You're Fired!
It didn't take Donald Trump long before he had a chance to use his famous catchphrase as president. He has now fired not only the Acting Attorney General, but also a growing number of high-ranking federal employees in a number of departments and agencies (the State Department, and today, the immigration enforcement agency). Whether this is a good thing for the country or even a good thing for Trump politically is debatable, of course. But no matter where you come down on the Trump firings so far, they are not in any way illegal or unconstitutional. The president has wide discretion to fire people, although only down to a certain red line.
The first such purge occurred when Thomas Jefferson took office, which was the first real transfer of power between two political parties in America. The 1800 election was so contentious it was actually labeled the "Revolution of 1800," as the Federalists were replaced by Jefferson's Anti-Federalists. Jefferson used the opportunity to sweep out a bunch of Federalist government employees, and replace them with his own supporters. Nothing in the Constitution prevented him from doing so, it's worth pointing out.
This system of patronage jobs continued in successive administrations. Each newly-elected president would be besieged by throngs of office-seekers, looking for plum administration jobs (postmaster positions were the most commonly handed out in such fashion, because at the time they represented a large portion of the federal workforce). When Andrew Jackson defeated John Quincy Adams, the system got a catchy name: the "spoils system." This came from a quote from William Marcy, a senator from New York, who was speaking in favor of Martin Van Buren's appointment as ambassador to England:
It may be, Sir, that the politicians of the United States are not so fastidious as some gentlemen are, as to disclosing the principles on which they act. They boldly preach what they practice. When they are contending for victory, they avow their intention of enjoying the fruits of it. If they are defeated, they expect to retire from office. If they are successful, they claim, as a matter of right, the advantages of success. They see nothing wrong in the rule, that to the victor belong the spoils of the enemy.
This has been shortened, over time, to just: "to the victor belong the spoils." Marcy's quote would be immortalized in the American political lexicon, although he has one further claim to fame few outside of New York realize -- the highest point in the state was named Mount Marcy.
Andrew Jackson called his policy "rotation in office," which was roundly denounced by the anti-Jackson press at the time. I wrote previously about this period:
This was prophesied as some sort of return of the French Revolution's "Reign of Terror" by the anti-Jacksons (predicting Jacobins running amok had been a common scare tactic in American politics since the 1790s). Rumors of the imminence of widespread and indiscriminate firings of federal officeholders ran rampant. Wild-eyed graphic stories were reported in the anti-Jackson press, such as one man who supposedly "cut his throat from ear to ear, from the mere terror of being dismissed."
In reality, the main targets Jackson's administration first fixed upon were people stuffing their pockets with graft -- or, as Jackson called them, "rats." The first man fired under the new policy fled Washington upon being discovered, and was later "apprehended, tried, convicted, and sentenced" for his fiscal irregularities. This gave the pro-Jackson press something to trumpet. When Jackson ran for re-election, the pro-Jackson papers described the successful removal from office of "a swarm of swindlers, who had filched from the public treasury upwards of $457,000." As Jackson biographer Robert V. Remini puts it: "Within a single year, by flushing out the rats, the administration reduced the expenditures of the Navy Department alone by $1 million" -- a significant amount, in 1829. When the real statistics became available, they showed that Andrew Jackson didn't fire all that many government functionaries when compared to previous administrations.
The patronage system did get rather out of hand in succeeding decades, and it became a major political bone of contention in the 1870s and 1880s. Fundamental reform was enacted, which split the federal workforce into two distinct groups -- political appointees (which were changed with each new administration), and the civil service (which was hired for experience and merit, theoretically). This red line still exists, and those who work below the red line are supposed to be secure in their jobs no matter who occupies the White House. The jobs are deemed non-political, in other words.
Political jobs, however, are fair game. George W. Bush swept house in the Justice Department, firing a slew of federal prosecutors (U.S. Attorneys). This was a major scandal, according to the Democrats at the time, but it was in no way unconstitutional. The president can clean house (down to a certain level) across all executive branch departments. The spoils system means the president doesn't even have to articulate a reason for doing so, in fact.
Donald Trump is obviously a big fan of the spoils concept. He's such a big fan that he seems to be the first one to take the quote literally (as you can read, from the context, it was originally spoken metaphorically). Trump has quoted this line in reference to all that Iraqi oil that America should have just seized (in his opinion). Their oil should have been treated as "the spoils of the enemy," according to Trump -- an opinion he has never disavowed, in fact. We'll have to wait and see whether it makes it into his new plan for attacking the Islamic State.
