ChrisWeigant.com

The Unexpected Trump

[ Posted Monday, January 30th, 2017 – 17:28 UTC ]

While Donald Trump certainly had a momentous first full week on the job, none of it really should have been all that surprising. Plenty of people were downright outraged by his first actions as president, but few should have been as shocked as they seemed to be. It's finally sinking in, to put this slightly differently, that there simply will never be a "pivot" to some different, more presidential Trump. The Trump you see is the Trump you get.

The pivot theory was espoused by many (trapped inside their Beltway-centric thinking) at various points over the past two years. Trump would surely pivot when he began leading in the polls. Or winning primaries. Or during debates. Or -- surely -- after he won the nomination and had to run a general election campaign. Since the election, this theory should have been buried beyond all resuscitation, but even then there were those who kept pathetically insisting that "as president-elect, he'll surely now pivot" or even "after he is sworn in, he'll have to act more presidential." Last week proved this is never going to happen, and those who are still hoping for it should now be looked at with loving pity, as you would an adult who insisted the Easter Bunny was real. Delusional, but largely harmless to others, in other words.

What worries me most about Trump (to get back on subject), though, is not what he's been doing last week, nor what he's got planned for this week. Because almost without exception Trump has only been doing what he said he'd do while campaigning. While I certainly don't condone much (if anything) that Trump is now doing, I've been expecting it ever since he got elected. His big signing ceremonies have been teed up for him for his first few weeks in office, so he can take care of the "low-hanging fruit" of his campaign promises. His executive orders and memoranda may not all ever take place (for instance: he can sign a piece of paper saying we're going to immediately start building a wall, but until Congress provides money it won't happen), but he has already scored big political points with his base just by signing affirmations of what he promised them he would do as president. If it doesn't come to pass at a later date, he can just conveniently blame Congress, the courts, the media, or "the swamp" of Washington.

Trump said he'd build a wall. He said he'd ban Muslims and institute "extreme vetting." He said he'd crack down on sanctuary cities. He said he'd restart the pipeline projects. He said he'd withdraw from the T.P.P. trade agreement. He said he'd dismantle Obamacare. On all of these items (and many others) Trump is merely doing exactly what he promised he'd do. He's trying to build up credibility with his base that his administration will be nothing but "winning" -- so endlessly that people would actually get tired of winning, as he told us all on the campaign trail.

So I haven't exactly been surprised at his initial actions. This week (and possibly next week as well), I expect we'll have another slew of executive order signings and proclamations at least giving lip service to fulfilling his campaign promises. This is all what might be called the expected Trump. At this point, it wouldn't even surprise me if he ordered Rosie O'Donnell sent to Gitmo to be waterboarded. Well, maybe that's a wee exaggeration, but what I'm saying is that the expected Trump isn't what really scares me. It's the unexpected Trump that does.

No matter how long his initial agenda rollout period lasts (two weeks? three?), at some point the "easy stuff" will all be done. Trump will have checked off all the boxes on his list, at least in his own mind. You can picture him kicking back and telling himself: "This presidenting thing is easy!" But at some point, external events are going to intrude on his complacency. That's when things could get truly frightening.

This could take a number of different forms, but the common thread would be something happening which Trump is completely unprepared to deal with. The most obvious might be titled "the swamp fights back" -- either the federal courts or Congress refuses to go along with some Trump policy. We're already seeing the beginnings of this on Trump's new Muslim ban, as federal judges issue stays on implementing the policy. When actual court rulings (instead of just stays) start to go against him, how will Trump react? Will he personally vilify the federal judges involved? Go on a Twitter rant? What happens if he starts losing key votes in Congress (which could only happen if a group of Republicans decided that Trump had gone too far)? Will Trump start attacking sitting Republican congressmen personally for their votes? The swamp of Washington is permanent (Washington, historically, was actually built on a swamp), and it has many ways of fighting back. Trump can't stand such challenges to his authority, so how he will react is a very large and open question.

The second form it could take is an unexpected domestic problem: some police shooting (either direction) in an inner city, a major economic downturn, continued massive anti-Trump demonstrations outside his window, some "sovereign citizen" showdown out West, whatever. Presidents can never see these things coming (for the most part) and are expected to react appropriately when they pop up. Will Trump's propensity for knee-jerk action lead him to do something wildly inappropriate (and wildly unpopular), when taking the time to get everyone's counsel would have prevented such a ham-fisted mistake? Without knowing the details of the unexpected event, it's impossible to predict exactly how Trump would react, but at this point it's pretty easy to predict that he might make what would (to most people) be a regrettable decision in haste, without anyone around to talk him down from flying off the handle. The potential for escalation is the most worrisome aspect, though, because Trump doesn't regret much that he does and he has a propensity to double down no matter how untenable his position may be. This could cause a spiral of more and more out-of-control decisions in quick order, in an attempt to salvage the initial bad call.

There's one danger that Trump will likely just brush off, if past is any prologue. If one of Trump's bright ideas backfires in spectacular fashion in some way (the possibilities are endless, really), Trump will not be taking any blame himself -- you can count on that. He'll explain the failure away as somebody else's failure, since he (by definition, in his own mind) cannot fail, at anything. So it'll be inept federal workers who botched the implementation of his wondrous plan, it'll be a cabinet secretary who has to fall on his or her sword, it'll be Democrats' (somehow) or even Barack Obama's fault, it'll be those dastardly liberal judges, it'll be any number of scapegoats who bear the blame rather than Donald Trump. So if reality ever proves his agenda items to be woefully misguided and counterproductive, it certainly won't be his fault -- that, at least, we can all count on him telling us.

However, the final danger is the most frightening (at least to me, personally). What happens when President Trump is faced with a dicey foreign policy crisis? This could be anything from getting in a war with (take your choice) Iran, China, North Korea, or Russia. Or it could just be the scenario that currently worries me the most. What would Trump do if one of his namesake properties worldwide were to be the target of a terrorist attack? This seems to be a pretty obvious danger, since Trump's name is emblazoned on golf courses, hotels, and any number of other projects worldwide. Some of these are going to start looking like pretty soft targets to terrorist groups, since a terrorist attack on some random hotel in a foreign capital might be a big propaganda victory for them -- but an attack on a Trump hotel would be orders of magnitude more impactful on the world stage.

If a Trump property is attacked, Donald Trump may take it very personally. Who wouldn't, with your name in big gold letters, out front? Will Trump react disproportionately if he feels himself personally under attack? It's hard to see any other reaction possible, really. He'll instantly claim that because Trump is president and the president represents the country, an attack on a Middle East golf course with his name on it is the equivalent of attacking a U.S. embassy. At this point, Trump could do just about anything in response. Which, as I said, is what worries me the most.

The expected Trump -- all the executive orders of the past week, his Supreme Court justice pick tomorrow, and all the upcoming rollout events of the next few weeks -- is bad enough. But we've had months and months to prepare ourselves for this part of his presidency, so little of it should have been all that surprising. What concerned me most about the Muslim ban rollout this weekend, though, is how it showed that Trump doesn't bother much with what members of his own administration think about things. The order was reportedly hastily implemented, without any time for feedback from important cabinet members or federal departments -- including those who were tasked with carrying the new policy out. Maybe it was just a rookie mistake, and maybe Trump will improve on this over time. But that sounds an awful lot like wishing for the pivot that's never going to take place. If the Trump administration can stumble this badly on a policy that they've been preparing for quite some time, then the frightening thing to contemplate is what they'll do when a surprise crisis hits and there are only hours to react. The unexpected Trump could be a lot more dangerous than the expected Trump, that's for sure.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

118 Comments on “The Unexpected Trump”

  1. [1] 
    neilm wrote:

    CW: There is the "no more red meat" danger for 45 (I refuse to promote his brand).

    At the moment he is "riling up them lib'rals" and the base is loving it, but soon he is going to run out of reasons he is any more useful than Pence and the liability side of the equation for Republicans is going to grow.

