat losses over the years.

    It's time for you to emulate Trump and recognize reality (:D) and become the MIDOTW like Dianne Feinstein for doing nothing more than meeting the basic requirements of doing your job to inform citizens.

  19. [19] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    After all, if George Will can say Republicans should vote for Democrats, shouldn't you at least be able to say that these 2018 non-voters should consider participating in One Demand in 2018 instead of not voting or at least be able to inform citizens that I am saying it and offer them the opportunity to consider this approach?

  20. [20] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    correction: Dianne Feinstein just got an honorable mention.

    I really blew that one.

    "It's way past time for you to do the honorable thing and mention One Demand and the current opportunity to mobilize the 2018 non-voters." would have been so much better.

  21. [21] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And speaking of the MIDOTW, giving Mendendez the award for being desperate enough to try this stunt when you haven't even mentioned Lisa McCormick and the 157,983 votes (38%) she got in the recent NJ primaries against Mendnedez?

    Really?

    Three monkeys striking three specific poses comes to mind.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Stormy Daniels Says She’s Headed to the Border Next Week As Soon as She Figures Her Best Course of Action
    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/06/stormy-daniels-says-shes-headed-to-the-border-next-week-as-soon-as-she-figures-her-best-course-of-action/

    A porn star/hooker is going to the border to help the kids....

    That will highlight PERFECTLY the Democrat Party..

    Sending a porn star/hooker to help with child trafficking....

    GREAT optics...

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/Stormy-Daniels-Kathy-Griffin-Boston-Backstage-Twitter-06212018-600x450.jpg

    Your Democrat Party...

    Yea, that plays well with mid-west blue-collar workers..

    Are Democrats TRYING to lose the elections???

  24. [24] 
    John M wrote:

    [3] Balthasar

    "It boggles my mind particularly that no one at DOJ brought some hard questions to Sessions when he first proposed this policy: do we have the resources for this? how will it be done? IS THIS A BAD IDEA?"

    What should be obvious to all by now is:

    1) They go with whatever the feel good knee jerk purely ideological response is, and

    2) They give absolutely no thought to any kind of follow through whatsoever,

    what is important to them, and their only concern, has become the first purely stylistic visual response,

    they could care less about any lasting, follow on policy of substance.

  25. [25] 
    John M wrote:

    [4] Michale

    "Where was the rant when Obama was separating families and locking children in wire cages??"

    Hey Michale

    The REAL question is, IF you are so OPPOSED and AGAINST what OBAMA did, (since you keep bringing it up in a pathetic and weak attempt to compare and point out our failings to us and certainly not to excuse TRUMP) then where is YOUR RANT against what TRUMP IS doing NOW, since it is on so MUCH MORE of a MASSIVE scale?

    Where is YOUR OUTRAGE like Schmidt's and George Will's?

    Why, one would think and get the impression that your real purpose is ONLY to engage in some hypocrisy and trolling.

    Surely a man of your substance who is trying to advance a thoughtful debate would not be doing that, would he?

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    I'll be happy to address your comment..

    Once you answer mine..

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why, one would think and get the impression that your real purpose is ONLY to engage in some hypocrisy and trolling.

    One would only think that if they were ignorant of the facts...

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Tom Arnold’s CNN Interview is a Mind-Boggling Trainwreck: ‘I Am Not F-ing Around’

    “This is too important to me to f around and you know the word I’m talking about,” Arnold said suddenly being serious after repeatedly bonkers answers. “And we’re having fun with these Trump tapes, but this is serious to me and I’m not f-ing around.”

    Yet, when asked directly again if Cohen said he was “cooperating with authorities should charges be brought?” the talkative former Roseanne Barr spouse got very quiet and sat for a painfully long silence on live television.
    https://www.mediaite.com/tv/tom-arnolds-cnn-interview-is-a-mind-boggling-trainwreck-i-am-not-f-ing-around/

    This is EXACTLY what is wrong with Hysterical NeverTrumpers..

    They get so caught up in their hysteria and the emotionalism that they simply CANNOT deal with reality and facts...

  29. [29] 
    John M wrote:

    [26] Michale

    "JM,

    I'll be happy to address your comment..

    Once you answer mine.."

    Fair enough. If I had been aware of Obama doing the same thing, I would have been equally opposed to it, and would have expressed myself as being so.

    Now, where's your response?

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fair enough. If I had been aware of Obama doing the same thing, I would have been equally opposed to it, and would have expressed myself as being so.

    It was mentioned MANY times by me on here. Ignorance of the issue is no excuse..

    But, if you want to concede that Obama is as much of a scumbag for doing it as you think Trump is, I will accept that..

    Now, my response...

    I don't have an issue or a problem with the policy.. I whole heartedly supported it when Obama did it and I whole heartedly support it when President Trump does it..

    *MY* only issue is the blatant hypocrisy from the Left Wingery who says this issue is akin to child torture when a guy with a -R after his name does it, but was completely accepting of the act when the guy with the -D after his name did it..

    I have never had, nor will I EVER have, an issue with the policy itself..

    When Americans commit crimes, they are separated from their children all the time..

    Why on the gods' green earth anyone would think that illegal immigrant criminals should be give special privileges is beyond me...

    If the scumbag criminal parents put their kids thru this, that is solely and completely on them..

    And the majority of Americans feel the same way.. At least, according to polls that ya'all swear by... At least when they say what ya'all want to hear.. :D

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fair enough.

    Forgot to mention..

    Thank you for addressing it....

  32. [32] 
    Paula wrote:

    Sarah H. Sanders and family refused service at Virginia restaurant last night for "religious reasons" - explicitly working for the immoral DT admin.

    Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

  33. [33] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Neilm-11

    "Trump flip-flopped and decided that North Korea is now an "extraordinary threat""

    With that remark, Trump has gone full-bore, 1984, Orwellian:

    "We've always been at war with Eastasia."

    I guess Classics Illustrated never got around to covering 1984.

    I cried because I had no shoes. Then I met a man who had no shame.

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    With that remark, Trump has gone full-bore, 1984, Orwellian:

    Of course, Trump HASN'T because it never really happened...

    But, why let facts intrude of the hysteria.. :D

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sarah H. Sanders and family refused service at Virginia restaurant last night for "religious reasons" - explicitly working for the immoral DT admin.

    So, bigotry and discrimination is perfectly acceptable when it comes from the Left...

    Gotcha...

    Once again, the hypocrisy is brutally and blatantly obvious...

  36. [36] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [34] Here's a link to the story about Trump's about-face on North Korea. This one is from the NYT, but there are plenty of other media stories about it available:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/us/politics/north-korea-national-emergency-trump-nuclear.html

  37. [37] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [35] So, bigotry and discrimination is perfectly acceptable when it comes from the Left...

    And you're saying that it is ONLY acceptable when it comes from the Right?

    That restaurant is exercising their now-constitutional right to refuse service on religious grounds. Do you now believe that they shouldn't be allowed to do that?

    For the record, I don't think that any public facility should be allowed to discriminate on religious grounds at all, ever. But conservatives made this bed for themselves and they can sleep on it.

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    [34] Here's a link to the story about Trump's about-face on North Korea. This one is from the NYT, but there are plenty of other media stories about it available:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/us/politics/north-korea-national-emergency-trump-nuclear.html

    Got anything from a CREDIBLE source that is NOT behind a PayWall???

    And you're saying that it is ONLY acceptable when it comes from the Right?

    Never have, never will...

    That restaurant is exercising their now-constitutional right to refuse service on religious grounds. Do you now believe that they shouldn't be allowed to do that?

    OK.. If that's the rule you want to follow...

    For the record, I don't think that any public facility should be allowed to discriminate on religious grounds at all, ever.

    Only a fool would believe that the restaurant had "religious" grounds..

    It was pure political bigotry..

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    For the record, I don't think that any public facility should be allowed to discriminate on religious grounds at all, ever.

    So, because you don't fancy religion, you want to ignore the VERY FIRST AMENDMENT of the United States Constitution??

    My opinion of religion is likely more militant than yours..

    But regardless of our PERSONAL feelings on the issue, it IS guaranteed in the VERY FIRST AMENDMENT of the US Constitution and, as such, takes precedent over any and all other Amendments..

    My lovely wife and I use to be part of a lifestyle that clashed with local governments and businesses on a religious basis...

    While we were never happy about it, we accepted it because religious freedom is the VERY FIRST AMENDMENT of the US Constitution...

    So, if you want to discriminate against people you don't like on religious grounds, knock yerself out..

    But understand that the way you are doing it now is bullshit and you know it's bullshit..

  40. [40] 
    Paula wrote:

    [37] Balthasar: I'm seeing discussion that this actually falls under the rights of businesses to refuse service for any reason NOT protected under the law. You cannot refuse service due to race -- that is protected. But restaurants routinely have signs: "no shirt, no shoes, no service" and that is legal. Maybe they can start adding "no morals".

    My understanding -also- is that the Supreme's cake-baking ruling was actually more narrow than popularly understood - but I don't think it applies here anyway.

    SHS tweeted about this and thugs are making threats - which is what she wants. OTOH, the restaurant is getting huge support from the Un-nazis in the country.

  41. [41] 
    Paula wrote:

    Or more succinctly as I just read: "liars aren't a protected class."

  42. [42] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    My lovely wife and I use to be part of a lifestyle that clashed with local governments and businesses on a religious basis...

    Swingers, eh? Good for you.

  43. [43] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Got anything from a CREDIBLE source that is NOT behind a PayWall?

    Sure I do. Here's the same story from the BBC:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44584957

  44. [44] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula [40] this actually falls under the rights of businesses to refuse service for any reason NOT protected under the law.

    They should have just lied to her about the size and quality of the meal. She'd have felt right at home.

  45. [45] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think the coat Melania wore was actually another distraction that the media would take up - hook, line and sinker to distract from the bigger story of the who is profiting from what is happening at the border.

    Follow the money, of course.

  46. [46] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Liz [45] You've got a good point. I understand that Betsy DeVos had something to do with arranging some of the facilities they're using. She and her brother are specialists at making big money on services that used to be done exclusively by the government.

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, take a look at the contractors running the detention facilities and how they align with Trump's biggest donors ...

  48. [48] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The first amendment right to practice religion is commonly misunderstood.

    It means you are free to make sacrifices to live up to your religious beliefs. It does not mean you can use religion as an excuse to discriminate for any reason or to ignore any law that clashes with your beliefs.

    If you want to run a business you must serve everyone. If that clashes with your religious beliefs you are free to find a line of work that does not.

    But the SHS case appears to be about discrimination for a political belief.

    Watch the Trumbo movie if you have any questions about whether we should be doing that.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Swingers, eh? Good for you.

    Good times.. Fond memories.. :D

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, take a look at the contractors running the detention facilities and how they align with Trump's biggest donors ...

    As opposed to Obama donors who cleaned up during the Obama years??

    Com'on....

    We should apply scorn fairly and equally or not at all..

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Just came across this Newsweek piece on GEO Group and its generous donation to Trump's campaign, before receiving a lucrative contract to house detainees.

  52. [52] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  53. [53] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [48] For a change, I completely agree with you.

    [49] Ditto!

  54. [54] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Obama didn't do what Trump is doing, Michale.

    I'm surprised that Chris hasn't publically set you straight on that.

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm just sayin'.....

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I agree with [48], too, for the record. :)

  57. [57] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm just dismissin' ...

  58. [58] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [50] Oh, c'mon yourself. Whataboutism only works when there is something to point at. Obama's squeaky clean.

    And he released all of his tax returns. Still waiting on BLOTUS to do the same.

  59. [59] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [57] heh.

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Obama's squeaky clean.

    Wow, did that bring back memories ... this is precisely what Biden meant when he was describing Obama back during the 2008 campaign.

  61. [61] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [59] Indeed.

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just came across this Newsweek piece on GEO Group and its generous donation to Trump's campaign, before receiving a lucrative contract to house detainees.

    Shall I list all the Obama/Democrat donors who got lucrative contracts during the Obama years??? :D

    Obama didn't do what Trump is doing, Michale.

    Yes, he did and there is photographic and documentary evidence (AKA FACTS) to prove it..

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    [50] Oh, c'mon yourself. Whataboutism only works when there is something to point at.

    When will you people learn??

    It's not "whataboutism" when the point is your hypocrisy, not the issue at hand...

    And he released all of his tax returns. Still waiting on BLOTUS to do the same.

    I am still waiting for Obama to release his school transcripts.

    What's Obama afraid of???

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Shall I list all the Obama/Democrat donors who got lucrative contracts during the Obama years??? :D

    Only if they were involved with government policy with the expressed intent to inflict abuse on children and their parents.

  65. [65] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes, he did and there is photographic and documentary evidence (AKA FACTS) to prove it..

    False. And, I am done with you on this subject.

  66. [66] 
    Kick wrote:

    So, what can one conclude when there is a hysterical rant about President Trump separating families but there was absolute silence when Obama did the exact same thing??

    Obama didn't do the "exact same thing." They separated families on rare occasions. Conflating that as the "exact same thing" is simply lying.

    What can one conclude???

    One can conclude that you actually believe all the lies dished up and being spoon-fed by right-wing propaganda media that Obama did the "exact same thing" and are spewing it back here as if it's a fact when it isn't.

    The Trump administration changed the policy, and now no one responsible for the policy change wants to take responsibility for their own policy. One of them insists there is no policy [but they announced the policy change], one of them insists it was never their intention [after announcing their intention to change the policy], and one of them keeps whining that they had no choice but to do it because it's a "Democrat law" and that they could not sign an EO to fix it [and then signed an EO to change his own policy].

  67. [67] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    5

    This is pure kabuki to try to rile up the most gullible and fearful, a display that shows the darkest aspects of populism and the cult of the leader.

    Exactly right and very well stated. Fascist DickTater overplayed his hand and now flails in his attempts to reclaim the narrative. Pathetic.

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Only if they were involved with government policy with the expressed intent to inflict abuse on children and their parents.

    On a Tuesday at night with a half moon...

    Liz, my dear.. You have been playing too much Fizzbin

    :D

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    False. And, I am done with you on this subject.

    You can deny it all you want, but facts are facts..