In terms of all the people Trump has told "You're fired!" to since the Trump reign began, though, he's on a lot more stable legal ground. He can indeed fire the Acting Attorney General, or the head of ICE, or any political appointee at the State Department he chooses.
The unanswered question is whether any of it will hurt Trump politically. Even though he may be on solid legal ground, will any of his firings create political blowback for him? Firing a placeholder Attorney General left over from the Obama administration isn't likely to cause much trouble for Trump politically, as she would have only had a few more days in the job before being replaced by Jeff Sessions (assuming he is confirmed by the Senate this week).
Political blowback for sweeping house in the executive branch is as old as the spoils system itself, it's worth keeping in mind. Jefferson was attacked for it, Jackson was attacked for it, and more recently George W. Bush was attacked for it by his political opponents. If Trump is just getting started firing people, then at some point he just might fire someone so obviously competent in the work they do that Trump might get more blowback than he expects. Firing a general who didn't agree with him is the first possibility that springs to mind, although there are certainly lots of others. Anything Trump sees as disloyalty or betrayal may lead in quick order to not only being fired, but being denounced from the Oval Office (or, at least, the presidential Twitter feed). Sooner or later, however, Trump might get more blowback than he can handle, when he tells someone with their own political base of support in Washington: "You're fired." So far, this hasn't happened, but it's certainly looking more and more likely.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
So did Trump never watch Kellyanne Conjob bash him on TV when she worked for Ted Cruz? It surprises me that he would allow someone who tore into what a joke he is mentally with such passion to ever be a part of his team.
Michale,
Here's that link I mentioned earlier ... it's about how to build an American autocracy, written by none other than David Frum:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-autocracy/513872/
Donald Trump is obviously a big fan of the spoils concept. He's such a big fan that he seems to be the first one to take the quote literally (as you can read, from the context, it was originally spoken metaphorically).
Let's be clear and factual.. If President Trump as actually a fan of the victor/spoils concept, he would have fired the acting AG on day one..
He gave her a chance and she decided to place Party before Country..
So, she was rightly shit-canned...
The unanswered question is whether any of it will hurt Trump politically. Even though he may be on solid legal ground, will any of his firings create political blowback for him?
Do you REALLY have to ask that question??? :D
I have to say CW... Your commentaries on President Trump have gotten a lot better as of late.. :D Much less hyperbole, much more factual and reality based...
Keep it up! :D
YES!!!!
Neil Gorsuch is going to be the next SCOTUS Justice!!! :D
Way ta go President Trump!!!!!!
YES!!!!
Neil Gorsuch is going to be the next SCOTUS Justice!!! :D
Way ta go President Trump!!!!!!
Listen,
So did Trump never watch Kellyanne Conjob bash him on TV when she worked for Ted Cruz? It surprises me that he would allow someone who tore into what a joke he is mentally with such passion to ever be a part of his team.
Which proves you don't know President Trump as well as you would like to think you do...
That's what comes from just following Party dogma as a drone and not really ever thinking for yourself...
Now the Left Has a Martyr Like Kim Davis
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-31/in-sally-yates-the-left-has-a-martyr-like-kim-davis
See, this is the point that the Left Wingery doesn't get..
President Trump's order was COMPLETELY legal and COMPLETELY constitutional, supported by USC TITLE 18, Section 1182, subsection (f).... Yates had NO LEGAL standing to dis-obey President Trump's order. If Yates found the order politically unacceptable, she had two choices and two choices ONLY...
Follow the order.. Or resign...
"{She} chose.... poorly"
-Knight, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE
The 2nd FACT that the Left Wingery doesn't get is that President Trump's order has a long LONG line of precedent behind it.. Presidents Obama, Reagan, Carter, both Roosevelts and Buchanan have all issued the EXACT same kinds of orders and ALL were perfectly legal. In hindsight, FDR's was morally repugnant, but ONLY with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight...
This is ALL a complete and utter nothing-burger.. President Trump has played the entirety of the Left Wingery, waving a huge red flag and the entirety of the Left dutifully charged the flag over and over, snorting fire from the nose... :D
This does not bode well for the Left as the American people will likely soon tire from the hysterical theatrics of the Left Wingery and will likely end up telling the Left in 2018, "We just are sick and tired of ya'all's hysterics so, guess what?? YER FIRED!!"