    With the red meat diet gone, only the die hards are going to be pulling the "Approve" lever in the polls. Trump will find some polls that please him, and will cast off the rest as fake news, but if he starts to be a headwind for Republicans in early 2018 when the midterms start to warm up, he could start being snubbed.

    He is also going to run into massive protests when he goes abroad. 1,000,000 people petitioned the U.K. government to block his cuppa with the Queen (I'll bet she hopes he stays away too). He is unlikely to be met with friendly crowds anywhere except maybe Israel and Russia, but that is a double edged sword if he is dumb enough (he is) to visit.

  2. [2] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Wouldn't it be something if everyone was so worried about a Trump property being attacked that they all stayed away and the businesses all went bankrupt.

  3. [3] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    If we avoid the Orange Queen's hotels and golf courses out of fear, the terrists have won.

  4. [4] 
    neilm wrote:

    In Scotland they are avoiding his golf courses because they think he is a misogynistic bully. His brand is a negative, not a positive.

  5. [5] 
    neilm wrote:

    Puppet in the Justice Department. This is pathetic.

  6. [6] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    If you want to really stick it to Trump, boycott Twitter and get as many celebrities to boycott as well. Twitter has always been on shaky financial ground as they have yet to get the monetization down to anything like Facebook or Google. If the celebrities leave, their followers will as well. Add to that a large boycott from the left, and Trump's bully pulpit might just go down in flames...

  7. [7] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    "People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history." - Dan Quayle

    Hard to believe that we're only a week into it.

    I can only imagine Chief Justice Roberts' rising sense of panic. Sessions' nomination just got several degrees of complexity tougher, as did 45's SCOTUS nomination.

  8. [8] 
    michale wrote:

    It's finally sinking in, to put this slightly differently, that there simply will never be a "pivot" to some different, more presidential Trump. The Trump you see is the Trump you get.

    Which is VERY presidential, as in President Trump is getting shit done..

    But yer right about one thing.. This faux-shock that is emanating from the Left Wingery is ridiculous..

    So far, Trump has done almost everything he promised he would do...

    What worries me most about Trump (to get back on subject), though, is not what he's been doing last week, nor what he's got planned for this week. Because almost without exception Trump has only been doing what he said he'd do while campaigning.

    Exactly!!!

    And THAT's why his approval rating rose so dramatically... From 36% to 59%... Amazing..

    Trump said he'd build a wall. He said he'd ban Muslims and institute "extreme vetting." He said he'd crack down on sanctuary cities. He said he'd restart the pipeline projects. He said he'd withdraw from the T.P.P. trade agreement. He said he'd dismantle Obamacare. On all of these items (and many others) Trump is merely doing exactly what he promised he'd do. He's trying to build up credibility with his base that his administration will be nothing but "winning" -- so endlessly that people would actually get tired of winning, as he told us all on the campaign trail.

    Yep, yep yep... And here I thought this was going to be an Anti-President Trump commentary!! :D

    At this point, it wouldn't even surprise me if he ordered Rosie O'Donnell sent to Gitmo to be waterboarded.

    Oh, don't tease me... :D

    We're already seeing the beginnings of this on Trump's new Muslim ban,

    It's not a muslim ban.. It's a ban based on a list created by FORMER President Obama... Now, if you want to state for the record that FORMER President Obama created a "muslim ban" list, then do so and I'll never correct the point again...

    as federal judges issue stays on implementing the policy.

    Nope.. For two reasons..

    1. The judges rulings were very targeted against a very small part of the policy...

    and

    2. The grunts on the front line are ignoring the judges rulings.. Just like the Obama administration did when the courts made rulings that FORMER President Obama did not like.. (JM, you still out there?? :D)

    Will Trump start attacking sitting Republican congressmen personally for their votes?

    Of course he will! Because he has!!

    And I, personally, love it!!! :D

    Will Trump's propensity for knee-jerk action lead him to do something wildly inappropriate (and wildly unpopular), when taking the time to get everyone's counsel would have prevented such a ham-fisted mistake?

    Or, President Trump can do exactly the right thing for the moment and his approval numbers will sky-rocket, cementing in stone his re-election..

    "We can't discard a possibility just because we don't happen to like it.."
    -Martin Sheen, THE FINAL COUNTDOWN

    If one of Trump's bright ideas backfires in spectacular fashion in some way (the possibilities are endless, really), Trump will not be taking any blame himself -- you can count on that.

    Oh, we're used to that.. We're just coming off of 8 years of disastrous Obama and Democrat rule and, as we have seen from the results of the election, Democrats NEVER take responsibility for ANYTHING...

    "OK, so you said you got this warning text that says 'You're gonna pay!!'... But wait a minute. He said you never pay for anything."
    -Arnold Schwarzenegger, TWO AND A HALF MEN

    :D

    What would Trump do if one of his namesake properties worldwide were to be the target of a terrorist attack? This seems to be a pretty obvious danger, since Trump's name is emblazoned on golf courses, hotels, and any number of other projects worldwide.

    What would you expect him to do???

    If Americans were killed, President Trump would react the same, whether or not his name is on the hotel or not..

    . But we've had months and months to prepare ourselves for this part of his presidency, so little of it should have been all that surprising.

    And yet, the hysteria from the Left Wingery is so palatable, you could cut it with a knife...

    What concerned me most about the Muslim ban

    Created from FORMER President Obama's muslim ban list..

    rollout this weekend, though, is how it showed that Trump doesn't bother much with what members of his own administration think about things.

    I know!! Isn't it great!!! :D

    If the Trump administration can stumble this badly on a policy that they've been preparing for quite some time,

    There hasn't been any "stumble"...

    The ONLY thing there has been is total bullshit hysteria from the Left Wingery...

    Great commentary, CW!! :D Very pro President Trump for the most part.. :D

  9. [9] 
    michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    If you want to really stick it to Trump, boycott Twitter and get as many celebrities to boycott as well.

    BBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    'Celebrities boycott twitter'..

    Now THAT's a good one!!! :D Thanks for the first morning laugh... :D

  10. [10] 
    michale wrote:

    TRUMP SACKS DEMOCRAT TEMP AG
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444418/why-sally-yates-was-fired-insubordination

    Yes!!!!

    GO PRESIDENT TRUMP!!!!! :D

  11. [11] 
    michale wrote:

    TRUMP SACKS DEMOCRAT TEMP AG
    http://tinyurl.com/j5tfwqp

    Yes!!!!

    GO PRESIDENT TRUMP!!!!! :D

  12. [12] 
    michale wrote:

    With the red meat diet gone, only the die hards are going to be pulling the "Approve" lever in the polls. Trump will find some polls that please him, and will cast off the rest as fake news, but if he starts to be a headwind for Republicans in early 2018 when the midterms start to warm up, he could start being snubbed.

    TRUMP IS TOAST prediction #884

    You keep doubling down on a bad bet... :D

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    Is The Left Over?

    Mainstream news journalists — by which I mean that collection of Democrats employed by large corporations to push the sort of big government that prevents small corporations from competing with them — have been breathlessly speculating that the recent "Women's Marches" around the country may be the beginning of a movement. The marches, funded in part by anti-American globalist billionaire George Soros, called forth such headlines as "Cathartic Moment or Enduring Movement" and "Women's March Activists... Seek To Build a Movement."

    No one knows the future, of course, but I can't help wondering if the marches, large as they were, were not rather the end of a movement, a fond farewell to an amalgam of obsolete leftist causes that either never had a reason to exist in the first place or have lost whatever reason they might once have had.

    If leftism is dead, the speech delivered by actress Ashley Judd in Washington, D.C., may well serve as its eulogy.

    Judd said her speech was written by a 19-year-old. That would make sense. Because, coming out of the mouth of a grown-up, it was just embarrassing.
    https://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2017/01/29/is-the-left-over/

    Stick a fork in the Left Wingery as a viable political movement..

    It's done...

    One only has to see the apocalyptic hysteria that exudes from the Left every time President Trump blows his nose to know that the Left Wingery, as a sane and effective political force is over...