    OBAMA Separated Families...
    sanandreastimes.com/2018/06/18/flashback-obama-separated-migrant-families-by-thousands-of-miles/

    OBAMA Put Children In Cages....
    amp.businessinsider.com/images/5b0dafa31ae66245008b4885-750-375.jpg

    You can deny it all you want Liz.. But it will only serve to prove you don't really want a serious discussion...

  70. [70] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I am still waiting for Obama to release his school transcripts.

    I'll give you the Highlights: Columbia Univ. BA, 1983; Juris Doctor Harvard Law School, Magna Cum Laude, Editor Harvard Law Review. Visiting Law and Government Fellow, Chicago Law School(Constitutional Law Lecturer 1992-1996, Senior Lecturer 1996-2002).

    Oh, were you hoping that he'd achieved all that because he took advantage of the fact that he's black? Looking for evidence that he cheated his way into being a Constitutional Law Lecturer?

    And finally: Barack Obama's tax returns are public, Donald Trump's are not. This is about accountability.

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll give you the Highlights:

    And I'll give you the highlights of Trump's tax returns..

    He's a billionaire...

    And finally: Barack Obama's tax returns are public, Donald Trump's are not. This is about accountability.

    No, it's about selective accountability..

    You want full transparency, but NOT for your side...

    Gee, I wonder why that is.. :D

  72. [72] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    32

    Sarah H. Sanders and family refused service at Virginia restaurant last night for "religious reasons" - explicitly working for the immoral DT admin.

    Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

    I know, right!? Actions have consequences. She took to her official Twitter account to whine about how she "always" does her "best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully and will continue to do so.

    Another lie out of the Trump administration... or perhaps Sarah is simply unaware that those things at the back of the room are cameras that are recording her, and everyone with eyesight can see that she is not treating those she disagrees with in a respectful manner.

    OR

    She is doing her best and she simply sucks exponentially at treating people "respectfully," and Trump absolutely does not hire only the best people.

  73. [73] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    ..it will only serve to prove you don't really want a serious discussion.

    Says the fellow linking to The San Andreas Times. You can't give me shit about the NYT and then link to that rightie rag.

    I used to take care of a kid who used his brother as an excuse every time he got into trouble he'd say, "Derek did it first". I'd say, "it doesn't matter what Derek did, you know that you're not supposed to do it, right?".

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, were you hoping that he'd achieved all that because he took advantage of the fact that he's black? Looking for evidence that he cheated his way into being a Constitutional Law Lecturer?

    ALways the race card with you people..

    {{{ssssiiggghhhhh}}} Hopefully you can soon embrace the philosophy of Dr Martin Luther King..

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Says the fellow linking to The San Andreas Times. You can't give me shit about the NYT and then link to that rightie rag.

    I used to take care of a kid who used his brother as an excuse every time he got into trouble he'd say, "Derek did it first". I'd say, "it doesn't matter what Derek did, you know that you're not supposed to do it, right?".

    SO, in other words, you have nothing to refute the FACTS...

    Gotcha :D

  76. [76] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You want full transparency, but NOT for your side...

    What does your 'side' think is in that transcript?

    As I said, the premise that Obama 'cheated' his way to the top is pretty absurd.

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    What does your 'side' think is in that transcript?

    I have no side..

    I just want full transparency..

    Since Obama was afraid to, asking for Trump to be fully transparent is hypocritical...

    As I said, the premise that Obama 'cheated' his way to the top is pretty absurd.

    And yet, he feared releasing his transcripts..

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    You people can obfuscate and bury ya'all's heads in the sand all you want...

    But the simple fact is, President Trump has not done ANYTHING with regards to illegal immigrants that Obama hadn't done...

    This is fact and simply beyond discussion..

    By trying to evade the facts, you do your cause a grave injustice...

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz

    I'm surprised that Chris hasn't publically set you straight on that.

    I am guessing he can't "set me straight" because my facts are irrefutable...

    Ya'all can obfuscate on numbers or whatever ya have to tell yourselves to sleep at night..

    But it's a fact that, when it comes to illegal immigrant families and children, Obama did EXACTLY what President Trump has done...

    This is fact that NO AMOUNT of political bigotry or slavery will change...

    On another note, what do you think about Sarah Saunders being refused service at a DC local restaurant..

    Is that what Left Wingers stand for?? Bigotry, intolerance and hatred???

  80. [80] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    SO, in other words, you have nothing to refute the FACTS..

    Your assertions about this have been refuted all day. You're comparing apples and oranges.

    Trump and Sessions deliberately created this crises.

    Obama's temporary housing problem was caused by a surge of unaccompanied minors crossing the border seeking asylum in 2014, and wasn't the result of a deliberate policy initiative.

  81. [81] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Michale-

    This thread proves that you don't want serious discussion. You just want to push an agenda. It's purely to point out the hypocrisy of the left, while conveniently ignoring your own. With that aim, I don't see why anyone would bother discussing anything with you. IMO agendas are much worse than bias.

    If you are OK with Trump's immigration policy, then defend it. Why is separating families as policy OK? If a few instances of family separation from the Obama administration is equivalent to the stated policy of Trump, then why does that absolute black and white dichotomy not apply to everything, not just the issue at hand? Or does it only apply to help your side of an argument? You go on about NeverTrumper's but are still a Birther? Really?

  82. [82] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    OK maybe not a birther. But still similar...

  83. [83] 
    Kick wrote:

    But regardless of our PERSONAL feelings on the issue, it IS guaranteed in the VERY FIRST AMENDMENT of the US Constitution and, as such, takes precedent over any and all other Amendments..

    FACT: There is no Amendment to the Constitution that takes precedence over any of the other amendments. The Bill of Rights... the first 10 amendments... aren't listed in order of importance, simply listed in the order they would have appeared in the Constitution had they been written into the document itself, which document was also not written wherein the paragraphs are written in order of preference. :)

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your assertions about this have been refuted all day. You're comparing apples and oranges.

    Yea, so ya'all keep claiming..

    And yet, you have NO FACTS to support the claims..

  85. [85] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Kick-

    Not only that but the 9th deals directly with that question:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you are OK with Trump's immigration policy, then defend it.

    I don't NEED to defend it..

    It's Policy..

    It's the policy that Bush created, it's the policy that Obama followed and it's the policy that President Trump said there would be ZERO TOLERANCE in enforcing..

    I don't NEED to defend it..

    If a few instances of family separation from the Obama administration is equivalent to the stated policy of Trump,

    Ahhhh So, you DO concede that Obama did the same thing..

    It's just a matter of numbers for you..

    My case is proven. Obama did the EXACT same thing as President Trump did..

    That's why I have no need to defend anything..

    My facts are self-evidence and inarguable...

    Thank you, Bashi...

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    IMO agendas are much worse than bias.

    And yet, that is ALL that ya'all have.. An Anti-Trump agenda..

    Don't need facts, don't need reason, don't need logic..

    Just hatred, intolerance and bigotry.. Just like what was exhibited at the Red Hen restaurant...

    Ya'all are ALL about your agenda....

  88. [88] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    50

    Com'on....
    We should apply scorn fairly and equally or not at all..

    You just spent a considerable amount of time whining about First Amendment rights taking precedence, and now you are seeking to censor other posters to speak "fairly and equally or not at all."

    You also spend an inordinate amount of time whining about the hypocrisy of others and seeking to shape their speech to fit your sense of fairness.

    SO

    Why don't you practice what you preach? You're either "all in" on the First Amendment or you'll keep whining about hypocrisy and how no one will post to suit you. :)

  89. [89] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "former Obama administration officials specify that families were separated only in particular circumstances — for instance, if a father was carrying drugs — that went above and beyond a typical case of illegal entry."

    for the current administration it was the policy to separate EVERY family, even those who came seeking asylum. that is significantly different.

    https://www.vox.com/2018/6/21/17488458/obama-immigration-policy-family-separation-border

  90. [90] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    And yet, that is ALL that ya'all have.. An Anti-Trump agenda..

    Really? Point out where I have written anything of the sort? Come on. Lets see you back up that accusation..

  91. [91] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    48

    I have to give credit where credit is due, Don. I believe you are absolutely correct about this... exactly right... but I also believe actions have consequences and can certainly understand why the restaurant owner refused to serve her and her family... bigotry comes in many forms. Perhaps when those who routinely condone bigotry are subjected to a bit of it, things might change. :)

  92. [92] 
    Kick wrote:

    BashiBazouk
    85

    Not only that but the 9th deals directly with that question:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Yes, sir... absolutely. Yet some people keep claiming the same BS over and over like they haven't even ever read the thing. :)

  93. [93] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    But the simple fact is, President Trump has not done ANYTHING with regards to illegal immigrants that Obama hadn't done...

    This is fact and simply beyond discussion..

    Except that Obama did not have the DOJ separate asylum seekers from their children and held at facilities hundreds of miles away from each other. The Obama administration did not bring criminal charges against asylum seekers. Toddlers and infants were not taken away from their mothers and left for older children being held to look after.

    Yes, under Obama entire families were detained and held in fenced cages until their immigration hearings could take place. But the children were not separated from their families. And yes, in this country we rip children away from parents who are charged with serious crimes every day. But crossing the border without proper documentation is a misdemeanor and before Trump changed things, it had always been a civil matter...not a criminal one! Trump needs to

    As I responded to your, “Why didn’t you speak out when Obama did this” whimper previously, I have ALWAYS spoken out anytime children are taken from their families for no good reason. I have yet to hear you speak out against this policy even when you lie and claim that Obama did this too. You said that you had brought this up before, so if you were critical of Obama for this previously, why aren’t you critical of Trump for doing it now? But thank you for highlighting your own hypocrisy in this matter for all of us.

    So how about for once you speak out against your glorious leader’s shitty and cruel policy instead of falling back on your constant “BUT whudabout....” deflections?

  94. [94] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Whoops, cut and pasted a line but didn’t include all of it.

    But Trump needs to give his supporters someone to fear, someone to loathe, someone to feel victimized by and who has taken advantaged of them. Undocumented aliens added $63 million to the economy over the last decade according to one study that Trump authorized. Multiple studies have shown that areas where there are large influxes of undocumented aliens have experienced drops in criminal activities....not increases!

  95. [95] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    93

    So how about for once you speak out against your glorious leader’s shitty and cruel policy instead of falling back on your constant “BUT whudabout....” deflections?

    ^^^ This! ^^^ I believe with this comment you win a big chunk of the "Internets" today.

    It just amazes me how a guy who keeps whining about "First Amendment rights" spends an inordinate amount of time whining how others won't post to suit him.

    We should apply scorn fairly and equally or not at all.. ~ Michale

    Now I ask you: What kind of person with even a scintilla of self-awareness would incessantly whine about hypocrisy while regularly extolling the "precedence" of the First Amendment?

    It truly defies logic, yet 90% of Michale's posts are not discussing politics at all but merely discussing the hypocrisy and "fairness" that he believes others should display in their commenting.

    Well, poo to all that. I will post in a manner befitting those First Amendment rights he claims to champion while he's doing exactly the opposite and attempting to affect my freedom of speech to suit his idea of "fairness."

    Rant over. :)

  96. [96] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    94

    Exactly! :)

  97. [97] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick [95 & 96]

    Thanks! I have finally realized that so much of the Right’s arguments aren’t based in actual philosophy or political theory, they are pretty much just “anything the Left says is wrong”. They want their base to never have to think for themselves on where they should stand on an issue. So by casting everything said by the Left as “horrible and anti-American”, they get their wish! If Republicans supported anything the Democrats say, then the Republican base might remember that the next time the Republicans claimed that Democrats always do evil things and wouldn’t buy into their drivel. This is why you will see Democrats willing to support a Republican backed bill as a bipartisan effort, but you will never see Republicans falling in line behind a Democratic sponsored bill. The only time a Democrat can ever be right is when they are agreeing with Republicans.

  98. [98] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    So many in agreement on 48 that I'm beginning to wonder if I was wrong. :D

    Seriously, it's nice that our disagreements can be put aside enough for us to recognize when we do agree.

    Hang in there, Liz- there is hope.

  99. [99] 
    neilm wrote:

    LWYH [97]

    This is why the real thinkers on the right are abandoning this ship of hate.

    It is up to the Democrats to be the keepers of real America and resist letting the core of our party rot like the Republican's has over the last 20 years.

    Sure there will be the idiots who deplatform speakers (some of whom are agitating to be deplatformed for their own publicity purposes). We will have people refusing somebody service at a restaurant because we don't like them on TV. These have to be the exception - the core of the Democrats have to uphold decency and respect as a reminder of what Trump and the party of Trump really is.

    Part of the problem is the fertile ground Fox News and Trump find because of the growing divide between the educated and the rest. It is sad that their impulse is to kick down and bully the weak - but that is what populists do, almost by definition. The bigger problem is that the policies that will fix the growing divide in our country don't fit on a bumper sticker and require decades of work.

  100. [100] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thanks, Don.

  101. [101] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Ahhhh So, you DO concede that Obama did the same thing..

    It's just a matter of numbers for you..

    My case is proven. Obama did the EXACT same thing as President Trump did..

    Ah, no.

    Don't forget to read the entire thing. Oh, who am I kidding, but one can hope...

    My facts are self-evidence and inarguable...

    Well, maybe but as you have never posted actual facts, unverifiable :D

  102. [102] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    just a quick song recommendation on the topic:

    https://youtu.be/fPt6svQOmNY

    JL

  103. [103] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    A lovely note to end on, Joshua.

  104. [104] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CW,

    Great article! Thanks for the heads up regarding the children being held being forced to take medicine without their parents approval. This was the first I heard of that happening.

    I did not realize that Trump’s executive order only dealt with stopping the removal of children from their families moving forward.... it did nothing to return the children already taken. Trump has no intention of doing that.

    Another tidbit that isn’t making too much news... many of the children come from areas in Central America that speak native dialects and not Spanish. The youngest ones have no one that can communicate with them in a way they can understand. Our government does not have enough people with the resources to properly care for this many children. The DOD is sending a bunch of active JAG attorneys to the border to serve as prosecutors under the DOJ for the next 6 months.

    The one bit of good news I found, the fund raiser on FaceBook seeking to raise $1500 to cover hiring attorneys for the parents who had their children taken and to pay for their bail got a few more donations than they expected. As of yesterday, they had raised $15 million in donations from around the world. They hope to pay for the bail of all the families separated and to cover their legal expenses with the money raised.