The Left better learn some humility real fast and accept Donald Trump as the President Of The United States or else in the aftermath of 2018, the Left will look on with affection and pine for the good days of the 2016 election...
You heard it here first...
At the risk of hijacking the commentary, I just HAD to comment on a New York Times opinion piece.. When the NY GRIMES actually gets it right, it's noteworthy...
Why Liberals Should Back Neil Gorsuch
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/why-liberals-should-back-neil-gorsuch.html?_r=0
Remember, the Democrats are on record as stating that the SCOTUS "must have nine justices"...
So, for them to filibuster Judge Gorsuch would be the depths of hypocrisy even DEMOCRATS so be wary about stooping to...
Listen,
That's what comes from just following Party dogma as a drone and not really ever thinking for yourself...
If you find such a characterization insulting, ask yourself one question..
"Can I see myself saying, 'Ya know what? I totally agree with President Trump in this. He actually did a good thing here. Kudos, President Trump. You have my support..' In other words, can you buck the Democrat Party and support Trump over Party??"
If you can't, then the characterization is accurate...
When and if Trump does something good, I'll be more than happy to compliment his actions. So far, nothing to compliment him on! And if Trump thought Yates was so weak on security and immigration (two claims that he offered no examples as proof), why did he choose someone like that to be the temp. AG?
When and if Trump does something good, I'll be more than happy to compliment his actions. So far, nothing to compliment him on! And if Trump thought Yates was so weak on security and immigration (two claims that he offered no examples as proof), why did he choose someone like that to be the temp. AG?
Troll
Our agreement had two parts.
Your (squirrely) apology for lying about me was part one.
And that was the easy part.
Part two was not lying going forward.
In the comments to the previous column, you lied using false generalizations repeatedly.
If you can't keep an agreement for one day, I was wrong in thinking you even had a tiny shred of integrity left.
I'm going to go out on yet another limb and give you one more opportunity to be honorable.
The ball is in your court.
Are you going to take a shot or wimp out?
A
The muslim ban and the Gorsuch nomination have one thing in common: self-labeling.
I'll explain: in Trump's travel ban was a carve-out for 'relgious minorities', a provision meant to appease evangelicals who feared that Christians would be caught up in it.
But, as my brother points out, what's to prevent a would-be terrorist from simply self-identifying as a Christian in order to get around the ban? Would the vetting process be able to identify a liar?
Gorsuch's 'Hobby Lobby' decision carved the same loophole out for privately held corporations that self-identified as Christian. Again, what's to prevent any privately held corporation to self-identify as Christian in order to take advantage of this carve-out, as well as future carve-outs that are certain to follow?
Listen,
When and if Trump does something good, I'll be more than happy to compliment his actions
You have said that Trump is Hitler..
I find it VERY hard to believe that you would compliment Hitler on ANYTHING, no matter how good it was..
So, I have a feeling you are just saying that to win an argument...
Troll Formerly Known As Asshole...
In other words, you were full of shit with your offer and you intend to be immature and childish no matter how many times I meet your demands...
As an aside to Neil and Balthasar...
This is EXACTLY why it's impossible to give in to terrorist demands.. Because, you do that and the just continue to commit more terrorism until NEW demands are met...
It's kind of apropos that your Troll asshole proved my argument completely and utterly, eh??
Michale wrote:
"He gave her a chance and she decided to place Party before Country.."
You mean "He gave her a chance and she decided to place loyalty to the Constitution before loyalty to the President."
There, fixed it for ya!
But, as my brother points out, what's to prevent a would-be terrorist from simply self-identifying as a Christian in order to get around the ban? Would the vetting process be able to identify a liar?
You don't know much about the vetting process, do you? :D
Of COURSE the vetting process would be able identify the liar.. Odumbo's process was flawed and took a LOT of information at face value.. The new EXTREME vetting process will close those loopholes...
Regardless, you are making a DIFFERENT argument than the Left Wingery started with...
In other words, ya'all are proven wrong on ONE argument, so you move on to a DIFFERENT straw-man argument.
When THAT argument is shut down with FACTS, ya'all move on to a DIFFERENT argument..
And so on and so on and so on..
The fact is, the ONLY reason ya'all oppose this is because it's President Trump plan...