    There is no there, there... The lights are on, but there's no one home...

    See ya, wouldn't want to be ya..

  14. [14] 
    michale wrote:

    Let's face reality people..

    The Left Wingery wants completely open borders...

    THAT is the only reason why the Left is opposing President Trump's legal and constitutional order...

    It's putting a final nail in the coffin of the Left Wingery's dream of open borders..

    "It's dead, Jim"

    And rightly so...

  15. [15] 
    michale wrote:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-30/elon-musk-s-trump-outreach-is-angering-the-resistance

    You see how the Left Whinery operates???

    You toe the ideological line or you are dead meat....

    Where is the love that is so touted by the Left???

    Non-existent.. For the Left, hate is the ONLY response they know...

  16. [16] 
    michale wrote:

    If the celebrities leave, their followers will as well. Add to that a large boycott from the left, and Trump's bully pulpit might just go down in flames...

    So, let me see if I understand you..

    You want to put thousands of Americans out of work, JUST to attack President Trump???

    And the Left wonders why the American people told Democrats to get the frak out... :^/

    Because, for the Left, NOTHING is more important than Party...

    Not country, not fellow citizens... NOTHING trumps Party Loyalty...

    The facts that prove this are overwhelming...

  17. [17] 
    michale wrote:

    Does anyone remember all the hysterical Left Wingery protests when FORMER President Obama banned Iraqis from the United States for six months???

    Neither do I..... :^/

  18. [18] 
    michale wrote:

    The Democrat Patient

    Ignoring the symptoms, misdiagnosing the malady, skipping the treatment If progressives were to become empiricists, they would look at the symptoms of the last election and come up with disinterested diagnoses, therapies, and prognoses.

    Although their hard-left candidate won the popular vote, even that benchmark was somewhat deceiving — given the outlier role of California and the overwhelming odds in their favor. The Republicans ran a candidate who caused a veritable civil war in their ranks and who was condemned by many of the flagship conservative media outlets.

    Trump essentially ran against a united Democratic party, the Republican establishment, the mainstream media (both liberal and conservative) — and won. He was outspent. He was out-organized. He was outpolled and demonized daily as much by Republicans as Democrats.

    Yet he not only destroyed three political dynasties (the Clintons, Bushes, and Obamas) but also has seemingly rendered the Obama election matrix nontransferable to anyone other than Obama himself.
    http://tinyurl.com/h2mnr4o

    The Democrat Party is simply trying the same thing over and over again, hoping for a different result..

    THIS time, they are throwing in Republican obstructionism and confirming the transfer of the PARTY OF NO from Republican to Democrat hands..

    2018 and 2020 is going to be a Democrat massacre that will make 2014 and 2016 look like a fun day at the park by comparison...

  19. [19] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Re [17}: Further down in that article, the writer says, "On key issues, [Democratic Leaders] represent a minority opinion, one confined to the entertainment industry, academia, race/class/gender elite activists, and the wealthy scions of Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and Wall Street."

    In fact, as the protests we've seen this last week amply demonstrate, support for the Democratic agenda is far broader and deeper than this National Review writer is willing to admit. The millions to took to the street the day after the inauguration in hand-made knit caps were in many ways the antithesis of the 'elites' that this writer would have us believe comprise the Democratic base.

    And he says this as Trump fills his cabinet with billionaire dilettantes. Amazing.

    My favorite part of this article was when he dismisses California as an "outlier", and suggests that attempts to 'get out the vote' in the black community would backfire:

    "The very efforts to ensure that 95 percent of blacks will vote for other Democratic nominees might only polarize other groups in an increasingly multiracial and multiethnic America. Trump, of course, knows all this and will make the necessary adjustments."

    Whoop. He apparently didn't read CW's article. The odds that Trump will make any 'adjustments' to appeal to "an increasingly multiracial and multiethnic America" are slim to none, and diminishing quickly.

    I have news for Mr Hanson: the election of Trump was the "Black Swan event", and the multiethnic Democratic party is alive and well and planning to wrest the government back from the Republicans, who have now demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that they can't be trusted with power.

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The unexpected Trump could be a lot more dangerous than the expected Trump, that's for sure.

    Bet the farm on it.

  21. [21] 
    michale wrote:

    My favorite part of this article was when he dismisses California as an "outlier", and suggests that attempts to 'get out the vote' in the black community would backfire:

    Which in fact, it was and which in fact, it did.. :D

    Whoop. He apparently didn't read CW's article. The odds that Trump will make any 'adjustments' to appeal to "an increasingly multiracial and multiethnic America" are slim to none, and diminishing quickly.

    And your evidence of that is....????

    {{cchhiirrrrpppp}} {cchhiirrrrppp}}

    Yea.. That's what I thought..

    I have news for Mr Hanson: the election of Trump was the "Black Swan event", and the multiethnic Democratic party is alive and well and planning to wrest the government back from the Republicans, who have now demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that they can't be trusted with power.

    TRUMP IS TOAST prediction #932

    You keep believing that... That will make the Democrat Party a permenant minority Party.. :D

  22. [22] 
    michale wrote:

    and the multiethnic Democratic party is alive and well

    How's that STOPPING ALL PRESIDENT TRUMP'S NOMINEES plan werkin out for ya'all?? :D

    Hell, even SENATOR FAUXCHOHANTAS is singing the praises of Trump's nominees!!! :D

    It doesn't get any better than that.. :D

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    How is what happened at a mosque in Quebec related to Trump's Muslim travel ban and why should PM Trudeau regret his stance on welcoming Syrian refugees and all those who flee persecution, conflict and war?

  24. [24] 
    michale wrote:

    The unexpected Trump could be a lot more dangerous than the expected Trump, that's for sure.

    Bet the farm on it.

    And the fact that ya'all have been WRONG on EVERY point to date is meaningless???

    Let's face reality.. Ya'all's claims amount to nothing more than wishful thinking..

    Ya'all figure if you wish hard enough, it will come true...

    If yer wishing didn't stop President Trump from becoming a reality, what makes ya'all think that ANY of ya'all's wishes will be granted??

  25. [25] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    How's that STOPPING ALL PRESIDENT TRUMP'S NOMINEES plan werkin out for ya'all?? :D

    Well, let's see: despite minorities in both houses of Congress, we've managed to delay votes on Tillerson, Sessions, DeVos, and a few others.

    Sessions and Tillerson in particular will probably be called back for more questioning in the wake of Trump's ban on Muslims from countries without Trump properties..

    Senate democrats caved initially (a perennial problem), but their spines are stiffening some following the mass protests, particularly in the wake of the Muslim Ban. Stay tuned...

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, that's a pretty safe bet, Michale.

  27. [27] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    If yer wishing didn't stop President Trump from becoming a reality, what makes ya'all think that ANY of ya'all's wishes will be granted?

    If wishing were all that we were doing, you'd have a point, but that isn't what's happening. 45 is doing something that Hillary couldn't: galvanizing the Democratic base. You can expect to face a fiercer, more determined Democratic party when we face off at the polls again, my friend.

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    How is what happened at a mosque in Quebec related to Trump's Muslim travel ban

    It shows the danger of what CAN happen with unfettered and un-vetted refugees from terrorist dominated countries...

    why should PM Trudeau regret his stance on welcoming Syrian refugees and all those who flee persecution, conflict and war?

    Because it's glaringly obvious that terrorist groups are infiltrating terrorists amongst the refugees...

    That should concern EVERY leader who cares more about their people than they do about being politically correct...

  29. [29] 
    michale wrote:

    If wishing were all that we were doing, you'd have a point, but that isn't what's happening.

    It's EXACTLY what is happening and you don't have ANY facts to dispute that..

    45 is doing something that Hillary couldn't: galvanizing the Democratic base.

    Which says a LOT for Hillary Clinton and the Party that chose her...

    Willing to concede that Hillary was a HUGE mistake yet?? :D

    You can expect to face a fiercer, more determined Democratic party when we face off at the polls again, my friend.