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    "former Obama administration officials specify that families were separated only in particular circumstances —

    So, like Bashi, you CONFIRM that I was right. That Obama DID separate families..

    OK.. Thank you...

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Facing humiliation, Mueller backs away from prosecution of Russian entities

    What on Earth could cause a prosecutor to walk away from his central mission to focus instead on incidental and tangential matters? Barrett's use of the words "take responsibility" for the case is the answer. Though not a word of it appears in Barrett's article, the prosecution of the Russian entities has already turned into a farce, as Mueller is caught in a trap of his own making with the hasty indictments of entities he never expected to defend themselves. So slipshod was the work that one of the indicted entities was not even an incorporated entity (i.e., it did not exist) at the time of the alleged offenses. As I wrote more than a month ago:
    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/06/facing_humiliation_mueller_backs_away_from_prosecution_of_russian_entities.html#ixzz5JKImDomP

    What I tell ya??

    Mueller stepped in doggy doo doo and now he is trying to desperately to rub it off.. :D

    Mueller's *ONLY* case that has to do with Russians and the Election, he has totally scroo'ed da pooch! :D

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really? Point out where I have written anything of the sort?

    What part of "ya'all" did you not understand??

  108. [108] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, like Bashi, you CONFIRM that I was right. That Obama DID separate families..

    Michale, you really must cease and desist from posting such nonsense.

    You DIDN'T say that Obama separated families - which all of us here know he did AND we understand the frequency and context in which the odious practice was done.

    You SAID that Obama did exactly what Trump is doing, ignoring context as well as reality. And, that, my friend, is what we call around here, moosepoop

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Except that Obama did not have the DOJ separate asylum seekers from their children and held at facilities hundreds of miles away from each other.

    Uhhh.. YES he did.. THOUSANDS OF MILES away from each other..

    Case in point, in 2008 the US had the Alien Transfer Exit Program which deported male migrants thousands of miles from their point of entry.

    “Sparingly used upon inception, the Obama administration drastically increased the use of ATEP in 2011, responding to a perceived increase in attempts at immigration into the United States by Mexican nationals,” reported Law & Crime.

    Interestingly, ATEP under the Obama administration also separated migrant families thousands of miles away from each other in many cases.

    According to Law & Crime:

    Many male Mexican nationals who are detained trying to cross the border often come with their families in tow. When ATEP is used, the men are captured and taken thousands of miles away, while their wives, partners and children are placed in immigrant detention centers.
    http://sanandreastimes.com/2018/06/18/flashback-obama-separated-migrant-families-by-thousands-of-miles/

    So, your claim is demonstrably not factually accurate..

    But the children were not separated from their families.

    Children were placed in cages. This is well-documented..

    As I responded to your, “Why didn’t you speak out when Obama did this” whimper previously, I have ALWAYS spoken out anytime children are taken from their families for no good reason.

    Bullshit... When Obama did it, you didn't say dick...

    I have yet to hear you speak out against this policy even when you lie and claim that Obama did this too. You said that you had brought this up before, so if you were critical of Obama for this previously, why aren’t you critical of Trump for doing it now?

    I was NEVER critical of Obama doing this.. I APPLAUDED when Obama did it, just as I am applauding right now when Trump is doing it...

    The ONLY thing I am critical of is ya'all's blatant and incessant hypocrisy...

    Obama separated families and put children in cages..

    DOCUMENTED FACT...

    No one here said a thing about it... This is also FACT...

    But let President Trump do it and the crazies come out of the wood-work screaming hysterically "OH MY GOD THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!"

    Textbook hypocrisy...

    So how about for once you speak out against your glorious leader’s shitty and cruel policy instead of falling back on your constant “BUT whudabout....” deflections?

    In answer to YOUR "But Whudabout..." deflection..

    Why should I speak out against a policy I whole heartedly support???

    I supported it when Bush created the program, I supported it when Obama used and expanded the problem and I support it when President Trump made it ZERO TOLERANCE...

    Consistency... *MY* positions are not taken SOLELY based on Party slavery...

    You should try it sometime.. :D

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    You SAID that Obama did exactly what Trump is doing, ignoring context as well as reality. And, that, my friend, is what we call around here, moosepoop

    Yes, if you nuance it to death (Obama did on Tuesday and Trump does it on Thu and Fri) or spin it to death (Obama only did it sometime, Trump is doing it ALL the time) you can find some distinctions..

    But you won't find any DIFFERENCES...

    Ya'all got caught in blatant hypocrisy and now ya'all are simply trying nuance and spin to ease yer consciences.

    But when ya take away all the Party chaff, the fact remains..

    Obama separated families...

    Obama put children in cages...

    This is DOCUMENTED FACT...

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed.."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

  111. [111] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Stop digging, Michale ... it's unbecoming.

    You used to take pride in having the courage to admit when you are wrong ... in the old days ...

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/06/23/15/4D8E04F900000578-5877399-image-a-8_1529762925497.jpg

    Kids in cages... No adults in there at all

    Once again.. All you people have are distinctions...

    Not a SINGLE relevant difference to be found..

  113. [113] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    By the way, smilin' Jack was wrong, too. And, didn't he end up in a padded cell? Be careful, Michale.

    :-)

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/06/23/16/4D8E054B00000578-5877399-Under_Obama_if_children_crossed_the_border_with_their_parents_th-a-1_1529768100514.jpg
    Under Obama, if children crossed the border with their parents, they were only separated if officials suspected the adult of human trafficking, smuggling, posing a national security risk or when their parenthood could not be verified. Pictured: The center in Brownsville

    Exactly like President Trump..

    Yet, ya'all have a conniption fit when Trump does it but was perfectly OK with it when Obama did it..

    How exactly is this not Hypocrisy with a capital 'H'???

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    By the way, smilin' Jack was wrong, too. And, didn't he end up in a padded cell? Be careful, Michale.

    Smilin' Jack is NEVER wrong!! :D

    And no, he didn't end up in a padded cell. THat was EllTee Kitrick :D

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    You used to take pride in having the courage to admit when you are wrong ... in the old days ...

    I ALWAYS admit when I am wrong.. Even today..

    Yet, NONE of you have ANY FACTS that prove me wrong..

    When you do, I'll consider it.. :D

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    I get it people, I really do..

    Obama is the hero of your movie.. He can do no wrong.. And Trump is the dastardly villain..

    ANYTHING that connects the two is simply to perverse for ya'all even to consider..

    So, like the natives of Perry's Planet, ya'all have been conditioned to ignore anything that doesn't fit into your belief structure...

    Obama put children in cages?? Nope.. Didn't happen... There are pics.. Nope.. They were photoshopped. Didn't happen..

    ANYTHING that puts bad light on Obama or good light on President Trump??

    Nope.. Won't see it.. CAN'T see it....

    A trained psychiatrist would have a field day with ya'all.. :D

    The DENIAL!!! It ain't just a river in Egypt.. :D

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    So what do you think about Sarah Saunders being thrown out of a restaurant, SOLELY because of who she works for??

    Occupation discrimination??

    You support that???

  119. [119] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You know I don't support that sort of juvenile action. There are better ways to show Ms. Sanders what you think of her actions.

  120. [120] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And no, he didn't end up in a padded cell. THat was EllTee Kitrick :D

    Well, he should have and, the other guy was wrong, too.

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    You know I don't support that sort of juvenile action. There are better ways to show Ms. Sanders what you think of her actions.

    We are in complete agreement... I mean, even if they have a beef against Saunders, why throw out her entire family???

    I mean, isn't the Left supposed to be the Party of tolerance and inclusion???

    Well, he should have and, the other guy was wrong, too.

    You should watch the movie when ya get a sec.. Give you great insight into my thought process.. :D

    Ya just GOTTA see Infinity Wars soon.. I am busting at the seams to discuss it with ya :D

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    On another note...

    What's your take on the SPLC losing the lawsuit about Hate Organizations??

    The Southern Poverty Law Center has lost all credibility
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html

    A sad ending to a once viable public service organization...

  123. [123] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    hmm, well i suppose that would be inconsistent. an action more consistent with sanders' transgressions against humankind would be to throw her and any adult companions out of the restaurant but kidnap and deport her kids to a jail in mexico. maybe THEN she'd understand.

    agree with liz, smilin' jack lost because he only mentioned SOME of the facts. the other pertinent facts did in his case because he pretended they didn't exist. just like the defendants in a few good men, the major difference isn't the number of soldiers given a code red, it's INTENT. Barry's policy was separation only to protect the kids from major felonies (which were not typical). donald's policy had the explicit INTENT to intimidate all families (including misdemeanors and non-criminal code violations) in custody by separating everyone regardless of any other facts of an individual's case.

    INTENT has been firmly established in both cases, and constitutes a major factual difference. close your eyes and shout LA LA LA if you like, but that is a real difference.

    JL

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    agree with liz, smilin' jack lost because he only mentioned SOME of the facts. the other pertinent facts did in his case because he pretended they didn't exist.

    I think it was more of a case is that Smilin Jack didn't KNOW that those facts existed..

    Which is why EllTee Kitrick was apprehended for perjury...

    Barry's policy was separation only to protect the kids from major felonies (which were not typical). donald's policy had the explicit INTENT to intimidate all families (including misdemeanors and non-criminal code violations) in custody by separating everyone regardless of any other facts of an individual's case.

    And, if I had addressed the INTENT, you would have a point. But I didn't, so you don't..

    Ya'all simply REFLEXIVELY denied that Obama did these things. You were screaming to the high heavens "OH NO!!!! THE GREAT MESSIAH WOULD **NEVER** DO ANYTHING LIKE TRUMP DOES!!! BLASPHEMER!!! HERETIC!!!"

    Then, when confronted with over whelming FACTS that proved ya'all wrong, THEN your argument became, "Oh... er... uh... Well....OK, yea. OK Obama DID do those things. But But.. THAT's different..."

    I could also dispute your "Well, that's different" argument as well..

    But I am gonna cut ya'all some slack and let you lick yer wounds for a bit... :D

    "Yer Welcome"
    -Maui, MOANA

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    INTENT has been firmly established in both cases, and constitutes a major factual difference.

    While it MAY (or may NOT) be factual difference, it is absolutely and unequivocally NOT relevant to the question under discussion...

    "DID OBAMA SEPARATE FAMILIES AND PUT CHILDREN IN CAGES?"

    Intent has no bearing on the question was it done or not..

    And the answer is YES..

    Obama DID put children in cages and separate families..

    Ya'all were wrong and I was right...

    I understand, I really do.. Ya'all can't admit that...

    I get it...

    I won't make you say it... :D

    "We've had our differences, I said some things I didn't mean, you said some things you didn't. If you've gained a certain respect for me over the last three weeks, well, of course I'm happy about that, but we don't have to make a whole big deal out of it. You like me. I won't make you say it."
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

    :D

  126. [126] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Michale-

    So, you did not read the link I posted all the way through? Did not think so...

    What is your aim? Anyone who can read English can see the vast differences between policies. Are we to hold you to the same standard? [122] Alone opens all kinds of interesting hypocrisy that dates way back. But then you have to read the piece and not just post the headline.

    Of course if all you have is a stick it to the left agenda, then one big YAWN...

  127. [127] 
    neilm wrote:

    I've not seen Michale this desperate for a while. Dude, if it is so important to your image as "not a person who condones locking up innocent children including infants" that you have to console yourself with "well Obama did it", then even if you get one of us to admit we condone (even unknowingly) ripping breastfeeding babies from their mothers, you are still in a group of two who do.

    Your orange leader and his poisonous little elf devised a policy that they thought would give them an unassailable bargaining position with Democrats. They were surprised when America turned out to be a country not OK with psychologically torturing innocent children. They then made up lies before finally caving in.

    You are defending these people from something even they couldn't defend.

    Take a long look inside your soul. When it comes to harming children, America cares, "Do U?"

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    NORWALK, Ohio (AP) — Two of the largest workplace immigration raids yet under the Trump administration, carried out just weeks apart in Ohio, have upended the lives of hundreds of children caught in the middle.

    Unlike the migrant children removed from their families at the U.S.-Mexico border, many of these young people were born in the U.S. and are therefore citizens, and most haven't been separated from their families entirely. What they face, though, is a future that is just as uncertain as they wait to find out whether their mothers and fathers will be deported.

    Some families will be forced to decide whether to keep themselves together by moving everyone back to their home country, in most cases Mexico or Guatemala, or face being split apart if one parent stays with the children or parents let relatives or friends keep them.

    "What's happening on the southern border is happening on the northern border in a different way," said Veronica Dahlberg, leader of Hola, a Hispanic advocacy group in Ohio. "But these children are going to suffer for many years from the trauma, the uncertainty, the fear."
    https://uk.news.yahoo.com/far-southwest-children-workplace-raids-await-fate-142039778.html?guccounter=1

    Oh jeeze.. Cry me a frakin' river!!!

    If the parents don't want their kids traumatized, here's a thought.

    "QUIT BREAKING THE LAW ASSHOLE!!!"
    -Jim Carrey, LIAR LIAR

    Here's an idea.. Let's get rid of ALL the laws.. That way, children will NEVER be separated from their parents.. Unless they are deadbeats who abandon their families..

    My gods, the whine factor here is thru the roof!!!

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi, Neil..

    Are you both STILL denying that Obama locked children in cages and separated families??

    Talk about desperate... :^/

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    " that you have to console yourself with "well Obama did it",

    Once again, you dodge the issue because you can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong..

    My point isn't the issue.. My point is your continued hypocrisy that you continue with the bullshit claim that Obama never locked up children in cages and never separated families, even though the FACTS clearly prove beyond ANY doubt that you are wrong..

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obfuscate all you want.. Lie and BS tell the cows come home.. Hysterically debate what the definition of "is" is until yer blue in the face...

    All of it will not change one simple fact..

    Ya'all WERE WRONG...

    Obama DID put children in cages... Obama DID separate families..

    This is documented fact..

    Backpedal with the bullshit claim, "We never said Obama DIDN'T separate families and we never said Obama DIDN'T put children in cages" in 3....2.....1....

  132. [132] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I move to have that remark stricken from the record, On account of it makes you come off as completely naive and infantile.
    ~chasing amy

    @m,

    you don't get to be sole arbiter of the parameters of an argument. if intent matters, you don't get to say that it's irrelevant simply because YOU didn't mention it. if i personally did not claim that family separations didn't ever happen under the obama administration, you don't get to refute MY argument based on something a nameless, faceless "ya'all" may or may not have said.

    factually, objectively, the policies are different. the isolated fact that family separations were among the range of results of both policies is tragic in both cases, but does not in any way make the policies equivalent, nor does it make hypocrites of those who have different opinions of one policy than the other.