It's Odumbo's list and it's Odumbo's precedent and ya'all NEVER had a problem with it..
It's only when President Trump initiated the plan, ya'all went batshit hysterical over it...
So, yer agenda is clear...
Michale wrote:
"The fact is, the ONLY reason ya'all oppose this is because it's President Trump plan...
It's Odumbo's list and it's Odumbo's precedent and ya'all NEVER had a problem with it..
It's only when President Trump initiated the plan, ya'all went batshit hysterical over it..."
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.
JM,
You mean "He gave her a chance and she decided to place loyalty to the Constitution before loyalty to the President."
No, you didn't "fix" it for me as there are absolutely NO FACTS to support your claim that President Trump's order violated the Constitution.. Do you??
Just like you had no facts to support your claim that FORMER President Odumbo never violated a court order...
Regardless of THAT, The Democrat Party as a whole usually wipes their ass with the US Constitution...
But if you WANT to play the I LOVE THE US CONSTITUTION card, you should be ECSTATIC that Gorsuch will be the next SCOTUS Justice...
Judge Gorsuch is a strict Constitutionalist...
SO, starting from DIFFERENT premises for DIFFERENT purposes makes NO difference as long as the list is the same.
If President Trump's plan WAS a different premise that Odumbo's, you would have a point..
But it's not, so you don't...
Ya'all WANT it to be different so you can delude yerselves into thinking your position is not rank hypocrisy..
But it is.. Completely, unequivocally and inarguable hypocrisy....
GOP changes rules to push through nominees after Dem boycott
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/317302-gop-changes-rules-to-push-through-nominees-after-dem-boycott
Like I said.. Democrats were all big talk about boycotting President Trump's nominees..
But when the rubber met the road, the GOP used the precedents that Democrats gave them and just steam rolled right over the top of Democrats..
While I do have a problem with such tactics, I am really REALLY happy to see the Democrats stomped down using rules that they themselves brought into the arena...
Stuff it, Dems.. You live by the sword, you die by the sword...
Balthy
delayed response to comment 73 and others from "The unexpected Trump"
Don pointed out the harsh reality in a comment in the final Obama Poll Watch column.
He was reiterating something that has been said for a long time, but it is important to remember-
"It didn't take long for things to get back to normal. The same old attacks and defenses endlessly repeated.
The bottom line is that the divide and conquer strategy is alive and well and those of you attacking and defending are just sheeple being led to the slaughter."
Your support for Obama's unnecessary and often illegal militarism... and the fact that both you and our resident Trump supporter agreed on those policies... simply reaffirms how both Democrats and Republicans are serving the establishment and maintaining the status quo while bickering as if that is not the reality.
We had torture by the Bushies and now floated by Trump countered by Obama's failure to prosecute it.
We have public school privatization champ Betsy DeVos countered by Obama's charter school promoting Education Secretary Duncan.
We have Trump Treasury nominee and foreclosure king Mnuchin countered by Obama's refusal to prosecute that fraud and more... and Dems taking huge campaign contributions (and then jobs) from those criminals too.
Etc. etc. etc.
I fully realize our resident troll engages in false equivalencies on a regular basis, but he isn't wrong when he points out that you and most everyone else here would be on firmer moral ground if you had been critical of the right wing corporatism and militarism of Obama, Hillary, and most elected Democrats and their establishment think tank and media defenders.
Like I said before on the subject, two wrongs don't make a right, so your criticism of Trump is certainly valid. And your silence or support for Obama's policies certainly doesn't mean you've given up your 1st Amendment rights to complain now.
But I would just like to ask you to consider Don's quote again seriously, and question how it is that you are defending Obama policies that Trump and his supporters defend too.
I think it was you and neil exchanging Shakespeare quotes the other day...
... how about considering "There is something rotten in the state of Denmark".
If supporting establishment Democrats is who you are, fine.
But what you have been saying about Trump suggests you are better than that.
It's not too late to evolve and recognize that some of Obama's (and Hillary's) policies were wrong, and that Democrats need to take another road.
It seems like a lot of Dems are coming around to that realization.
What are your thoughts on the matter?
A
Stuff it, Dems.. You live by the sword, you die by the sword..
..And by that, Michale gave Democrats permission to filibuster and delay 45's entire agenda indefinitely.
Troll
15
I've kept my end of the agreement.
What are you imagining as an excuse not to keep your end?