    Yea, that's what ya'all said when you said you would oppose President Trump's nominees..

    I'll ask again.. Howz that workin out for ya'all?? :D

  30. [30] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Oh, that's a pretty safe bet, Michale.

    I know you believe that..

    But recent history would seem to prove otherwise..

    I'm just sayin'.... :D

  31. [31] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It shows the danger of what CAN happen with unfettered and un-vetted refugees from terrorist dominated countries...

    Wrong answer. It shows no such thing.

  32. [32] 
    michale wrote:

    Wrong answer. It shows no such thing.

    Yes it does.. Just like Nice and Brussels and Charlie Hedbo and Orlando and San Bernardino and all the other terrorist attacks...

    No one is claiming that ALL refugees are terrorists..

    But if there is just one single terrorist in the fold, then the price of letting refugees in is simply to great...

  33. [33] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It's EXACTLY what is happening and you don't have ANY facts to dispute that..

    So the Republicans plan to just ignore all of the folks marching in the streets. Let's see how that works out for y'all.

  34. [34] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I don't have time to explain to you what happened in Quebec ... it's a stressful day today for me and I have a lot of reading to catch up with. :)

  35. [35] 
    neilm wrote:

    As usual, right wing terrorism gets a free pass - no investigations into similar organizations, no blaming the whole of Christianity for the actions of one person. No pointing out inflammatory rhetoric from irresponsible clowns in the White House, etc.

    Hell, Canada isn't even blocking 5-year-olds from predominantly Christian countries with a history of terrorism - like Russia and the U.S.A.

  36. [36] 
    neilm wrote:

    I don't have time to explain to you what happened in Quebec ... it's a stressful day today for me and I have a lot of reading to catch up with. :)

    Don't bother trying - he is still on a high because one black swan event allowed his bigot-in-chief to thread a major popular vote loss and create a EV victory. Even though the Republicans lost ground in the popular vote, the Senate and the House, the Right Wing things they won a 'landslide'. It is as much as landslide as 160,000 people at last week's inauguration is the "biggest ever. Period.".

    Sad.

  37. [37] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm willing to stipulate a landslide Republican win and the biggest and bestest inauguration ever.

    In other words, we need to move on from that with a laser beam focus on the here and now and what the resistance needs to do to move forward.

  38. [38] 
    michale wrote:

    Be Careful What You Wish For (especially if it is Hitler)

    As a trained persuader, I’m seeing a dangerous situation forming that I assume is invisible to most of you. The setup is that during the presidential campaign Trump’s critics accused him of being Hitler(ish) and they were sure other citizens would see it too, thus preventing this alleged monster from taking office.

    They were wrong. The alleged monster took office.

    Now you have literally millions of citizens in the United States who were either right about Trump being the next Hitler, and we will see that behavior emerge from him soon, or they are complete morons. That’s a trigger for cognitive dissonance. The science says these frightened folks will start interpreting all they see as Hitler behavior no matter how ridiculous it might seem to the objective observer. And sure enough, we are seeing that.

    To be fair, Trump made it easy this week with his temporary immigration ban. If you assume Trump is Hitler, that fits with your hypothesis. But of course it also fits the hypothesis that he’s just doing his job. We’re all seeing what we expect to see.

    But lately I get the feeling that Trump’s critics have evolved from expecting Trump to be Hitler to preferring it. Obviously they don’t prefer it in a conscious way. But the alternative to Trump becoming Hitler is that they have to live out the rest of their lives as confirmed morons. No one wants to be a confirmed moron. And certainly not after announcing their Trump opinions in public and demonstrating in the streets. It would be a total embarrassment for the anti-Trumpers to learn that Trump is just trying to do a good job for America. It’s a threat to their egos. A big one.
    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156540315831/be-careful-what-you-wish-for-especially-if-it-is

    Emphasis mine..

    You see the dangerous trap ya'all are falling into...

    The Left Wingery *WANT* President Trump to do unspeakable and horrible things so you can stand and proclaim, SEE!!! WE WERE RIGHT!!! TRUMP IS DOING UNSPEAKABLE AND HORRIBLE THINGS!!!

    Ya'all have to admit. That's a pretty sad and pathetic thing to want...

    We saw a little bit of that with Don and Bashi hoping Trump holdings and Twitter go belly up... Thousands, TENS of thousands of Americans out of work and THAT is viewed as a *GOOD* thing!???

    W.T.F. people!??

    But THAT is what happens when hysterical Party fanatics put Party before country...

    They become the very monsters that they claim the other side is..

    "One must guard, when fighting monsters, not to BECOME the monster."
    -Nietzsche

    The entirety of the Left Wingery are well on their way to becoming the monsters that they claim the Right is.. Many on the Left have completed that journey...

  39. [39] 
    michale wrote:

    I don't have time to explain to you what happened in Quebec ... it's a stressful day today for me and I have a lot of reading to catch up with. :)

    TRANSLATION: I know you are right but don't have the facts to 'prove' you wrong, so I am not even going to bother to try.. :D

    's OK... Winning all the time is getting boring.. :D

  40. [40] 
    michale wrote:

    As usual, right wing terrorism gets a free pass - no investigations into similar organizations, no blaming the whole of Christianity for the actions of one person. No pointing out inflammatory rhetoric from irresponsible clowns in the White House, etc.

    For example???

  41. [41] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    No one is claiming that ALL refugees are terrorists..But if there is just one single terrorist in the fold, then the price of letting refugees in is simply too great...

    Sounds like an excuse to treat all refugees AS terrorists. Congratulations, you've just alienated the few middle easterners most likely to join the fight against extremism.

    But then again, you're not fighting extremism, are you? You're embracing it, certainly in this country, and in Europe as well. What the Republicans, and definitely those around Trump, seem to want is an all-out clash of civilizations, just as the jihadists do.

    Nationalism, fascism, and religious extremism are all in that basket of deplorable ideologies that only lead to war and mass death. It's a shame that so many have forgotten the lessons of the past.

  42. [42] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You know I don't play that game, Michale.

  43. [43] 
    michale wrote:

    I don't have time to explain to you what happened in Quebec ... it's a stressful day today for me and I have a lot of reading to catch up with. :)

    To be clear, I am not saying that the Quebec City terrorist attack was caused by the influx of refugees..

    I simply point out, using facts and logic, that such attacks are MORE likely when there is a huge influx of un-vetted refugees as opposed to when there is NO huge influx of un-vetted refugees..

    If you have ANY facts or logic to dispute this, by all means..

    Until such time as that, it stands as factual...

  44. [44] 
    michale wrote:

    Sounds like an excuse to treat all refugees AS terrorists.

    Until such time as there is cause NOT to believe it, yer damn skippy..

    It's how good leaders keep their citizens safe...

    Congratulations, you've just alienated the few middle easterners most likely to join the fight against extremism.

    No.. because if they are likely to join the fight, then they understand the concept of security such as that...

    Nationalism, fascism, and religious extremism are all in that basket of deplorable ideologies that only lead to war and mass death. It's a shame that so many have forgotten the lessons of the past.

    Peace at any cost, eh???

    You DO realize that "peace at any cost" is nothing more than a euphemism for slavery right??

    It's EXACTLY that "Peace At Any Cost" attitude that caused patriotic Americans to overwhelmingly tell the Democrat Party to take a hike....

    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded sense of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth war is much worse. The man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing more important than his own personal safety is a miserable creature who will never be free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

    That's today's Democrat Party...

    It's why their ideology has been TOTALLY and COMPLETELY rejected by patriotic Americans...

  45. [45] 
    michale wrote:

    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet."
    Secretary Of Defense General James 'MadDog' Mattis

    Yep....

  46. [46] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    But of course it also fits the hypothesis that he’s just doing his job. We’re all seeing what we expect to see.

    Just as CW has written in his column above. The right's insistence that all this is normal presidential behavior is laughable at best, hopelessly and dangerously naïve at worst.