    JL

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    I move to have that remark stricken from the record, On account of it makes you come off as completely naive and infantile.
    ~chasing amy

    "I OBJECT!!!!"
    "On what grounds!??"
    "Because it's devestating to my case!!"
    "Overruled!"
    "Good call!!!"

    -LIAR LIAR

    you don't get to be sole arbiter of the parameters of an argument.

    When it's MY argument, the hell I don't!!

    Irregardless of all that follows.....

    The simple fact is, Obama DID put kids in cages... Is that or is that not factually accurate??

    The simple fact is, Obama DID separate families of illegal immigrants... Is that or is that not factually accurate..

    And, just as I predicted, the denial of the claim of what was stated here was the next argument...

    If YOU, personally, didn't try and claim Obama never did those things, fine. You can rest and relax with the knowledge that when I laugh at those who DID try to make that claim, I am not laughing at you..

    But there are 3 relevant facts here..

    1. Obama DID put children in cages..

    2. Obama DID separate illegal immigrant families..

    3. There were several people here who DENIED 1 and 2...

    These are the facts.. And they are indisputable...

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    But if it will make you feel better, JL..

    No, you did not claim that Obama NEVER put kids in cages or separated illegal immigrant families..

    But that begs the question..

    Since the argument WAS that, WAS whether or not Obama did the same thing or not(he did)...

    Why did you bother to chime in???

    If you weren't disputing the fact, why be heard on the fact??

  135. [135] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Michale-

    You can win victories that you narrowly define for yourself on arguments that no one else is having. [slow clap]

    Way to miss the forrest for the trees...

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can win victories that you narrowly define for yourself on arguments that no one else is having. [slow clap]

    You denied that Obama had done the things Trump has done..

    You were wrong..

    It's that simple...

    But thank you for your concession of my victory...

    It's appreciated

  137. [137] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    When it's MY argument, the hell I don't!!

    sure, if the only person you're interested in convincing is yourself. texas in 2018 has enforced the death penalty, and so did salem in 1692. if all you're interested in is that isolated fact, you might logically conclude that the two are precisely equivalent on that fact, and anyone who points out the obvious differences can be dismissed as irrelevant to your argument, or evading the issue. how tidy!

    i chimed in because your desired argument parameters beg a different question - why would an argument be strictly defined to focus intensely on a single area of similarity between two situations and refuse to address any of the obvious differences? irrespective of why, it creates a fallacy of false balance.

    JL

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would also have to ask is, if it was such a narrowly defined victory, why did you fight it so much??

    Why not just concede the facts right from the start?? The facts that YES, Obama put children in cages.. YES, Obama did separate illegal immigrant families..

    Surely such a concession would have been easy, if it was so "narrow"..

    Or isn't it MORE likely that you (and others) reflexively defended Obama and then were committed to maintaining the bullshit because you didn't want to have to concede that you were wrong and I was right???

    Given Occam's Razor, that seems the most likely.... :D

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    sure, if the only person you're interested in convincing is yourself.

    My interest wasn't in convincing anyone..

    My interest was SOLELY in the FACTS.. If the facts had been acknowledged instead of argued with and disputed, then we could have eliminated 100+ comments..

    i chimed in because your desired argument parameters beg a different question -

    That was your interpretation of which I am not responsible..

  140. [140] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    You denied that Obama had done the things Trump has done..

    Really? Last time you weaseled out with a ya'all. Not this time. Back up that accusation...

  141. [141] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    My interest was SOLELY in the FACTS

    no, it wasn't. your interest was SOLELY in a very limited cross-section of the available facts, to the exclusion of all other facts that might be relevant to the evaluation of our government's behavior.

    JL

  142. [142] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    But the children were not separated from their families.

    Children were placed in cages. This is well-documented..

    Your response does not negate my comment in any way. Yes, children were held in cages, along with their parents. A husband might be detained separate from his wife and child, but that child was still with a parent. They were not separated from both parents.

    I have a friend who came to this country when he was 12 years old from Honduras. He made the trip with his two 18 yo cousins as both his parents had been killed in Honduras. He was captured by INS and was taken to a detainment center just for children without his cousins as they were not his parents and were too old to be considered children. So, yes, the US has held children without their parents in detainment centers before — when children show up without their parents!

    But Trump is the only one who has ripped children from their parents just to be cruel. Treating asylum seekers as criminals is horrific policy and possible human rights violation. Try as you want, you cannot lessen the responsibility for this tragic set of events that rests solely with this administration.

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really? Last time you weaseled out with a ya'all. Not this time. Back up that accusation...

    Backpedal with the bullshit claim, "We never said Obama DIDN'T separate families and we never said Obama DIDN'T put children in cages" in 3....2.....1....

    Nailed it!! :D

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    no, it wasn't.

    Yes, it was..

    And, unless you have a certificate that says you are a mind reader (which, if you do, you are obviously not a very good one) I know what my intent was..

    The facts came out...

    I was right..

    Those who denied Obama did the exact same things ya'all are hysterical over Trump doing, were wrong..

    Si fini.. :D

  145. [145] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Backpedal with the bullshit claim, "We never said Obama DIDN'T separate families and we never said Obama DIDN'T put children in cages" in 3....2.....1....

    You have a really hard time conflating I with we...

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Your response does not negate my comment in any way. Yes, children were held in cages, along with their parents.

    No, children were held in cages without any adults..

    FACT...

    But Trump is the only one who has ripped children from their parents just to be cruel.

    You don't know that.. You just THINK that because you hate Trump..

    Try as you want, you cannot lessen the responsibility for this tragic set of events that rests solely with this administration.

    Try as you want, you simply CANNOT deny the FACT that your hero, your messiah did the EXACT same thing that you hate Trump for doing...

    But you won't say anything against Obama for it because Obama has a -D after his name..

    Which simply proves you don't really CARE about the children.. You just want a shiny new bludgeon to beat President Trump over the head with..

    Next week, you'll have a new shiny and you won't even say dick about today's shiny...

    ANd so it goes and so it goes.. :D

  147. [147] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    But you won't say anything against Trump for it because Trump has a -R after his name..

    Works both ways. So what?

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    But you won't say anything against Trump for it because Trump has a -R after his name..

    Nope.. I won't say anything against the policy because I agree with the policy..

    JUST like I did when Obama used the policy..

    So, once again.. Yer wrong...

  149. [149] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    here's a fairly detailed analysis of obama's border policy:

    https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deportations-deporter-chief-or-not

  150. [150] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Nope.. I won't say anything against the policy because I agree with the policy..

    Then why the agenda based posts rather than just defend the policy?

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    Then why the agenda based posts rather than just defend the policy?

    There is no need to defend the policy..

    I simply wanted to correct all ya'all's (NEN) lies and bullshit that Obama never put kids in cages or the bullshit and lies that Obama never separated families of illegal immigrants...

    I have my concession so things are good..

    Why do you keep dragging out your humiliation?? :D

  152. [152] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I notice you haven't commented on the link Joshua provide for all of us that examines Obama's policy with respect to illegal immigration and how it compares with Trump's policy.

    There are a great deal of facts in that piece. Which is always what you are asking for ... ??

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    I notice you haven't commented on the link Joshua provide for all of us that examines Obama's policy with respect to illegal immigration and how it compares with Trump's policy.

    Why should I??

    My only interest in Obama's illegal immigrant policy is that, under it, he DID put children in cages and he DID separate illegal immigrant families..

    2 FACTS that were denied amongst some of the denizens of Weigantia...

    I see no need to confirm what I already know and what has already been conceded...

    The debate on whether or not Obama did put children in cages and did separate illegal immigrant families is over.

    I won...

    NEXT... :D

  154. [154] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    The problem with your analyses - on this issue and others - is that you don't look at the whole picture and, therefore, you only understand a portion of whatever issue you are looking at.

  155. [155] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You don't even understand what the debate is about, when we actually do debate, that is.

    :-(

  156. [156] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You lost the debate about Trump's policy being much different from Obama's policy and from any administration policy.

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    The problem with your analyses - on this issue and others - is that you don't look at the whole picture and, therefore, you only understand a portion of whatever issue you are looking at.

    The WHOLE Picture was very clear for me..

    DID Obama put children in cages.. DID Obama separate illegal immigrant families..

    Many here said NO.. I said YES..

    I was right.. I don't really understand why we have to keep going over it??

    You lost the debate about Trump's policy being much different from Obama's policy and from any administration policy.

    That wasn't my debate..

    That was the debate ya'all (NEN) TRIED to make because ya'all (NEN) discovered I was right..

    The differences in policy was never my debate.. The differences in policy was where ya'all tried to move the goal posts to...

    You don't even understand what the debate is about, when we actually do debate, that is.

    I understand perfectly..

    Ya'all were wrong about Obama's policy vis a vis putting children in cages and separating illegal immigrant families..

    Once this was discovered, ya'all tried to change the debate..

    It's very easy to understand..

  158. [158] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You know what really bothers me, Michale. You know you are putting on an act here and it has become very boring for me.

  159. [159] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And one more thing, when you make comments about what people think, then NAME THEM!!!

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    And one more thing, when you make comments about what people think, then NAME THEM!!!

    OK.. I prefer to keep things impersonal and not point fingers.. But if you insist...

    You were one that refused to acknowledge the fact that Obama also put children in cages and also separated illegal immigrant families...

    You know what really bothers me, Michale. You know you are putting on an act here and it has become very boring for me.

    With respect, it is you who is putting on the act..

    You want to debate with me the merits of President Trump's Zero Tolerance attitude on the Bush policy???

    DO you HONESTLY believe you would be willing to even CONSIDER the concept that maybe President Trump's policy is a good thing??

    Com'on Liz. I couldn't even get you to acknowledge the FACTS!!!

    Do you honestly think I could change your opinion???

    Let's be real.. I like you a lot but you are not open minded at all when it comes to President Trump.. No one here is...

    I would have a better chance solving the Middle East, North Korea AND Russia problem than I have of convincing ANYONE here of giving President Trump a fair shake..

    So, please.. Let's cut the crap about "reasonable debate"...

    As long as President Trump is in office, there is absolutely ZERO chance of a reasonable debate here...

    It simply is beyond the realm of possibility..

    At the MOST, the best I can hope for is to overwhelm ya'all with indisputable, incontrovertible, unquestionable, unassailable and unequivocal facts and beat ya'all over the head with them until ya'all capitulate and concede..

    Kinda like I did today.. :D

    Love ya.. :D

  161. [161] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You better go back and reread my comments, Michale because, your memory is failing you.

  162. [162] 
    rjrap wrote:

    If DH is limited to one comment on One Demand except when replied to how come we are subjected to multiple "Obama put children in cages" over and over.

    I can always bet that when I see a CW article with over a hundred comments that half of them are the same old worn out Michale/Republican talking points.

    I need a rest from this.

  163. [163] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    As long as President Trump is in office, there is absolutely ZERO chance of a reasonable debate here...

    Well, then, let's hope he won't be in office for much longer. Heh.

  164. [164] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    BTW, have you read the piece in Joshua's link yet?

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    If DH is limited to one comment on One Demand except when replied to how come we are subjected to multiple "Obama put children in cages" over and over.

    Would you like some cheeze ta go with your whine?? :D

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:

    BTW, have you read the piece in Joshua's link yet?

    What would be the point??

    Would I *EVER* be able to convince you that President Trump's policy was the same as President Obama's policy, just imposing the 'zero tolerance' aspect??

    Of course not...

    So, I see no point in wasting my time...

  167. [167] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    rjrap,

    I need a rest from this.

    But, you haven't been here in the comments sections for that long.

    I does take a strong person, though ...

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, then, let's hope he won't be in office for much longer. Heh.

    I am fairly sure President Trump will leave office on 20 Jan 2024...

    Until that time, this is the way that CW.COM is going to be..

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    I can always bet that when I see a CW article with over a hundred comments that half of them are the same old worn out Michale/Republican talking points.

    Calling me a Republican is a personal attack..

    Watch yerself, bub....

  170. [170] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What would be the point??

    That you might learn something?

    You think Trump's zero tolerance deterrence policy makes no difference!?

    Let there be light!

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    Forgot to add a :D at the end of comment #169... :D

  172. [172] 
    Michale wrote:

    That you might learn something?

    And if ya'all gave President Trump a fair shake ya'all might learn something too...

    You think Trump's zero tolerance deterrence policy makes no difference!?

    Actually, it makes a BIG difference.. HUGE..

    Illegal immigrants are foregoing their trips to our southern border because they don't want their kids taken away from them..

    So, it's making a HUGE difference..

    But I know ya'all refuse to see that as a GOOD thing... :D

  173. [173] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    rjrap,

    One should always avoid comments sections where there are already more than a hundred comments.

    It's always best to get in on the ground floor, so to speak. :)

  174. [174] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am fairly sure President Trump will leave office on 20 Jan 2024...

    Until that time, this is the way that CW.COM is going to be..

    Of course, when the Democrats fail to take the House and Senate in Nov, things might become a bit more subdued around here..

    On the other hand, things might become tons more hysterical...

    So, who knows... :D

  175. [175] 
    Michale wrote:

    You better go back and reread my comments, Michale because, your memory is failing you.

    I am sure it is.. At my age, the memory is the second thing to go.. :D

  176. [176] 
    rjrap wrote:

    Liz
    167, 173

    Your right....as usual. My wife always says I'm very opinionated. I guess I'm failing on that here.

  177. [177] 
    Michale wrote:

    The strategic blunder of ‘Trump-as-Hitler’
    http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/393049-the-strategic-blunder-of-trump-as-hitler

    NeverTrumpers are a caricature....

  178. [178] 
    Michale wrote:

    Earlier, one magazine fact-checker beclowned herself by mistaking the tattoo of an ICE forensics analyst — a wounded Marine veteran and Paralympian — as a Nazi symbol.

    Like I said.. A caricature....

  179. [179] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    97

    If Republicans supported anything the Democrats say, then the Republican base might remember that the next time the Republicans claimed that Democrats always do evil things and wouldn’t buy into their drivel.