A
..And by that, Michale gave Democrats permission to filibuster and delay 45's entire agenda indefinitely.
Sorry, sunshine...
Democrats CAN'T filibuster, once McConnell removes the filibuster.. :D
Like I said...
STUFF IT, Dims... This is the bed you made.. Now quit whining and lie in it..
Troll Formerly Known As Asshole
Troll
15
I've kept my end of the agreement.
What are you imagining as an excuse not to keep your end?
Your end of the agreement would be to stop with the immature and childish name calling.
You are decidedly NOT keeping your end of the agreement.. Which is EXACTLY what I knew would happen..
I called yer bluff, jackass.. You had no intention of stopping....
As I have aptly proven...
If supporting establishment Democrats is who you are, fine. But what you have been saying about Trump suggests you are better than that.
It's not too late to evolve and recognize that some of Obama's (and Hillary's) policies were wrong, and that Democrats need to take another road.
Here's a different road, Al: recognize that you and I and Don and Obama and Hillary have more in common than any of us and Trump and his followers, unless you've developed a taste for Russian-style oligarchy lately.
It's clear that Putin set out to divide the Democratic Party, which is normally a big tent within which many political philosophies can congregate to achieve larger political goals than can be achieved separately.
And it seems evident to me that Putin's strategy worked beyond his probable expectations: the Republican party 'miraculously' united, while the Democrats split between the center and far left, which made Trump's EV victory possible. That is established fact.
The left has always had pacifists, socialists, anarchists, and anti-corporatists among its ranks. That's why they're so adorable. Good for them.
But the left has acknowledged since the early 20th century that, in regard to mainstream political power, their path to influence depended on reaching accommodation with the Center, having found in the past that a purely leftist agenda rarely garners enough votes to prevail in general elections except in a very few districts.
It's just possible that the extreme rightward turn that the Republicans have taken could unite the left. I've been very encouraged to see the level of resistance to Trump that's popped up in the days since his inauguration. It's truly a tragedy that we couldn't have seen that level of unity following the primaries. We should work to assure that that never EVER happens again.
Until then, we need to talk, to acknowledge that we disagree on many issues, but that we share a common goal of a more fair, less callous government, and a more open and free society.
We can get there through incremental compromise amongst ourselves, but history seems to prove that a giant lurch to the left would be counterproductive politically, and possibly disastrous in a presidential contest. Remember McGovern? I do. It wasn't pretty, and we were beat by one of the least popular politicians on the planet. Sound familiar?
Sorry, sunshine...Democrats CAN'T filibuster, once McConnell removes the filibuster..
McConnell knows better; he's said so repeatedly.
There is, eventually, a turn in political fortune in this country, like it or not. McConnell has been around for long enough to understand that caving in to the extreme right and nuking the filibuster could be the worst thing he could do to his party in the long run.
McConnell knows better; he's said so repeatedly.
Yea, people said the same thing about Reid... Apparently, HE didn't "know better"...
McConnell has been around for long enough to understand that caving in to the extreme right and nuking the filibuster could be the worst thing he could do to his party in the long run.
So, of course you would agree that Reid "caving in to the extreme" Left and nuking the filibuster was the WORST thing he could do for his Party in the long run..
You would agree with that???
Judge Gorsuch is going to be confirmed... And I honestly don't believe McConnell will have to nuke the filibuster.. 11 Democrats are facing re-election in 2018 in states that Trump won...
And McConnell only needs 8 of those to confirm Judge Gorsuch...
Democrats don't have a snowball's chance in hell...
Democrats are becoming the party of secession
Unfortunately, the Dems are following a dangerously different path. Starting with a wide boycott of the inauguration and including their boycott of committee votes on Trump’s cabinet and their pledge to filibuster any Supreme Court nominee, Democrats resemble a party fomenting a secession movement.
Some call it Trump Derangement Syndrome, but that’s too kind. It’s not a temporarily insane reaction, it’s a calculated plan to wreck the presidency, whatever the cost to the country.
Things never seen in the modern era are now rapidly becoming common. Impeachment talk already is rumbling in the party’s hothouses, and Trump was met with a lawsuit the minute he took the oath.
Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, the top Dems in Congress, led a raucous demonstration Monday night, as if they are community organizers. And Obama couldn’t bear the irrelevance after eight days out of office and felt compelled to encourage disruptions.