    And they can't seem to imagine what life would be like if the shoe were on the other foot: what if Obama had come into office and immediately nationalized the banks and the healthcare system, as many, including Sanders, were urging him to do in the wake of the 2008 financial disaster? Would Republicans be saying, "well, that's what we expected him to do anyway"? Sure they would.

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    To be clear, I am not saying that the Quebec City terrorist attack was caused by the influx of refugees..

    Then you would agree that the attack in Quebec should not be conflated with your views on refugees.

    And, refugees who enter Canada or the US are the most vetted group of individuals on the planet, bar none. So, stop with the "unvetted" nonsense.

  48. [48] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Peace at any cost, eh?

    No, the alternative to war is not 'peace at any cost'. You've apparently been asleep for the last seventy years or so, while dozens of alternatives to war have been developed. Though the right hates it, internationalism, and international cooperation, have made the world a safer place. Treaty organizations like NATO and the UN have actually rendered whole swathes of the world safer for humanity.

    But that apparently doesn't fit into the plans of the Trump-Putin Axis, wherein the chaos sown by their aggressive policies make the world safe, not for humanity, but for oligarchs and opportunists.

  49. [49] 
    michale wrote:

    Just as CW has written in his column above. The right's insistence that all this is normal presidential behavior is laughable at best, hopelessly and dangerously naïve at worst.

    The Left's insistence that this is something abhorrent and unprecedented is completely and utterly refuted by FACTS...

    Ya'all don't HAVE any facts.. Ya'all just have hysterical fanaticism..

    And they can't seem to imagine what life would be like if the shoe were on the other foot: what if Obama had come into office and immediately nationalized the banks and the healthcare system, as many, including Sanders, were urging him to do in the wake of the 2008 financial disaster? Would Republicans be saying, "well, that's what we expected him to do anyway"? Sure they would.

    And if President Trump had done anything like that, you would have a point..

    But he hasn't, so you don;t...

    No, the alternative to war is not 'peace at any cost'.

    YOUR alternative to war is 'peace at any cost'...

    THAT's your problem...

    You and neil are saying 'don't fight back'.. Appease the terrorists..

    Yet, where was your newfound pacifism when yer Messiah, Odumbo was bombing the shit out of countries and killing tens of thousands of innocent people??

    Ya'all SAID NOTHING...

    So, once again, you have NO MORAL FOUNDATION here whatsoever...

  50. [50] 
    michale wrote:

    Then you would agree that the attack in Quebec should not be conflated with your views on refugees.

    I am saying that it is a warning sign of what COULD happen with the influx of thousands and thousands of unfettered and un-vetted refugees...

    And, refugees who enter Canada or the US are the most vetted group of individuals on the planet, bar none. So, stop with the "unvetted" nonsense.

    Not according to Obama officials.. They have stated for the record that the vetting process under Obama was haphazard, incomplete and virtually useless...

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I am saying that it is a warning sign of what COULD happen with the influx of thousands and thousands of unfettered and un-vetted refugees...

    How can it be a warning sign if it has NOTHING to do what you are warning about? Do you know who the Quebec shooter is?

    Speaking of warnings, stay tuned for a very important link ...

  52. [52] 
    michale wrote:

    You and neil are saying 'don't fight back'.. Appease the terrorists..

    Yet, where was your newfound pacifism when yer Messiah, Odumbo was bombing the shit out of countries and killing tens of thousands of innocent people??

    Ya'all SAID NOTHING...

    Huh?? Where were ya'all then??

    Odumbo was launching daily drone strikes, killing TENS of THOUSANDS of innocent people in his quest to attack terrorists..

    WHY didn't ya'all open yer mouths THEN and oppose fighting back!??

    I'll tell you why..

    Because Odumbo has a '-D' after his name and that is the ***ONLY*** thing that matters here..

    You don't care about the refugees, you don't care about pacifism, you don't care about ANYTHING except that all powerful '-D'...

    So please.. Spare me the crocodile tears about the poor refugees and the poor innocents that are going to be "crushed under President Trump's boot"...

    Ya'all had your chance to stand up for them and you chose Party uber alles..

    Ya'all made your choice.. Now you have to live with it...

    None of ya'all have a moral leg to stand on here..

    It's THAT simple...

  53. [53] 
    michale wrote:

    How can it be a warning sign if it has NOTHING to do what you are warning about? Do you know who the Quebec shooter is?

    It's islamic terrorism..

    As such, it has EVERYTHING to do with what I am warning about...

    Speaking of warnings, stay tuned for a very important link ...

    I really don't like to read links.. :D heh

  54. [54] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    What do you know of David Frum? Do you think of him as a reliable source?

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's islamic terrorism..As such, it has EVERYTHING to do with what I am warning about...

    What happened in Quebec has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism ... at least, not in the way you are claiming. Do you know who the shooter at the Quebec mosque is?

  56. [56] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You and neil are saying 'don't fight back'.. Appease the terrorists..

    Complete and utter nonsense. That is not what either of us are saying. We've had a perfectly sane and workable anti-terrorism policy that doesn't impinge on anyone's rights, and has managed to prevent all but a few lone-wolf attacks (none of which, I'll needlessly add, were by refugees from countries on Trump's Banned Muslims list).

    There's a distinct difference between appeasing terrorists, and inciting terrorists, which is what Trump seems determined to do, perhaps in the hope that, when the expected backlash comes, he can play the role of Great Savior. Great for him, awful for the rest of us.

  57. [57] 
    michale wrote:

    We've had a perfectly sane and workable anti-terrorism policy that doesn't impinge on anyone's rights,

    Except the tens of thousands of innocents that Odumbo killed..

    But they don't count because it was a Democrat who killed them...

    DO you HEAR yourself???

    There's a distinct difference between appeasing terrorists, and inciting terrorists, which is what Trump seems determined to do,

    Of course, you didn't say this when Odumbo was banning people from Iraq..

    Why is that??

    Oh that's right.. Because Odumbo has a -D after his name, so it's perfectly acceptable...

    Like I said.. Do you even HEAR yerself??

  58. [58] 
    michale wrote:

    What happened in Quebec has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism ... at least, not in the way you are claiming.

    Facts???

  59. [59] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Odumbo was launching daily drone strikes, killing TENS of THOUSANDS of innocent people in his quest to attack terrorists..

    Um, make that hundreds.

    And by the way, where was the GOP cheering section while Obama was picking off terrorists leaders? Oh, that's right, that doesn't count because he has a "D" after his name...

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Facts???

    Look them up yourself.

    And, then report back here.

  61. [61] 
    michale wrote:

    Um, make that hundreds.

    Your "proof" is a Left Wingery rag website???

    Which basically is parroting the Odumbo's Party line..

    But, hay.. Let's go with your numbers...

    How many innocent civilians has President Trump killed??

    NONE....

    Face the facts.. You have no moral leg to stand on..

    NONE... ZERO... ZILCH... NADA....

    And by the way, where was the GOP cheering section while Obama was picking off terrorists leaders? Oh, that's right, that doesn't count because he has a "D" after his name...

    If we were talking about the GOP, you would have a point..

    But we're not, so you don't..

    We're talking about YOUR blatant hypocrisy allowing Odumbo to kill "hundreds" of innocent civilians and YOU not saying A SINGLE DAMN THING ABOUT IT...

    Ya'all's credibility is completely shot on this issue..

    COMPLETELY... UTTERLY.... UNEQUIVOCALLY...

    The LEAST you could do is have the decency to admit yer hypocrisy...

    But, of course, no one here will EVER do that... :^/

  62. [62] 
    michale wrote:

    Look them up yourself.

    And, then report back here.

    I have... And did... It's not my job to make your arguments for you...

    If you have anything to counter, be my guest..

    Until such time, my position stands..

  63. [63] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Of course, you didn't say this when Odumbo was banning people from Iraq..

    Different circumstances, different goals, different methods, different reaction. Different.