    Remember, Russ. Thinking for themselves is not their strong suit. A baker refused to sell a cake... any cake... to a married couple... without even having to bake it for a wedding because they were already wed and without even knowing what type cake they wished to purchase... the MAGAts think that is an exercise of his First Amendment rights. Yet when somebody refuses to sell food to Sarah Sanders, they whine that it's "different." Yes, sir. They're "all in" on the right to refuse service until they're the ones being refused... well, then they have a problem and start whining about bigotry.

    They're "all in" on First Amendment rights for others, but when the football players take a knee in protest of "lives mattering," they whine that it's "different."

    Moral of my latest rant: The MAGAts have no thinking skills. They must be spoon-fed what to believe so they can regurgitate it back and perform the part of "useful idiots" for their right-wing handlers... who constantly play into their fears and push their buttons... and they don't have the critical thinking skills to see it.

  180. [180] 
    Michale wrote:

    A baker refused to sell a cake... any cake... to a married couple...

    Not factually accurate..

    The case stems from a 2012 incident when Masterpiece Cakeshop refused to make a wedding cake for the same sex couple, but offered to sell them other baked goods like birthday cakes.
    independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gay-wedding-cake-baker-supreme-court-ruling-christianity-rights-colorado-latest-a8382826.html

    And the couple was not married at the time the wedding cake creation was refused...

    without even having to bake it for a wedding because they were already wed and without even knowing what type cake they wished to purchase...

    Not factually accurate..

    July 19, 2012: Charlie Craig and David Mullins entered Masterpiece Cakeshop, hoping to buy a wedding cake. Same-sex marriage was not yet legal in Colorado, so the couple planned to go to Massachusetts. Shop owner Jack Phillips denied the request, saying he does not make cakes for same-sex weddings.
    denverpost.com/2018/06/04/masterpiece-cakeshop-timeline/

    At the time the gay couple made the request and at the time the baker refused their request, the couple was not yet married.. And the gay couple made clear to the baker that the cake was for a gay wedding..

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

  181. [181] 
    Kick wrote:

    Would I *EVER* be able to convince you that President Trump's policy was the same as President Obama's policy, just imposing the 'zero tolerance' aspect??

    Of course not...

    So, I see no point in wasting my time...

    The "zero tolerance aspect" as you call it, is their policy. Every administration is NOT following the Bush policy. The law is the law. Law and policies are two different things. Bush had his policy based on the law. Obama had a different policy based on the law, and Trump has his policy based on the law. Claiming they are all following the same policy as the "Bush policy" is nonsensical and ridiculous. Trump changed Obama's policy, and it was announced with great fanfare and posted online regarding the policy change and the directions to law enforcement. The Trump administration's policy was going to be different than that of the previous administration, and they announced it. The law hasn't changed, but the policy has... several times, and now Trump has changed his own policy using an Executive Order.

    Continuing to argue that all of these administrations' policies are "exactly the same" as the Bush administration is nonsensical when the policies of each administration have been widely divergent.

    The laws regarding immigration remain the same. The law is the same because the Tea Partiers and the GOP cannot agree on how to govern regarding immigration law. The policies based on that law have varied widely and have changed several times, and now the Trump administration has again changed their policy when Trump signed an Executive Order because the public was outraged at the Trump administration's policy.

    You'll never convince anyone the administrations are following the same policy because it's bollocks and untrue. :)

  182. [182] 
    Kick wrote:

    Yes, rephrase:

    A baker refused to sell a cake... any cake... to a married couple for their reception... without even having to bake it for a wedding because they were already to wed and without even knowing what type cake they wished to purchase.

    Semantics, Michale. They wanted to buy a cake for their reception after they were already wed, married. The point was that it wouldn't involve the baker supplying cake for their wedding because they were already wed before the reception for which he was asked to make a cake. How does this involve his religion? It's a reception.

    If you think that's okay for him to deny service to married people, then that's your prerogative, but I don't see how it involved the baker's religion since the couple were already wed in another state, and he would be providing a cake for a married couple no different than any other. Their request was for a cake for when they were already wed... after their wedding. Got that? How does religion enter into it, then? He refuses to sell a product to a gay couple for their reception after they were already married when he would happily provide that same product to other couples. That was my point.

  183. [183] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Re: Michale [177] - I've seen this before: the writer is so enamored by his premise that he forgets to make an argument in support of it, preferring instead to restate the premise in as many ways as he can. Most interesting part of that opinion piece was this statement: Undoubtedly, the president is ready to chum the waters with another carefully manufactured outrage to distract the pundit class.

    Surely, someone trying to make the point that he and his fellow Trumpers aren't Nazis oughtn't refer to immigrant children as 'chum'. Just sayin'..

  184. [184] 
    Kick wrote:

    Also, my point was that righties are whining about Sarah Sanders being refused service when they obviously have no problem with people being refused service.

    Bigotry takes many forms. Those who condone the refusal of service to others... regardless the reason... should have no problem whatsoever when service is refused to them... regardless the reason.

    Also, though, actions have consequences, and whining incessantly that one type of bigotry is somehow "different" and "acceptable" or "exactly the same" when it isn't is where the disconnect begins. This ain't rocket science.

  185. [185] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    The Republicans refuse to fix immigration because they cannot risk losing their best fear-mongering campaign tool! Typically the GOP only talks about immigration during election years and then drop it after the election ends. The problem they face now is that the only part of the job that Trump enjoys is campaigning. He lives for those rallies and hearing his name chanted and praised by all of those paid performers! That’s why he cannot drop the attacks on immigrants. Well, that and because he’s a raging bigot.

    Michale,

    So you fully support our government ripping young children from their parents over a civil misdemeanor? Glad to know that you are proud of your sociopathic traits. Hope karma is kinder to your grandchild than what those children in ICE’s custody have been subjected to.

  186. [186] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    A baker refused to sell a cake... any cake... to a married couple for their reception... without even having to bake it for a wedding because they were already to wed and without even knowing what type cake they wished to purchase.

    EXACTLY! What does their religion have to do with making a cake, anyway? I want them to show me where in the Bible Jesus taught that Christians were to treat those they disagree with with such contempt. I’ll be waiting forever because Jesus never endorsed hatred. I can find plenty of stories where Jesus taught His followers to treat those who were non-believers with far more care and concern because you never know when angels walk amongst us. Jesus also taught that it would be better for a person to have a millstone tied to their neck than for their actions to keep a person from following Christ. I’m pretty sure the cake bakers actions didn’t make the couple want to be a part of any religion that treats people the way they were treated.

  187. [187] 
    neilm wrote:

    The Republicans refuse to fix immigration because they cannot risk losing their best fear-mongering campaign tool!

    This is why they will do nothing at the Federal level regarding abortion - at the moment it is a useful way to get their base angry. If they did something their base would calm down, but the 57%+ of the country that support women's rights would be up in arms - particularly when women started appearing in ER and morgues after self inflicted or back alley procedures.

  188. [188] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    185

    The Republicans refuse to fix immigration because they cannot risk losing their best fear-mongering campaign tool! Typically the GOP only talks about immigration during election years and then drop it after the election ends. The problem they face now is that the only part of the job that Trump enjoys is campaigning. He lives for those rallies and hearing his name chanted and praised by all of those paid performers! That’s why he cannot drop the attacks on immigrants. Well, that and because he’s a raging bigot.

    Yes, sir, absolutely, and I meant what I said about their lack of critical thinking skills; they have none. They must be spoon-fed by Trump and their right-wing fearmongering handlers to be afraid of immigrants and defend ignorant statements like referring to others as living in "shithole" [his word, not mine] countries like Haiti.

    Anybody with two brain cells to rub together would ask themselves why Donald Trump whines out of one hand about the "others" while regularly employing them at his properties out of the other. Trump is a hypocrite and a liar just punching their buttons due to the fact that he's hired thousands of illegals and foreign workers and continues to hire foreign workers today.

    Just as they have in seasons past, for the 2017-18 season, Trump's Mar-a-Lago club received 70 H-2B visas. According to filing submitted to the Department of Labor, Trump's foreign workers serve as housekeepers, servers, cooks, etc. and are paid between $10 and $13 an hour. Therefore, Trump is an American who literally and regularly petitions the United States to bring in foreign workers on a regular basis.

    How the media called out Trump's hypocrisy:

    The New Yorker: "The Foreign Workers of Mar-a-Lago."
    Newsweek: "America First? Trump Businesses Keep Hiring Foreign Workers."
    Teen Vogue: Ivanka Trump's Clothing is Made in China, Indonesia, and Vietnam."
    CNN Money: "Trump's vineyard is hiring — foreign workers."
    CNN Politics: "Donald Trump sought cheap labor overseas for clothing lines."
    Daily Beast: "A Visa Ban — But Not For Trump's Foreign Workers."
    New York Daily News: "Donald Trump's Florida clubs are hiring — but the jobs will go to foreign workers."

    Perhaps if the Trump MAGAts had any brain cells to utilize, they might realize the Trump hypocrisy and the fact that Trump and his spawn are practitioners of the very things for which they're punching all those "be afraid" buttons of their "useful idiots." The Trumps know exactly what they're doing and why they're doing it. They don't care two shits if a foreign worker displaces an American; in fact, it actually appears they'd prefer it; otherwise, they'd naturally raise their domestic wages and cease their regular practice of hiring of foreign workers domestically and overseas.

    Another rant over. :)

  189. [189] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    186

    Exactly right, sir. Every single word. :)

  190. [190] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    187

    This is why they will do nothing at the Federal level regarding abortion - at the moment it is a useful way to get their base angry.

    Exactly right again, sir, and I would wager that Trump and/or Trump's father has paid for many, many abortions of accidental Trump spawn in his lifetime and that Trump doesn't give two shits about... to use their phrase... "killing a baby."

    Trump is only interested in abortion to the extent he can spin it up and feed it to the "useful idiots" with no reasoning ability to figure out that Trump is simply a lying piece of spit who doesn't care about anyone not named Trump and whose loyalty goes only one way... which is obvious to anyone with two eyes and the primary reason that:

    Mikey's gonna flip.
    Mikey's gonna flip.
    Mikey's gonna flip.

    Sooner or later, they practically always do. :)

  191. [191] 
    neilm wrote:

    I wonder how many undocumented workers are employed at Trump premises in the U.S.?

    I've said this many times - if you want to stop economic migrants perp walk some CEOs of large corporations - the problem would be solved in weeks.

    My company recently made every U.S. based employee prove their legality - we had to bring in passports and other formed of identification and proof we were legally allowed to work in the U.S. There was no urgency, but it was completed in a couple of weeks and we have over 10,000 U.S. based employees.

  192. [192] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    So you fully support our government ripping young children from their parents over a civil misdemeanor?

    You did when Obama did it..

    How is that any different???

    Glad to know that you are proud of your sociopathic traits.

    If you have to resort to personal attacks or name-calling in a debate, you have already lost..

    I accept your concession..

    Hope karma is kinder to your grandchild than what those children in ICE’s custody have been subjected to.

    Have to drag my grandchildren into your rage??

    That's pretty low, Russ. Even for you..

    Sad....

  193. [193] 
    Michale wrote:

    I’ll be waiting forever because Jesus never endorsed hatred.

    You speak out against "hatred" yet you can post what you did above??

    How is that not hypocritical??

  194. [194] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Up until Russ posted, I would have said our little experiment was a smashing success... :^/

  195. [195] 
    Michale wrote:

    Burger King refuses to serve uniformed officers, Louisiana police department claims
    http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2018/06/24/burger-king-refuses-to-serve-uniformed-officers-louisiana-police-department-claims.html

    Of course, ya'all (NEN) are perfectly fine with this, right??

    Once again, the Party of hate and intolerance is perfectly clear...

  196. [196] 
    Michale wrote:

    The little girl on the cover of TIME was not separated from her mother whatsoever...

    Hands Up!! Don't Shoot....

    What IS it with Left Wingery causes that are all built on complete and unequivocal lies???

  197. [197] 
    Michale wrote:

    Semantics, Michale.

    Factually inaccurate, Kick...

  198. [198] 
    Michale wrote:

    To elaborate..

    You said "A baker refused to sell a cake... any cake... to a married couple..."

    The Facts
    The baker offered other cakes and bakery items, just not a custome designed wedding cake.
    The couple was not a married couple at the time the request was made and refused..

    You said "without even having to bake it for a wedding because they were already wed and without even knowing what type cake they wished to purchase..."

    The Facts
    The gay couple was not already wed when they asked for the wedding cake to be made.
    The baker DID know what type of cake they wished to purchase because the gay couple made it clear that it was a wedding cake they wished to purchase..

    Now, you can call that "semantics" if you wish..

    But here in the REAL world where people AREN'T enslaved by Party ideology, they are called "inaccurate facts" also known sometimes as total bullshit..

    Just a suggestion, but maybe you should try and live up to the standards that you want to impose on everyone else..

    I'm just sayin'.. Have a great day, Kick.. :D

  199. [199] 
    Michale wrote:

    New Yorker fact checker 'resigns' after slandering ICE agent and Marine veteran as Nazi
    https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/180619-ice-new-yorker-veteran-feature.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=618&h=410&crop=1

    Like I said above...

    Hysterical NeverTrumpers are a caricature...

  200. [200] 
    Michale wrote:

    Koreas discuss removing North's artillery from tense border
    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/06/25/koreas-discuss-removing-norths-artillery-from-tense-border.html

    Well, gosh darn...

    President Trump's actions are bearing fruit...

    Poor hysterical NeverTrumpers... They were hoping a nuclear war would break out and Seoul would be totally destroyed by Nork artillery...

    Sorry ta burst yer bubble, NTs...

    Thanx to President Trump, peace is breaking out over the Korea Peninsula... :D

  201. [201] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump will go down in history for being the POTUS who ended the Korean War.. :D

  202. [202] 
    Michale wrote:

    Exclusive: ‘Little Russian media project’ tries to turn America against itself
    https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/national-security/article213403299.html

    Congrats, NeverTrumpers.. Ya'all are now minions for Putin and Russian Intelligence...

    Great job!! :^/

  203. [203] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It was painful watching the Time magazine executive trying to explain their decision to knowingly use a traumatized little girl who was not separated from her mother when family separations are the issue.

    Another embarrassing moment for the devolutionary media.