    The result, by the way, was a strengthening of the 'vetting' process, which made us safer, and allowed the temporary ban of Iraqi refugees to be lifted. To this date, despite numerous warnings to the contrary by GOP lawmakers, no Iraqi refugee has committed a terrorist act in the US. Digest that.

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    THE SHOOTING AT A QUEBEC MOSQUE WAS NOT AN ACT OF ISLAMIC TERRORISM!

    THAT IS A FACT.

    DEAL WITH IT!

    And, leave me alone ...

  65. [65] 
    michale wrote:

    Organizations such as the Long War Journal, the New America Foundation, and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimate that at least 200 and as many as 1,000 civilians have been killed by American drone strikes in nations where the U.S. is not at war since Obama took office.
    https://theintercept.com/2016/07/01/obama-administration-finally-releases-its-dubious-drone-death-toll/

    The exact number is irrelevant, as you well know..

    The fact is NONE of you said ANYTHING then about appeasing terrorists and giving in to terrorist demands and not fighting back..

    If "fighting back" against terrorists simply makes MORE terrorists, then HOW MANY terrorists has YOUR messiah, Odumbo, created???

    You see how blatant your hypocrisy is???

    To you, it's only when a REPUBLICAN President fights back that it creates new terrorists..

    A President with a '-D' after his name can fight back and kill hundreds/thousands/tens of thousands innocent people and won't create a SINGLE terrorist!!!

    Do you SMELL the utter bullshit you are shoveling???

  66. [66] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    We're talking about YOUR blatant hypocrisy allowing Odumbo to kill "hundreds" of innocent civilians and YOU not saying A SINGLE DAMN THING ABOUT IT...

    Give me a break. They made a whole MOVIE about it. The professional left can't stop talking about it: ask Al if the left had nothing to say about drone strikes.

    Trump has only been in office for a few days. Give him a minute, and, sadly, he'll have plenty of blood on his hands.

  67. [67] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The exact number is irrelevant, as you well know..

    I'll accept that as informed capitulation.

    The fact is NONE of you said ANYTHING then about appeasing terrorists and giving in to terrorist demands and not fighting back..

    I'm sure you meant something else entirely and just mixed up your syntax. I can't make heads or tails of it.

    If "fighting back" against terrorists simply makes MORE terrorists, then HOW MANY terrorists has YOUR messiah, Odumbo, created?

    Good question, one that I'm sure was much discussed in the White House prior to action.

    The difference is that Obama's actions were carefully considered, and discussed in the highest offices of the Defense and State departments before being implemented. Trump's action, by comparison, completely blind-sided his own people; it still seems less of a policy decision and more like an overnight impulse-control problem.

  68. [68] 
    neilm wrote:

    There's a distinct difference between appeasing terrorists, and inciting terrorists, which is what 45 seems determined to do, perhaps in the hope that, when the expected backlash comes, he can play the role of Great Savior. Great for him, awful for the rest of us.

    Yes - and 45 and his family are protected and not in the line of fire.

    If the boys were in the military and on the front line I'd give the coward some credit - but it isn't him or his: it is us; and my friends' kid who is just graduated from West Point; and my sons' friends in the Marines and the Army.

    ISIS are playing 45 like a puppet on a string - he is delivering the U.S. into their hands by showing them that the U.S. will go completely overboard. They can trigger the war of civilizations they want if they can bloody his nose - a Paris style attack in Dallas, a car bomb at his hotels, etc.

    ISIS have been very clear from the start what they want - they want a battle predicted in their perverted interpretation of their holy books that will usher in the second coming of their messiah who will sweep away their enemies "Raiders of the Lost Ark" style. You can read about it here:

    https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/76735/isis-fighting-end-days-battle-dabiq-bring-muslim-messiah/#i8hwUM1C2hS9PuqV.97

    45 is just the fool they needed - Obama was too smart to play their rules.

  69. [69] 
    michale wrote:

    Give me a break. They made a whole MOVIE about it. The professional left can't stop talking about it: ask Al if the left had nothing to say about drone strikes.

    Did YOU say anything against it???

    No, you did not.. So, you don't have a leg to stand on..

    Trump has only been in office for a few days. Give him a minute, and, sadly, he'll have plenty of blood on his hands.

    But he hasn't...

    Odumbo has killed HUNDREDS/THOUSANDS/TENS OF THOUSANDS more innocent civilians that President Trump has..

    Do you condemn Odumbo??

    No, you don't..

    And Why??? Because Odumbo has a '-D' after his name..

    So, please.. Spare me yer tears about creating terrorists..

    By YOUR standards, Odumbo has created MILLIONS of more terrorists than President Trump has...

    These are the facts.... At least according to you...

  70. [70] 
    michale wrote:

    Yes - and 45 and his family are protected and not in the line of fire.

    Just as Odumbo and HIS family was..

    But, you never said anything THEN, did you??

    Of course not.. Because Odumbo has a -D after his name...

  71. [71] 
    michale wrote:

    Good question, one that I'm sure was much discussed in the White House prior to action.

    And one that was IGNORED amongst ya'all...

    So, as I said, you have NO MORAL leg to stand on...

  72. [72] 
    neilm wrote:

    Looks like Bannon will have to get Senate confirmation to be on the NSC. Amusingly it was an obscure rule that hadn't been dusted off for decades because no President had put an unqualified clown on the NSC before.

    Bannon has few friends, but a LOT of enemies in the Senate, on both sides. The 'R's will probably roll over but we can expect some fun during the hearings.

  73. [73] 
    neilm wrote:

    But, you never said anything THEN, did you??

    All you have is "boo hoo, Obama did it too". Most of the time this is only in your own head. But since you object to Obama, why aren't you objecting to 45?

  74. [74] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Did YOU say anything against it??? No, you did not.. So, you don't have a leg to stand on..

    I don't need to stand on that leg. I was all in favor of using ordnance to do what Americans would have otherwise certainly been killed trying to do. My father was an artillery officer after all, and understood the value of striking at the enemy from a distance.

    Or as CIA director John Brennan put it:

    “[He and Obama] have similar views. One of them is that sometimes you have to take a life to save even more lives. We have a similar view of just-war theory. The president requires near-certainty of no collateral damage. But if he believes it is necessary to act, he doesn’t hesitate.”

    That's what a real decisive leader does: act when necessary.

    What a real leader doesn't do is act against the country's interests unnecessarily, as is the case in the present instance.

  75. [75] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Neilm [71]: it will be interesting indeed to see Bannon in the hotseat. I've given up hoping that some reasonable republicans will emerge to actually challenge this president. But I'd bet that all of the Democrats will be there with extensive lists of questions for 'Trump's Brain'.

  76. [76] 
    michale wrote:

    THE SHOOTING AT A QUEBEC MOSQUE WAS NOT AN ACT OF ISLAMIC TERRORISM!

    THAT IS A FACT.

    Yes, you are correct Liz.. I did not have the updated information so I was wrong..

    About Quebec City being an islamic terrorist attack...

    But the overall point is still valid and has tons of supporting evidence in the form of Berlin, Orlando, San Bernardino, Nice, Charlie Hedbo, and Brussels...

    But I was in error about Quebec City..

    Balthasar, you see?? THAT's how it's done.. When the facts don't support your claim, you concede the point and admit you were wrong..

    But, it's becoming readily apparent that there are very few here who can do the same... Admit when they are wrong...

  77. [77] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Balthasar, you see?? THAT's how it's done.. When the facts don't support your claim, you concede the point and admit you were wrong..

    Okay. When the facts don't support my claims (whatever), I will be happy to concede the point.

    Until then, I'll just keep pointing out instances where the facts don't support your claims.

    That's fair.

  78. [78] 
    michale wrote:

    All you have is "boo hoo, Obama did it too". Most of the time this is only in your own head. But since you object to Obama, why aren't you objecting to 45?

    As usual, you try and mis-direct to avoid responsibility..

    I never objected to Odumbo's actions.. I whole-heartedly supported the drone strikes..

    The point has ALWAYS been and ALWAYS will be ya'all hypocrisy in ONLY holding those with a '-R' after their names accountable...