  204. [204] 
    Michale wrote:

    It was painful watching the Time magazine executive trying to explain their decision to knowingly use a traumatized little girl who was not separated from her mother when family separations are the issue.

    Another embarrassing moment for the devolutionary media.

    10000% agreement, Liz

    If they have to lie to make their story, their story ain't worth makin'....

  205. [205] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    They could have made their point by saying that if this little girl who was not separated from her mother is so traumatized, then just try to imagine how traumatized the children who are separated from their parents are ...

    This isn't rocket science ...

  206. [206] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's just another example of Fake News...

    Like ABC "News" Manafort/Manslaughter debacle...

    If President Trump is so bad, why do they have to make shit up??

  207. [207] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another note..

    Today is the last Monday in the SCOTUS term..

    Should be some blockbuster rulings.. Redistricting, President Trump's travel ban, Union dues...

    I think the Left Wingery and the NeverTrumpers are going to be very disappointed...

    PLACE YER BETS, PLACE YER BETS!! :D

  208. [208] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    One must be capable of discerning "fake news" from reality.

    Unfortunately, many people do not have that capability and President Trump capitalizes on that at every given opportunity.

  209. [209] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unfortunately, many people do not have that capability and President Trump capitalizes on that at every given opportunity.

    President Trump is not the only one who capitalizes on it..

    The majority of the fake news comes from the Left & NeverTrumpers...

  210. [210] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    rjrap (162)-

    I think the One Demand comment limit is more of a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule.

    And it was pretty much what I was doing anyway before CW suggested it.

    And I don't think it all can be put on Michale any more than it all could be put on me on the occasions when people respond to my comments and it fills the comment section.

    Michale is responding when responded to in many instances.

    I would agree that it can be exhausting when the comments on both sides become repetitive, but I guess sometimes you have to wade through the garbage to get to the gold- if there is any gold.

    And both sides seem to at times feed each other's desire to vent their frustrations by arguing their talking points against the other's talking points.

    Pretty much what the people supplying the talking points want people to do, keep all of us arguing with each other- divide and conquer.

  211. [211] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think the One Demand comment limit is more of a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule.

    "I have a rule NEVER to get involved with possessed people... mmmmm...mmmmmmmmm Well, it's actually more of a guideline than a rule.."
    -Dr Peter Venkmen, GHOSTBUSTERS

    :D

    Michale is responding when responded to in many instances.

    Thank you.. RJ points the finger at me, but it's undeniable that, if the facts were just conceded at the beginning, 100+ comments could have been avoided..

    Pretty much what the people supplying the talking points want people to do, keep all of us arguing with each other- divide and conquer.

    Yep...

  212. [212] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Hysterical Rhetoric...
    pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfdw4TeUwAAWpPh?format=jpg

    The Factual Reality...
    uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6ca8cbbae6618f188d991eeb32731922d6bbb603059c77e795a3af891391defa.jpg

    Nothing more than faux-outrage staged NeverTrumper propaganda...

  213. [213] 
    Michale wrote:

    Faux-outrage Hysterical NeverTrumper propaganda Part II

    Photos of immigrant children sleeping in cages in U.S. go viral — but they’re from 2014
    By Maham Abedi

    https://globalnews.ca/news/4238798/us-children-immigration-photo-2014-trump/

    Like I said.. The majority of Fake News comes from the Left and NeverTrumpers...

  214. [214] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Unfortunately, it is, at least on occasion, the interpretation of the facts and not the facts that are in question- and it often seems to be more of a competition rather than a conversation.

    Scoring points instead of making points.

    People often look at the same thing and see it the way they need to see it to fit what they believe.

    And it is difficult to concede anything that might disturb their carefully constructed worldview.

    As I said in comment 21:

    Three monkeys striking three specific poses comes to mind.

    (BTW,CW, my mom has three figurines of cats striking those poses.)

  215. [215] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unfortunately, it is, at least on occasion, the interpretation of the facts and not the facts that are in question- and it often seems to be more of a competition rather than a conversation.

    Scoring points instead of making points.

    Unfortunately, you are correct.. No one (myself included) is free from guilt on that issue..

    (BTW,CW, my mom has three figurines of cats striking those poses.)

    Here.. Let me help you wipe that brown stuff off your nose..

    heh

    J/K :D

  216. [216] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Here.. Let me help you wipe that brown stuff off your nose.."

    Another example of people seeing what they want to see.

    I am clearly trying to manipulate CW's affinity for cats. :D

  217. [217] 
    Michale wrote:

    51% of Americans polled approve of President Trump's handling of the economy...

    Compare and contrast that "fact" to all of the hysterical fear mongering BS coming from the NeverTrumpers about how President Trump would destroy the economy...

    All of the BS theatrics over the tariffs haven't occurred either.. Funny how that is, eh? :D

  218. [218] 
    Michale wrote:

    5 Minutes to SCOTUS showtime.. :D

  219. [219] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Hysterical Rhetoric...
    pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfdw4TeUwAAWpPh?format=jpg

    The Factual Reality...
    uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6ca8cbbae6618f188d991eeb32731922d6bbb603059c77e795a3af891391defa.jpg

    Nothing more than faux-outrage staged NeverTrumper propaganda...

    I mean, honestly...

    Hysterical NeverTrumpers put their OWN kids in cages, took pictures and then blamed it on President Trump...

    What kind of scumbag mentality does that???

  220. [220] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats Lose The Texas Gerrymandering case...

  221. [221] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like that's it for the SCOTUS rulings..

    No Janus and no Travel Ban ruling today.. :(

    But the tea leaves clearly indicate that the Democrats will lose on those rulings as well..

  222. [222] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since I know that NeverTrumpers love polls..

    CBS Poll: 51% of Americans Believe a Border Wall is a Good Idea
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timothymeads/2018/06/24/cbs-poll-51-of-americans-believe-a-border-wall-is-a-good-idea-n2494000

    :D

    Ooohh it's a beautiful day in the neighborhood... Won'tcha be my neighboooorrrrrrr

    :D

  223. [223] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya know, ya really have to wonder what's going to cause more outrage come November...

    The faux outrage from the Left over the immigration system..

    Or the real outrage from the Right that Democrats have lied and staged everything from day 1...

  224. [224] 
    Michale wrote:

    The left loses its cool
    ‘When you’re violent and cursing and screaming and blocking me from walking into a movie, there’s something wrong,’ said one top GOP official.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/25/liberals-attack-bondi-sanders-trump-667934

    Democrat leaders order violence against Trump supporters..

    The civil war has begun...

  225. [225] 
    Michale wrote:

    “God is on OUR side!On the side of the children. On the side of what’s right. On the side of what’s honorable.”
    -Maxine Waters

    Rather ironic, considering how many hundreds of thousands of children have been slaughtered on the Altar of a woman's right to choose..

    Somehow, I can't see god on the side of a group that does that...

  226. [226] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The civil war has begun...

    Ah, no. Actually, Michale, it's the trade wars that have begun and, unfortunately, it's the American workers who will lose.

  227. [227] 
    Paula wrote:

    Today Blotus threatens Maxine Waters. Trumpnazis harass Red Hen restaurant. Both are exactly what we expect from them. People who stand up against these thugs are at risk. They are brave.

    Blotus and his thugs, in addition to being traitors, are bullying brownshirts. Every day in every way Blotus and his thugs and the complicit GOP prove they are everything we said they were/are.

  228. [228] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I would say that Maxine Waters is a worthy candidate for the MDDOTW award this week.

  229. [229] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Sweet Jesus people, we have a President who is so dumb (as in STUPID), that the level of his intellect and comprehension is so low as to be epitomized by his quote "Trade wars are easy to win!", and Weigantians stew and fret because he us "cruel", "mean", "unkind", etc.

    Such is life in an ideological/political blog, I guess.

  230. [230] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    We know what Trump is doing and we can see who is enabling him.

    Do we know what the Democrats and their supporters are doing, just months before the midterms? Will they resort to Trumpian tactics or will they put forward a better strategy for success?

  231. [231] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    CRS, you make a good point. No, you make a very good point.

    The media and large parts of the electorate are distracted and not paying enough attention to the policies the Trump administration is implementing during the big distraction.

  232. [232] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Of course, you could have said it without all the name-calling. :(

  233. [233] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ah, no. Actually, Michale, it's the trade wars that have begun and, unfortunately, it's the American workers who will lose.

    Yea, that's the claim.. It's been the claim for the last 6 months..

    And NOTHING has happened.. :D

    I would say that Maxine Waters is a worthy candidate for the MDDOTW award this week.

    And THEN some...

  234. [234] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    Sweet Jesus people, we have a President who is so dumb (as in STUPID), that the level of his intellect and comprehension is so low as to be epitomized by his quote

    And yet, Trump is, undeniably, a successful businessman..

    And yet, Trump bested 19 very well funded, very well qualified and very experienced GOP operatives..

    And YET.... Trump DEVASTATED the biggest, meanest, most experienced and most well funded political juggernaut in the history of the planet...

    You can say MANY things about President Trump.. "Stupid" and "dumb" are not factually accurate things you can say...

  235. [235] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Have you heard that Harley-Davidson is moving some of its US production overseas to avoid the tariffs that are a direct resultant of Trump's trade 'policy'?

    If Trump knows what's good for him (yes, him, because he doesn't appear to care about anyone else) then he will revisit his ineffective trade policies.

  236. [236] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You can say MANY things about President Trump.. "Stupid" and "dumb" are not factually accurate things you can say...

    "Fucking Moron" - Rex Tillerson

  237. [237] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, where is Rex now?

  238. [238] 
    Michale wrote:

    You see, Liz.. Here is the problem you face...

    The Left Wingery and the NeverTrumpers (which, in this case, are the same) have made prediction after hysterical prediction after catastrophic prediction...

    And NONE of them have ever come to pass...

    So, this begs the question.. Why would Joe and Jane Public think that ANY hysterical anti-Trump prediction would have ANY credibility???

    The problem with the group is that the have NO FACTS to support their claims..

    We saw that with the Obama/Illegal Immigration issue, we saw that with Kick's anti-religious freedom debacle and we see that with Balthy's bullshit claim about a bullshit quote from Tillerson...

    The anti-Trump groups simply have NO credibility when it comes to their anti-Trump claims...

  239. [239] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Liz M [232]

    Sorry, not following. "Name-calling", sorta by definition, involves NOUNS, right? Dumb and Stupid are both adjectives, right?

    Michael [234]

    Sorry, disagree on that "successsful businessman" thing. How many time has he been thru bankruptcy? And the fact that he bested all his primary opponents is a reflection of the fact that 1), he's been on a lot of TV, and 2), Republican primary voters aren't very perceptive.

    My impression, gleaned fromn his TV career, was what I told all his fundraisers that called me during the campaign - I consider him to be a "world-class asshole", so I had to vote for the Libertarian guy.

    As far as the political "juggernaught" he faced, I'd say the Dems nominated the only person in the whole country capable of losing to Trump.

    Liz M [235]

    That makes no sense, Manufacturing overseas will INCURR Trump's tariff, not avoid it.

  240. [240] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    CRS,

    Allow me to be clear about how tariffs work.

    H-D sends about 16% of its production to Europe. If it keep this portion of its production in the US it will be subject to EU tariffs that would be passed on to European consumers or H-D could be out by as much as $100 million dollars.

    So, H-D has decided to move some of its production to Taiwan or Brazil or India and then export to Europe without having to worry about EU tariffs.

    It makes sense to H-D.

    And, this is just the beginning in terms of negative impacts on US business and workers as a result of Trump's trade wars.

  241. [241] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry, disagree on that "successsful businessman" thing.

    I am sure you do.. But it is a bona-fide fact, nonetheless.

    Even DEMOCRATS said so back when Trump had a -D after his name..

    My impression, gleaned fromn his TV career, was what I told all his fundraisers that called me during the campaign - I consider him to be a "world-class asshole"

    of COURSE he's an asshole.. So was Patton.. That's what made them so successful...

    As far as the political "juggernaught" he faced, I'd say the Dems nominated the only person in the whole country capable of losing to Trump.

    Dood! That's my line.. :D

    But it doesn't change the fact of her bona fides...

    That makes no sense, Manufacturing overseas will INCURR Trump's tariff, not avoid it.

    Exactly!!!

  242. [242] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    CRS, I think they will manufacture overseas to sell to overseas markets, anticipating heavy import duties on American products in answer to Trump's import duties. Not only will the cost of imports to the US go up, but if US-made goods become more expensive in other countries, they will import less of them. The UK may find itself in a similar position, with imported goods becoming more expensive and a drop in exports if other countries impose higher tariffs or less favourable trade deals than they get as part of the EU.

  243. [243] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, this is just the beginning in terms of negative impacts on US business and workers as a result of Trump's trade wars.

    And yet, tariffs have been in place since Jan...

    And there hasn't been the negative impacts...

    Why is that???

  244. [244] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Wait until the Canadian and EU tariffs kick in as well as those that China will impose.

    These trade wars are just getting underway. Which is why Trump still has time to reverse things but, of course, he won't.

  245. [245] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Liz M [240]

    That is totally correct. I incorrectly presumed that by the phrase "Trump's trade policy", you meant avoiding U.S. tariffs. My error.

  246. [246] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    No hay problemo.

  247. [247] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    No hay problema.

  248. [248] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wait until the Canadian and EU tariffs kick in as well as those that China will impose.

    And yet, that "wait until" wasn't stated when all the predictions were made back in Jan...

    It goes back to credibility..

    The Left/NTs have *ALWAYS* been wrong..

  249. [249] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Now, THAT makes no sense.

  250. [250] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The civil war has begun...

    Sorry Michale, but that's inane and sophomoric.

    America was designed to be in a constant state of low-level political 'war'. The Founders, whose families had come from a place that had been in a state of actual war for centuries, reasoned that a system that allowed for unencumbered airing of political grievances would be contentious, but less likely to break out into actual violence. With just one notable exception, their plan has kept us from each other's throats for 200 years.

    Indeed, when you take into consideration all of the moronic ideas that have come down the pike during that time, you have to give enormous credit to the thinkers behind the American experiment just for that insight. It comes from an unscientific but profound truth of human nature: people generally despise other people's opinions, particularly when it comes to politics, and payback is a bitch.

    Add to that a second insight, a metaphysical assumption that is still yet to be disproven: that the collective will of the people is better, long-term, than even the informed decisions of a chief executive. boom! Heads exploding everywhere.

    Even more impressive is the fact that they were formulating this as the French Revolution and its bloody aftermath was playing out in real time.

    Still, even with two centuries of experience under our belts, every generation produces a new bumper crop of would-be Jacobins ready to fire up the guillotines (or gas chambers) and install a dictator. Humans just suck at this, normally.

    So wish away for your war. I'll take the messy reality we live with today as an alternative anytime. Folks with pussy hats and MAGA hats at least still have heads to wear them on.

  251. [251] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    How many time has he been thru bankruptcy?

    How many free throws did Michael Jordan miss??

    “I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.”
    -Michael Jordan

  252. [252] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry Michale, but that's inane and sophomoric.

    Since it's your side calling for violence against Trump supporters??

    Of course you would say that...

  253. [253] 
    Paula wrote:

    Maxine Waters is a heroine and she is right: no complicit members of DT's cabinet, no GOP enablers including pundits, should be able to appear anywhere without heckling and other forms of protest. Nazi and nazi-helpers forfeit all claims to "civility". Traitors should be ejected from polite society.

    DT THREATENED her. ANY pieces of shit who think that's ok, that she's the bad one: fuck you. She may be hurt/killed by DT-thugs.

    SHS set up the Red Hen restaurant to be harassed by brownshirts. It is against the law for her to use her work twitter account to conduct personal business but she did it because she knew Trumpnazis would start threatening the owners and staffs. That behavior is wicked and fuck anyone who defends SHS.

  254. [254] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Watch your language Paula. This is a civil blog.

  255. [255] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    How many people were defrauded each time MJ missed free throw??? None, far as I'm aware.

  256. [256] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea, Paula epitomizes the Left Wing/NeverTrumpers...

    DT THREATENED her.

    Factually not accurate.. It was the total waste of skin Waters who encouraged violence towards those who support the President...

    The only question is, how long will moderate Left Wingers let this go on before actual violence breaks out???

  257. [257] 
    Paula wrote:

    Repubs are whining about being treated like pariahs and are telling us it will only create more trumpers.

    My reply: when Repubs tell us something we're doing will hurt us, we know they're lying. Coz if they really believed it would hurt us they'd want us to keep doing it. What they want is to be able to have their cake and eat it: vote for a criminal traitor, get tax cut that benefits them, get regulation changes that benefit them, pretend nothing bad is happening to people-not-them, and most of all, not be considered deplorables. Because the "un-deplorable" wing of the party despises the deplorables. And they don't want to be tarred with the same brush.

  258. [258] 
    Paula wrote:

    [254] Liz: no.

  259. [259] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Huh?

  260. [260] 
    Paula wrote:

    Repubs-not-deplorables need to be forced to choose sides. They can swim in the deplorable cess-pool or they can join decent society. They should not be allowed to do both.

    They don't want to vote Dem? Fine. Stay home. But if they want to return to a world where they aren't seen as traitors and collaborators - and treated accordingly - they need to help remove DT. That is the only way they can atone.

  261. [261] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm trying to understand [257] ...

    I am telling you that the tactics of Maxine Waters and Robert DeNiro and Samantha Bee and the rest of are hurting their cause.

    You can't win a 'how-low-can-you-go' game with Donald Trump. Trump wins that game - seven days a week, 52 weeks a year.

    If Democratic leaders can't see that, then I fear the midterms will not be the Blue Wave that some are still clinging to.

  262. [262] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    They don't want to vote Dem? Fine. Stay home. But if they want to return to a world where they aren't seen as traitors and collaborators - and treated accordingly - they need to help remove DT. That is the only way they can atone.

    My point is that Democrats need to disavow the kinds of tactics that stoop to Trump's level and serve only to make the divisions in US politics even worse than they already are.

    Why not follow Michele Obama's rule and go high when they go low? Why not try to persuade instead of divide. Granted, persuasion is more difficult than division but the results can be well worth the effort.

  263. [263] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am telling you that the tactics of Maxine Waters and Robert DeNiro and Samantha Bee and the rest of are hurting their cause.

    Exactly...

    Bee, Waters, DeNiro, Griffin and all the other are EXACTLY as they accuse Trump et al of being...

    If the Left wants to have ANY credibility they need to denounce those kinds of antics..

    I am actually surprised I don't see more of that denouncement here in Weigantia...

  264. [264] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am actually surprised I don't see more of that denouncement here in Weigantia...

    I mean, how long has it been since a substantial MDDOTW award was awarded???

  265. [265] 
    John M wrote:

    [261] Elizabeth Miller

    "I am telling you that the tactics of Maxine Waters and Robert DeNiro and Samantha Bee and the rest of are hurting their cause.

    You can't win a 'how-low-can-you-go' game with Donald Trump. Trump wins that game - seven days a week, 52 weeks a year."

    Quite right Elizabeth.

    Simply ignoring a negative attack does not work.

    Responding to a negative attack with a negative response in kind definitely doesn't work.

    You need to counter a negative attack with a forceful but positive response of your own.

    Example: If someone makes a racist attack. Then acknowledge that we do have racial problems, but also remind people that we are all in this together and need to work together to solve problems, etc.

  266. [266] 
    John M wrote:

    [263] Michale

    "Bee, Waters, DeNiro, Griffin and all the other are EXACTLY as they accuse Trump et al of being...

    If the Left wants to have ANY credibility they need to denounce those kinds of antics..

    I am actually surprised I don't see more of that denouncement here in Weigantia..."

    OMG, must be chilly in Hades, I actually agree with Michale here. :-D

  267. [267] 
    Paula wrote:

    Elizabeth: I don't think you grasp anything about what is actually going on. Nor, it appears, do many inside-the-beltway types.

    None of them have been much use as year after year after year GOP used abuse tactics against us. All they did was empower bad behavior and bullies.

    When that happens there will either be takeover by the bullies, or a confrontation(s) - which may be won by one side or the other. But the collision becomes inevitable.

    Dems did the "let's be reasonable" game and it got us the criminal-in-chief.

    There is no reasoning with or persuading the bullies. The enablers have been able to have it both ways - just like Jeff Flake and John McCain and Susan Collins, who make public statements of disapproval and then vote for horrible things anyway.

    There are more of us than them. They rig the system to retain power but there are more of us than them. What they are starting to find out is what the limits of their abuse-with-impunity is - and are getting a taste of what's coming as the damn breaks.

    Repubs have said in every way possible for 40 years: "We hate everything/everyone Dem/Prog/Lib and we will actively hurt you." Well, message received. They don't get to control how we respond.

  268. [268] 
    Michale wrote:

    OMG, must be chilly in Hades, I actually agree with Michale here. :-D

    Heh

  269. [269] 
    Michale wrote:

    Repubs have said in every way possible for 40 years: "We hate everything/everyone Dem/Prog/Lib and we will actively hurt you." Well, message received. They don't get to control how we respond.

    So, your response is "We hate everything/everyone Rep/GOP/Cons and we will actively hurt you."

    Great plan.. :^/

    Just keep in mind.. One group abhors gun ownership and the other group is well armed and well trained..

    How do ya think it's going to work out for the group that abhors gun ownership???

  270. [270] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    John M,

    You need to counter a negative attack with a forceful but positive response of your own.

    Truer words were never spoken. Very well said.

  271. [271] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes, Paula, I'm a little slow on the uptake.

  272. [272] 
    neilm wrote:

    Wallowing in the swamp worked for Trump in 2016 because the Republican voters wanted a piece of trash for President.

    Democrats don't want a piece of trash for President, so don't need to follow Trump into the slime. Let him lie, call names, gin up his supporters - it only makes decent America dislike him and his acolytes more.

    We saw Rubio try to follow Trump into the swamp and it didn't work - you have to be real trash to appeal to the Republican base at the moment.

    Some people who are against Trump are going to mouth off here and there, that is to be expected when a regime is based on "how to upset the opposition regardless of the outcome" (e.g. trade wars; pulling out of Paris, Iran deal, TPP; child abuse; etc.).

    Level heads will win out in the end, it is just sad that in 2018 we have to prove to ourselves once again that we are a grown up nation that wears big boy pants. And it is embarrassing that the rest of the World is watching (and that we are in the same childish political situation as Russia, Turkey, The Philippines, North Korea, etc.).

  273. [273] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dems did the "let's be reasonable" game and it got us the criminal-in-chief.

    For the record, Dems *NEVER* did the "let's be reasonable" game..

    Dems did the "let's be reasonable as long as we define 'reasonable' as whatever WE want" game..

    And Trump supporters told Dems to take their "reasonable" and shove it up their collective asses.. :D

  274. [274] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats don't want a piece of trash for President, so don't need to follow Trump into the slime.

    And yet, that's what the Democrats do on a daily basis..

    Level heads will win out in the end,

    The problem is, Neil, you think that morons like Bee and Griffin and Waters and such are the "level headed ones"...

  275. [275] 
    neilm wrote:

    The false equivalency regarding e.g. DeNiro is that he is trash talking as a private citizen and Trump is trash talking as a President.

    The right are so desperate to play whataboutism that they try to make these equal positions.

    Another false equivalency is equating basketball shots to multi-billion dollar bankruptcies. That is a bit like saying a grunt missing the bulls-eye on the shooting range is the same as an Air Force plane bombing Hawaii when they were aiming for Syria.

  276. [276] 
    neilm wrote:

    The problem is, Neil, you think that morons like Bee and Griffin and Waters and such are the "level headed ones"..

    No, I don't. When did I ever say or insinuate anything like that? More false equivalencies Michale.

  277. [277] 
    Michale wrote:

    The false equivalency regarding e.g. DeNiro is that he is trash talking as a private citizen and Trump is trash talking as a President.

    Gutter talk is gutter talk, sunshine.. :D

  278. [278] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, I don't. When did I ever say or insinuate anything like that? More false equivalencies Michale.

    he false equivalency regarding e.g. DeNiro is that he is trash talking as a private citizen and Trump is trash talking as a President.

    There are many more additional examples...

  279. [279] 
    neilm wrote:

    Gutter talk is gutter talk, sunshine.. :D

    Yes, and that is why we hold people to different standards.

    We don't expect a math professor at Yale to get 5+5 wrong, but we wouldn't be surprised if a 4-year-old did.

    We used to expect more from our most senior leaders, and this is why Trump as President is so sad - he doesn't respect the position or America.

  280. [280] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, and that is why we hold people to different standards.

    So, in other words, you flat out SAID (not insinuated) that you want to hold YOUR side to a different standard than Trumps side..

    We used to expect more from our most senior leaders, and this is why Trump as President is so sad - he doesn't respect the position or America.

    And yet, you are completely silent about Waters et al..

    Funny how that is.. :D

  281. [281] 
    neilm wrote:

    There are many more additional examples...

    Really. Well, since you always demand that everybody else provide reliable proof, point out a recent President of any party who uses "gutter talk" on a daily basis and who lies on average 6 times per day.

    Your "whataboutism" fails when you have to compare like to like.

  282. [282] 
    neilm wrote:

    And yet, you are completely silent about Waters et al..

    Funny how that is.. :D

    So, just to get this straight:
    1. You can't remember me denouncing Griffin
    2. So Trump, as President, is allowed to lie

    Fantastic logic. Only one problem ...

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/05/30/debt-ceiling-battle-looms/#comment-101329

  283. [283] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, since you always demand that everybody else provide reliable proof, point out a recent President of any party who uses "gutter talk" on a daily basis and who lies on average 6 times per day.

    President Trump is unlike ANY POTUS we have ever had...

    THAT is the fact you don't get..

    But nice deflection..

    Don't want to talk about about how your Democrat leaders are advocating violence and harassment against Trump supporters???

    I don't blame you.. I wouldn't want to be seen supporting such advocation either..

  284. [284] 
    neilm wrote:

    Oh, and as I was looking thru the record, the prior comment to the one above really holds true right now:

    I saw this over on Political Orphans and liked it:

    The Five Stages of Trumpism:
    (1) It’s a total lie, never happened, is fake news.
    (2) It happened but it’s not a big deal.
    (3) OK, it might be a big deal but it’s not illegal.
    (4) OK, it’s illegal but Hillary and Obama something, something so it’s OK.
    (5) Get over it, Libturd, you’re just a sore loser!

  285. [285] 
    neilm wrote:

    Don't want to talk about about how your Democrat leaders are advocating violence and harassment against Trump supporters???

    Really. Is this one of your snowflake things where not denouncing everybody and everything you happen not to like is the equivalent of the crimes of Pol Pot?

  286. [286] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, just to get this straight:

    What part of You didn't denounce Waters is unclear to you???

  287. [287] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz denounced Waters.. Why didn't you???

  288. [288] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is this one of your snowflake things where not denouncing everybody and everything you happen not to like is the equivalent of the crimes of Pol Pot?

    As opposed to your snowflake thing where President Trump enforcing the immigration law is the equivalent of the crimes of Pol Pot...

  289. [289] 
    neilm wrote:

    Liz denounced Waters.. Why didn't you???

    I've no idea who Waters is or what he did. I'm wrapped up in the World Cup right now.

    What did Waters do (John Waters? Barbara Waters?) that was so egregious?

  290. [290] 
    neilm wrote:

    As opposed to your snowflake thing where President Trump enforcing the immigration law is the equivalent of the crimes of Pol Pot...

    No, we called it child abuse, which is what it was.

    (Note: is hyperbolic the right word for people who engage in hyperbole? It doesn't seem right, but it sounds right?)

  291. [291] 
    Michale wrote:

    What did Waters do (John Waters? Barbara Waters?) that was so egregious?

    Democrat Leader Maxine Waters ordered all Democrats to commit violence and harassment against all Trump supporters...

    Of course, you are perfectly fine with that..

    That's what's so sad about all this.. Democrats have become the Party of hate and intolerance..

  292. [292] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, we called it child abuse, which is what it was.

    Funny.. The EXACT same thing WASN'T "child abuse" when Obama did it...

    How come???

  293. [293] 
    neilm wrote:

    Democrat Leader Maxine Waters ordered all Democrats to commit violence and harassment against all Trump supporters...

    OK, so that is wrong. I'm sure you feel the same way about Trump urging his supporters to beat up on demonstrators at his rallies?

    Waiting.