  79. [79] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    I don't need to stand on that leg. I was all in favor of using ordnance to do what Americans would have otherwise certainly been killed trying to do.

    OK.. So you fully support Odumbo killing all those hundreds/thousands/tens of thousands of innocent people???

    OK, I am glad I got that on record...

    What a real leader doesn't do is act against the country's interests unnecessarily, as is the case in the present instance.

    So, Odumbo creating millions and millions of fresh new terrorists IS "in the country's best interests", but President Trump pausing immigration to make sure we have FULL vetting processes is AGAINST the country's best interest..

    I have to say.. That's pretty... whacked thinking there, buddy... :D

  80. [80] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Neilm [71]: it will be interesting indeed to see Bannon in the hotseat.

    You DO realize that Bannon doesn't have to be confirmed, right???

    So, exactly what "hot seat" are you referring to???

  81. [81] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So, Odumbo creating millions and millions of fresh new terrorists IS "in the country's best interests", but President Trump pausing immigration to make sure we have FULL vetting processes is AGAINST the country's best interest.

    Try: President Trump capriciously upending established immigration protocols to appease his rabid racist base just to score cheap political points is against the country's best interests. As I pointed out at [62], the vetting process was working just fine. Only Bannon and other deplorables thought differently, because it (gasp!) allowed a few Muslims into the country, none of whom apparently pose any terrorist threat at all.

  82. [82] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You DO realize that Bannon doesn't have to be confirmed, right?

    You're asking me? You must be afraid of Neil. :)

    I don't blame you.

  83. [83] 
    michale wrote:

    Try: President Trump capriciously upending established immigration protocols to appease his rabid racist base just to score cheap political points is against the country's best interests.

    It's YOUR opinion that President Trump "capriciously" upended anything....

    It's a total and complete Left Winger opinion unsupported by facts..

    . As I pointed out at [62], the vetting process was working just fine.

    Obama officials disagree... SecState John Kerry said that the Obama administration had planned to update to "SUPER VETTING an extroadinary level of vetting"

    Hmmmm Sounds like EXACTLY what President Trump is doing..

    So, you are wrong again.. Not that I expect you will admit it...

  84. [84] 
    michale wrote:

    You're asking me? You must be afraid of Neil. :)

    No, I just get you two confused.. You seem to parrot each other....

  85. [85] 
    michale wrote:

    President Trump's actions are not illegal or unconstitutional... FACT

    President Trump's actions are fully in keeping with MANY president's actions before him, including Odumbos... FACT

    President Trump's actions are BASED on a country list from President Odumbo's administration... FACT

    Ya'all have been played... And played BIG TIME!!! :D

    This is a nothing-burger... :D

  86. [86] 
    neilm wrote:

    You DO realize that Bannon doesn't have to be confirmed, right???

    So, exactly what "hot seat" are you referring to???

    Yup - 45 thought so too. Turns out if you put a rank amateur on the NSC there is an obscure law that the clown requires Senate confirmation.

    The best bit - it was a journalist from the Washington Post that did the research.

  87. [87] 
    michale wrote:

    We have ALSO established that this isn't about "poor refugees" or President Trump creating more terrorists...

    This is solely, completely and utterly about one thing and one thing only..

    Attacking President Trump in an attempt to de-legitimize him..

    The FACTS support no other logical or rational conclusion...

  88. [88] 
    michale wrote:

    Yup - 45 thought so too. Turns out if you put a rank amateur on the NSC there is an obscure law that the clown requires Senate confirmation.

    Prove it..

    The best bit - it was a journalist from the Washington Post that did the research.

    Ahh.. Fake news....

    WaPoop... 'nuff said...

  89. [89] 
    michale wrote:

    People need to get over the so-called ‘Muslim ban’

    Look, global elites, nobody said self-governance would be easy. Or pretty. But it is what it is. Get over it.

    The full-bore freak-out hysteria over President Trump’s executive order directed at finally getting a grip on who exactly is coming into the United States from the Middle East has been amusing.

    But it also reveals something terribly sinister about the wacko protesters, the mainstream media and an alarming number of actual sitting politicians. They really do not believe voters should have a say in how we are governed.

    Or, as their hero-God former President Obama once said: Elections matter.

    President Trump’s “extreme vetting” proposals were thoroughly and exhaustively debated in the election, an election which he won handily. Moreover, his proposals were roundly smeared in the most negative terms as some kind of “Muslim ban” even before the election.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/30/people-need-to-get-over-the-so-called-muslim-ban/

    Let me lay this out again so there can be NO DOUBT...

    President Trump’s “extreme vetting” proposals were thoroughly and exhaustively debated in the election, an election which he won handily.

    Basically, the Left Wingery is in major melt-down hysterics because President Trump actually kept a campaign promise!!

    "Oh my fucking god, what a nightmare!!!"
    -Marissa Tomeii, MY COUSIN VINNY

    This is a nothing-burger people.. Not even any smoke, let alone a fire...

    You have 8 years of President Trump....

    Pace yerselves... Yer gonna vapor-lock..

  90. [90] 
    michale wrote:

    It appears I dyslexically mangled the Marissa Tomeii quote...

    My apologies if I offended anyways...

  91. [91] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes, you are correct Liz.. I did not have the updated information so I was wrong..About Quebec City being an islamic terrorist attack...

    Fine.

    But, an objective observer and critical consumer of the news would not have made that mistake.

    Let this be a lesson ...

  92. [92] 
    michale wrote:

    But, an objective observer and critical consumer of the news would not have made that mistake.

    Let this be a lesson ...

    I'll learn it if everyone else does.. :D

  93. [93] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don't you want to be better than everyone else? :)

  94. [94] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Let me rephrase that ...

    Why wait for anyone else to learn a valuable lesson?

  95. [95] 
    michale wrote:

    Don't you want to be better than everyone else? :)

    Oh that ship has sailed.. :D

    Why wait for anyone else to learn a valuable lesson?

    Apparently, I just DID learn it..

    Now, we'll see if anyone else follows suit..

    For example, conceding the hypocrisy of condemning President Trump for actions that President Obama had done....

    We'll see....

  96. [96] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "How is what happened at a mosque in Quebec related to Trump's Muslim travel ban

    It shows the danger of what CAN happen with unfettered and un-vetted refugees from terrorist dominated countries..."

    EXCEPT: Authorities in Canada have charged Alexandre Bissonnette, a French-Canadian university student known for his far-right views, over a shooting rampage on a Quebec City mosque that killed six people.

    SO, he was NOT an immigrant but a home grown Canadian citizen. Just like the American terrorists have been.

  97. [97] 
    neilm wrote:

    For example, conceding the hypocrisy of condemning President Trump for actions that President Obama had done....

    So 45 isn't doing anything new - he is just replicating Obama?

    Then why are you so gung-ho on 45 but down on Obama - hypocrisy?

  98. [98] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    SO, he was NOT an immigrant but a home grown Canadian citizen. Just like the American terrorists have been.

    He is also not a Muslim.

    There is a silver lining here ... an opportunity for all of us to show our care and support for and solidarity with the Muslim community and stand against islamophobia.

    Love trumps hate.

  99. [99] 
    michale wrote:

    So 45 isn't doing anything new - he is just replicating Obama?

    And Carter and Reagan and Roosevelt (Teddy and Frankie) and Buchanan....

    Glad to see you finally admit that...

    Then why are you so gung-ho on 45 but down on Obama - hypocrisy?

    I was never down on Odumbo when he actually had the best interests of the country at heart..

    Like when he was kicking ass on terrorists with drones and banning refugees from terrorist countries like Iraq....

    So, yea... I cheered Obama on those points..

    The funny thing was, ya'all did too...

    But you condemn President Trump for the same actions that Odumbo did..

    THAT is hypocrisy...

    Are you ready to concede it??

    No, of course not.. Ya'all are *NEVER* wrong.... :^/

  100. [100] 
    michale wrote:

    Love trumps hate.

    Yea, you would think so...

    https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Trump+supporters+attacked..&tbm=nws

    And yet, the facts say otherwise...

  101. [101] 
    michale wrote:

    I'm a Democrat but there's something great about Trump's travel ban

    President Trump’s decision to upend U.S. immigration policies has set off a partisan firestorm, with my fellow Democrats (and some Republicans) expressing outrage. The administration and its supporters show no signs of retreating.

    Amid the anger and political sniping, reasonable people are engaged in a quiet debate about one element of the executive order that’s not been widely discussed: Trump seeks a new policy that ferrets out “those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred” and “those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.”

    For those of us who are progressively minded, the order creates an unexpected dilemma. While we reject a ban based on religion, we agree – in principle – that we don’t want to accept bigoted immigrants.

    In short, we’re taking a new look at an old question: What kind of immigrants does America want?
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/01/31/im-democrat-but-theres-something-great-about-trumps-travel-ban.html

    Democrats who actually THINK about things and don't kneejerk hysterically react....

    Amazing.. The DO exist.. :D

  102. [102] 
    neilm wrote:

    But you condemn 45 for the same actions that Obama did..

    So Hillary was going to continue Obama's policies. 45 insulted everybody for 18 months. Why would you choose a serial liar and obnoxious human over a competent professional if they are just doing the same thing?

  103. [103] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Love trumps hate only when thoughtful and well-informed citizens of goodwill make it so.

  104. [104] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [8] -

    Gotta write today's column, but had to answer one thing. "Muslim ban" is what Trump called it, when he introduced the idea. I'm just following his lead. See: the entire presidential campaign, for reference.

    :-)

    -CW

  105. [105] 
    neilm wrote:

    Why does 45 insist that 5 year old kids get more vetting than his Cabinet picks who have blown off the reporting documents they are meant to submit?

    I mean, who is more dangerous to America - DeVos and her plan to destroy American Public Education or a kid who needs it?

  106. [106] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Democrats who actually THINK about things and don't kneejerk hysterically react....Amazing.. The DO exist.

    Sorry to burst your bubble sunshine, but Bryan Dean Wright is a DINO, thrown up whenever the right needs a 'concerned Democrat' to make its wingnut policies sound more palatable to the masses. He writes and comments for such liberal sites as Fox, RealClearPolitics, and WorldNetDaily.

  107. [107] 
    neilm wrote:

    OK, 45 and Spicer need us to stop using the word "ban".

    It isn't fair - the media are undercutting 45 by using this terrible word.

    Just to make sure you understand 45's ban (dammit! sorry Sean) on their word "ban", we have it clearly laid out:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpDDtyu-RzM

  108. [108] 
    andygaus wrote:

    If Trump really believes in millions of phantom illegal voters that don't exist on this planet--and I think he seriously believes it, he isn't lying--that doesn't means he's a bad sport, it means he's seriously unbalanced mentally and in need of a professional evaluation. So far it seems that only Keith Olbermann has asked serious questions about Trump's mental health, but we're going to need to address that more and more and very soon.

  109. [109] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Olbermann is far from alone in that assessment. It's up to the GOP to decide if this is the face of the Republican Party that they want to see for the next four years. So far, they're fine with crazy.

  110. [110] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [8]

    . Created from FORMER President Obama's muslim ban list..


    This narrative is dishonest. The Obama administration did not single out those seven countries because they were the greatest sources of terrorist danger in the world. Rather, it selected those nations because they were the most dangerous nations in the visa waiver program. The Obama order simply removed those nations from the visa waiver program, a program that gives preferential entry treatment to fewer than 40 countries across the globe, thus placing those seven nations on equal footing with most of the rest of the world.

    And there was good reason, indeed perfect logic, for the absence of countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan from the Obama administration’s executive order. Since Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan were not in the visa waiver program in the first place, they could hardly have been removed from it. The absence of those nations from the Obama list was not and could not have been based on an assessment that they posed less of a danger to the United States than the seven that were included. Indeed, one can reasonably infer the opposite, that the danger of individuals from those nations was so manifestly obvious that they were never allowed into the waiver program in the first place.

    After all, it was Saudi Arabia that gave us Osama bin Laden and fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers. The other four 9/11 hijackers, by the way, all came from three other countries not included in Trump’s ban, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon. And the man that the 9/11 Commission identified as “the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks,” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, is from Pakistan, another country omitted from the Trump executive order. Funny, isn’t it, that Trump’s executive order, which repeatedly invokes avoiding another 9/11 as its goal, would not have stopped any of the people who actually planned and executed the 9/11 attack.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-dishonesty-of-trumps-travel-ban_us_5891285de4b0522c7d3dfa54?t9dlnt24asj2botj4i&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

  111. [111] 
    michale wrote:

    So Hillary was going to continue Obama's policies. 45 insulted everybody for 18 months. Why would you choose a serial liar and obnoxious human over a competent professional if they are just doing the same thing?

    Because I want more from my POTUS than just this one issue...

  112. [112] 
    michale wrote:

    Love trumps hate only when thoughtful and well-informed citizens of goodwill make it so.

    And, apparently, there is no one like that around here because these deplorable attacks against Trump supporters are not condemned..

  113. [113] 
    michale wrote:

    otta write today's column, but had to answer one thing. "Muslim ban" is what Trump called it, when he introduced the idea. I'm just following his lead. See: the entire presidential campaign, for reference.

    :-)

    Actually, see 18 months ago for reference..

    President Trump's position on the pause had "evolved"...

    What?? Aren't people with '-R's after their names allowed to "evolve"?? :D

  114. [114] 
    michale wrote:

    If Trump really believes in millions of phantom illegal voters that don't exist on this planet--and I think he seriously believes it, he isn't lying--that doesn't means he's a bad sport, it means he's seriously unbalanced mentally and in need of a professional evaluation. So far it seems that only Keith Olbermann has asked serious questions about Trump's mental health, but we're going to need to address that more and more and very soon.

    Yea.. And President Odumbo was born in Kenya... :D

    Oh...

    "WELCOME TO THE PARTY, PAL!!!"
    -John McClane, DIE HARD

    :D

  115. [115] 
    michale wrote:

    Listen,


    This narrative is dishonest. The Obama administration did not single out those seven countries because they were the greatest sources of terrorist danger in the world.

    It doesn't matter *WHY* Odumbo created the list..

    The only relevant point is that President Trump is working from the list created by Odumbo..

    And, your source for this is HuffPoop!!???

    Would you accept a source from BRIETBART as "proof" of anything??

    Of course you wouldn't... So, why do you expect me to accept HuffPoop???

  116. [116] 
    michale wrote:

    Olbermann is far from alone in that assessment. It's up to the GOP to decide if this is the face of the Republican Party that they want to see for the next four years. So far, they're fine with crazy.

    And, apparently, so were tens of millions of Odumbo voters..

    You see, that's just one FACT that totally decimates your ENTIRE argument...

  117. [117] 
    michale wrote:

    Why would you choose a serial liar and obnoxious human over a competent professional if they are just doing the same thing?

    And the fact that you call Hillary Clinton a "competent professional" shows how far off the reservation you have gone..

    Name ONE relevant accomplishment that Hillary EVER had that would qualify her as a "competent professional"??

    Because I could point to a PLETHORA of failures that TOTALLY negates the claim that Hillary is a "competent professional"...

    And I would be willing to wager that there are at least FIVE Weigantians here who would agree with me.. :D

  118. [118] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "It doesn't matter *WHY* Odumbo created the list..

    The only relevant point is that President Trump is working from the list created by Odumbo.."

    SO, if I made a list: flour, water, sugar, and used it to bake a cake...

    It would NOT matter if you then came along and used the same list I had created: flour, water, sugar to try to use as a fuel in the gas tank of your car???

    REALLY? That's AMAZING!!!

    SO, starting from DIFFERENT premises for DIFFERENT purposes makes NO difference as long as the list is the same.

Comments for this article are closed.