  294. [294] 
    neilm wrote:

    Funny.. The EXACT same thing WASN'T "child abuse" when Obama did it...

    How come???

    Trump has a holding cell where he has his supporters bring stolen babies then he throws rocks at their heads. Do you condemn that?

  295. [295] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil[285],

    Heheh.

  296. [296] 
    neilm wrote:

    Maxine Waters doesn't seem to be much of a "Democratic Leader" - she doesn't appear on the official leadership lists: https://www.democrats.org/about/our-leaders

    This couldn't be another false equivalency by Michale again, could it? She can't be much of a leader if I've never heard of her before. I mean, this makes Ted Nugent a Vice President equivalent.

    Man, the desperation is sad on the right.

    I just saw how Trump responded - threatening to lynch her - any comments on that Michale?

  297. [297] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump has a holding cell where he has his supporters bring stolen babies then he throws rocks at their heads. Do you condemn that?

    Nice dodge..

    You won't condemn Obama for the EXACT same thing Trump did..

    How come??

    Because Obama has a -D after his name so it's acceptable..

  298. [298] 
    Michale wrote:

    She can't be much of a leader if I've never heard of her before.

    Willful ignorance??

    Color me shocked..

    Maxine Waters is a Democrat "rock star"...

  299. [299] 
    Paula wrote:

    Blotus has no business threatening ANY American citizen, or anyone in the world for that matter, for opposing him. When leaders use their official-offices to threaten citizens they are very much in dictatorship territory. It is a vile mis-use of power. SHS did the same, deliberately encouraging people to harass the restaurant. She should be fired - of course she won't be.

    Obama NEVER did anything like that to all the various waste-products who dissed him. No one in his administration did. It is one of the many beyond-the-pale abuses perped by the criminal-in-chief and his henchtraitors.

  300. [300] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula wrote:
    Blotus has no business threatening ANY American citizen, or anyone in the world for that matter, for opposing him.

    And you hysterical Democrats have NO BUSINESS threatening or attacking Trump supporters for supporting the freely, fairly and legally elected POTUS..

    But that doesn't stop ya'all for doing so...

    If you want tolerance.. Then BE tolerant..

    DUH....

  301. [301] 
    neilm wrote:

    Nice dodge..

    I'm just playing the same game you are.

    Annoying, right?

  302. [302] 
    neilm wrote:

    Maxine Waters is a Democrat "rock star"...

    Not round my neighborhood. She is even a Californian congresswoman and I don't remember anything about her.

    Still not condemnation from you for Trump threatening her?

  303. [303] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm just playing the same game you are.

    And again with the dodge...

    Face the facts, neil.. Obama did the EXACT same thing that you accuse Trump of doing and you were PERFECTLY ok with it then...

    So, that proves you don't really care about the children..

    Not surprising since Democrats have supported the brutal murder of over 40 million children since 1970....

  304. [304] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Nite belongs to my beautiful trophy wife.. :D

    See ya'all in the morning..

  305. [305] 
    neilm wrote:

    And no condemnations for Trump encouraging his supporters to beat up demonstrators? Offering to pay their legal bills?

    Seems you have a one-sided standard, who knew?

  306. [306] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (300)-
    How did I get involved in that comment? (And my middle initial is not "U") :D

  307. [307] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Paula (260)-
    Thank you for recommending that voters that don't want to vote Dem should stay home.

    I have been trying to get CW to address that very subject recently and am now not alone in entering that into the discussion- even though we are on opposite sides of the issue.

    Neilm is right that we need to prove we are a nation that can put on the big boy pants. Of course, succumbing to the fear tactics of the "there is no other choice" offered by the Democrats is not putting on the big boy pants any more than staying home instead of voting is.

    Putting on the big boy pants means standing up to the Big Money interests that control both parties.

    After all, there are more of us (Independents -over 40%) then there are Democrats or Republicans (both under 30%). Seems that is a reality that should be addressed a little more often than almost never on a reality based blog.

  308. [308] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    198

    You said "A baker refused to sell a cake... any cake... to a married couple..."

    Yes, we've covered all this before so this time I did not "speak" it onto the screen correctly. I use voice recognition, and I already corrected that above, but you're apparently missing the point in favor of the nitpicking. My point was that the baker refused to sell them any cake for their reception after they were already married.

    If you will read the Supreme Court's decision, you will see that the facts of the case are in dispute by the parties... a he said, he said, he said dispute.

    The couple said they asked for a wedding cake for their reception, and the baker refused to sell them a cake... any cake... that would be used in a wedding reception for a same-sex couple. That was my point. It was his practice to sell wedding cakes to heterosexual couples but not to other couples. It was the event he objected to... not the type of cake; he wouldn't sell any cake for a gay wedding or reception. He had also refused on prior occasions to sell a lesbian couple some cupcakes that would be used in their commitment celebration.

    From the Supreme Court's ruling:

    Phillips informed the couple that he does not “create” wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. Ibid. He explained, “I’ll make your birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same sex weddings.” Ibid. The couple left the shop without further discussion.

    They never discussed what type cake they wanted.

    The Civil Rights Division opened an investigation. The investigator found that “on multiple occasions,” Phillips “turned away potential customers on the basis of their sexual orientation, stating that he could not create a cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony or reception” because his religious beliefs prohibited it and because the potential customers “were doing something illegal” at that time. Id., at 76. The investigation found that Phillips had declined to sell custom wedding cakes to about six other same-sex couples on this basis. Id., at 72. The investigator also recounted that, according to affidavits submitted by Craig and Mullins, Phillips’ shop had refused to sell cupcakes to a lesbian couple for their commitment celebration because the shop “had a policy of not selling baked goods to same-sex couples for this type of event.”

    My point: The baker would not sell a cake... any cake... for a wedding or wedding reception unless the couple were heterosexuals. He said he would not sell any baked goods to same-sex couples for their weddings or receptions. The type of cake or baked good didn't matter to the baker; it was the event.

    My other point was that it is anyone's prerogative to agree that the baker should be allowed to refuse service to a couple while happily catering to other couples, but those who believe in the denial of service for one type of bigotry will get little sympathy from most people if they are denied service based on another type of bigotry. Bigotry takes all forms.

    But here in the REAL world where people AREN'T enslaved by Party ideology, they are called "inaccurate facts" also known sometimes as total bullshit..

    You might want to rephrase your "total bullshit" (your definition) above because here in the "REAL world," people ARE enslaved by Party ideology; I'm just not one of them because I don't belong to any Party and never will.

    Just a suggestion, but maybe you should try and live up to the standards that you want to impose on everyone else..

    What standards are those? I am not the one promulgating rules for everyone else and breaking them.

    I'm just sayin'..

    You're just projecting... again.

    Have a great day, Kick.. :D

    I always do. :D

  309. [309] 
    Kick wrote:

    CBS Poll: 51% of Americans Believe a Border Wall is a Good Idea

    That "border wall" "good idea" isn't exactly a new idea, and as I've actually had to explain to groups of misinformed MAGAts on too numerous occasions to count, approximately 600 miles of that "wall" they believe their Orange Worship invented have already been standing across the Southern border of the United States for almost a decade now. It's hilarious to see the looks on their faces when they find out.

    They also get fairly hysterical when I show them Ronald Reagan campaign souvenirs and learn for the first time that Trump stole the campaign slogan he claimed to have created.

    Apparently it is very easy to fool the woefully uninformed, and it'll take some time and effort but there will be a tipping point wherein the facts regarding the Pathological Liar are exposed. :)

  310. [310] 
    Kick wrote:

    CRS: Sorry, disagree on that "successsful businessman" thing.

    Michale: I am sure you do.. But it is a bona-fide fact, nonetheless.

    Even DEMOCRATS said so back when Trump had a -D after his name..

    Using your logic then, Michale, you must also concede that those with an -R after their names who criticize Trump's "business skills"... or anything else for that matter... are equally correct in their assessments now.

    Critical thinking skills is not everyone's strong suit, obviously. That utter nonsensical logic either works both ways or not at all.

  311. [311] 
    Paula wrote:

    [305] neilm: Seems you have a one-sided standard, who knew?

    Everyone here.

  312. [312] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You can't win a 'how-low-can-you-go' game with Donald Trump. Trump wins that game - seven days a week, 52 weeks a year.

    Sadly, true. That doesn't mean, however, that we have to sit still and take it. John Kerry would have benefited greatly if he'd have responded to the Swift Boat liars rather than try to stay above it all.

    They go low, and we go high - right over their heads.

    The question is, at what point do acts of protest become reasonable? The price of silence is steep. Kleptocracies, dictatorships and proto-fascist regimes are popping up like mushrooms on a dewy field. The left is (conveniently)divided and bickering nearly everywhere.

    Moreover, we've recently come to realize that our political systems have been under attack by authoritarian regimes for years, mostly by Russia (but also North Korea and China) with no response at all, as yet, from by anyone. This isn't some wingnut conspiracy theory, it's actually happening.

    So the first thing the left has to do is table whatever disputes have been occupying us for later, and then concentrate on electing non-Republicans to office. If we succeed at that, we can form a committee to count angels on pinheads.

    Am I supportive of Waters and DeNiro and Bee? Absolutely. Free speech is often about making people uncomfortable. Tyranny is safe. Resistance is messy, and edgy, and sometimes unpopular. I may not agree with Waters, and might 'go higher' than Bee or DeNiro, but I still think those sorts of voices have a right to say that they're that fed up with the way things have been going.

    So, sorry your ox got gored brother, welcome to our world! And, for the record, I haven't seen Republicans pull any punches since Gingrich was Speaker.

  313. [313] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    289

    I've no idea who Waters is or what he did. I'm wrapped up in the World Cup right now.

    What did Waters do (John Waters? Barbara Waters?) that was so egregious?

    Me neither, Neil, but I'd be willing to wager without even knowing that whatever he's accused of doing has been gaslighted, fabricated, overblown to the hilt by the righties. :)

    Now, what did he supposedly do that we're supposed to be denouncing. Did he refuse service to a MAGAt that has no problem with bigotry until it's done to them?

    Somebody spill the beanies. What did he do?

  314. [314] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    291

    Democrat Leader Maxine Waters ordered all Democrats to commit violence and harassment against all Trump supporters...

    Oh, it's not a he. Maxine Waters. What'd she say? Was it worse than:

    * Knock the crap out of him, would you? I promise you, I will pay your legal fees.

    * I'd like to punch him in the face.

    * Maybe he should have been roughed up.

    * Part of the problem is no one wants to hurt each other anymore.

    * I don't know if I'll do the fighting myself or if other people will.

    * The audience hit back. That's what we need a little bit more of.

    * If you do, I'll defend you in court, don't worry about it.

    ~ Donald Trump

  315. [315] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    305

    And no condemnations for Trump encouraging his supporters to beat up demonstrators? Offering to pay their legal bills?

    No, sir. Michale condoned it.

    Trump doesn't "promote violence"... He promotes a proper RESPONSE to violence..

    If someone gets in your face, you get in their face. If someone shoves you, you shove them... If someone rears back his fist to hit you, cold-cock him first...

    I see nothing wrong with that...

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/03/11/ftp382/#comment-71821

    He took Trump's side, condoned it and called it "fighting back."

    Figure it out, people. Michale is "all in" for fighting back and gaslighting and fabricating unless him and his ilk are on the other end of it. Then they whine and play victim, and their enablers rush to their aid, and the shit goes on and on ad nauseam.

    He's going to always condone violence from the right and Putin's Puppet/His Orange Worship while goading and gaslighting and whining like an aggrieved victim if anyone does it back in his general direction... all while rallying his enablers to take his side and admonish everyone else on his behalf.

    Seems you have a one-sided standard, who knew?

    Everybody here except Michale and those who enable his bullshit by not calling him on it and admonishing others on his behalf, of course.

  316. [316] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick,

    Voice recognition?? That's a new one..

    You can blame it on whatever you like.

    But the simple fact is your facts were in error..

    I know you can't admit that, but the FACT is your facts were bogus..

    Si fini...

  317. [317] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale (300)-
    How did I get involved in that comment? (And my middle initial is not "U") :D

    hehehehehe I feel sorry for the Don Ulysses Harris that always has to write his initials...

  318. [318] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    316

    Voice recognition?? That's a new one..

    No it's not remotely "a new one." Your "facts" are incorrect as they so frequently are. Your well-known and well-documented inability to retain information is on full display as is your usual preference for discussing posters instead of the issues in their comments.

    You can blame it on whatever you like.

    First Amendment rights. Use them while you got them; you don't even need anybody's permission nor are you required to post to suit the whining and/or trolling righties.

    But the simple fact is your facts were in error..

    I see you're still avoiding the point I made about the case in favor of nitpicking the comment.

    I know you can't admit that, but the FACT is your facts were bogus..

    If you knew half of what you thought you did, you'd be almost half way to literate. I have to hand it to you, though, Michael: You are the only poster who whines incessantly about me not posting facts while at the same time running off with your tail between your legs crying like an aggrieved victim when I do post the facts.

    Have a nice day. I always do. :D

  319. [319] 
    Michale wrote:

    like an aggrieved victim when I do post the facts.

    Except, as I have proven beyond any doubt, you did NOT post facts..

    You posted bullshit and lies...

  320. [320] 
    Kick wrote:

    Whatever you have to tell yourself to make it through your day, Michael. While you may successfully fool yourself, you're quite mistaken if you believe that you've fooled very many others.

    Your biggest "tell" was the multiple tucking and running along with your incessant and excessive whining and moaning. Quite transparent. The prattling on and on incessantly is quite the hallmark. HUMINT 101

    Additionally, somebody needs to explain to the Hysterical Right Wingery and their ilk that cameras take moving pictures as well as still ones, and the pictures don't lie.

    Have a nice day. I always do. :D

  321. [321] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is why I always have the upper hand with you, Kick..

    Even when you post bullshit and you are called on your bullshit, it's always someone else's fault.. :D

    You posted lies and bullshit..

    I called you on your lies and bullshit.. :D

    Have a lovely day, Kick. My day is actually AWESOME.. :D

  322. [322] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I posted facts. Liz read them. Any other takers?

  323. [323] 
    Michale wrote:

    I posted facts. Liz read them. Any other takers?

    In reference to... what exactly???

  324. [324] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    149

  325. [325] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ahh... Thanx...

    I only read relevant facts...

Comments for this article are closed.