This is Third World behavior and it’s now the M.O. of one of America’s two political parties.
http://nypost.com/2017/01/31/democrats-are-digging-their-own-grave-and-boosting-trump-at-the-same-time/
Democrats are digging their graves deeper and deeper...
California secession movement starts gathering petition signatures
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/27/california-succession-movement-starts-gathering-petition-signatures.html
Democrats in California keep pushing and pushing for succession...
I say, let them go...
Without California, there will NEVER be another Democrat President.....
Republicans will own the country's political apparatus utterly and completely if California secedes...
This is a PERFECT example of the hysterical ignorance of the Democrat Party...
They are their own worst enemies....
McConnell knows better; he's said so repeatedly.
"We WILL get Judge Gorsuch confirmed."
-Majority Leader McConnell
Apparently McConnell is prepared to do whatever it takes to get Judge Gorsuch confirmed...
Yea, people said the same thing about Reid... Apparently, HE didn't "know better"..
Oh, yes he did, and it took seven long years of Republican intransigence to change his mind. Reid was careful, however, to limit his action to political appointments other than to the Supreme Court or Cabinet, so that Democrats could retain those options now. Reid realized that he was going to tie the hands of future Democrats when he did this, but McConnell forced his hand, rejecting Court nominees who would have sailed through in previous congresses. No administration could countenance that level of unprecedented obstruction.
Things never seen in the modern era are now rapidly becoming common. Impeachment talk already is rumbling in the party’s hothouses, and Trump was met with a lawsuit the minute he took the oath.
If the GOP is going to insist on installing an extremist in the White House, then they shouldn't be surprised that the loyal opposition reacts in kind. We're long past arguing who threw the first punch.
Democrats in California keep pushing and pushing for succession..
Californians, like Texans (the other state that was a Republic before becoming a state), have a long-standing love affair with the idea of succession, but never follow through, partly because it's foolhardy to leave a club in which you're one of the most powerful members.
Secession was a stupid response when the Republicans did it after Obama won, and it is just as stupid now.
Trump stated today that Frederick Douglass is “an example of somebody who has done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice,”
Seriously? He has NO IDEA who Fredrick Douglass was! Someone should tell him that the black guy who Trump hired to cheer for him at his rallies wasn't the Fredrick Douglass being discussed. They might also remind him that the guy they hired's name is actually Brian. Trump just calls him Fredrick Douglass for some reason.
You have said that Trump is Hitler..
I find it VERY hard to believe that you would compliment Hitler on ANYTHING, no matter how good it was..
So, I have a feeling you are just saying that to win an argument...
Actually, I have called him "Twitler", not "Hitler".
As for complimenting Hitler...I thought he did a wonderful job at destroying the fashion trend of the mini mustache for all future generations! There's your compliment.
For the Record, since Gorsuch is (surprisingly) more moderate than many expected Trump's pick to be, I predict that he will be confirmed. Dems will vote against him, but half-heartedly, knowing that this nomination could easily have been worse.
Trump's next SCOTUS pick, however, will hit a buzz-saw the likes of which few have ever seen.
As for complimenting Hitler...I thought he did a wonderful job at destroying the fashion trend of the mini mustache for all future generations! There's your compliment.
My grandfather sported a mini from the late 20's until the day he died in 1974. He thought it suited him, and it actually did, in a non-Hitler sort of way. Couldn't get away with it today, though.
On the other hand...
When Darrell Scott, whose main church is in the Cleveland area, told Trump that Chicago’s top gangs had reached out to him seeking a “sitdown” with the president about decreasing the violence in that city, Trump sounded receptive.
“I think it’s a great idea because Chicago is totally out of control,” he said.
“They want to work with this administration,” Scott said of the gangs.
“Good,” Trump responded.
Trump is so well known as a broker of peace and a man of compassion that when he won the election, the hearts of those gangbangers were instantly softened and they saw the error of their ways! What a load of crap!!
Balthasar,
Nah...not even Jordan could pull it off! It just looks too odd.
If the GOP is going to insist on installing an extremist in the White House, then they shouldn't be surprised that the loyal opposition reacts in kind. We're long past arguing who threw the first punch.
Of course.. NOW that it's Democrats who are being the Party of NO and obstructionist, NOW ya don't want to talk about who is at fault.. :D
All about Party slavery.. :D
I am also constrained to point out that tens of millions of ODUMBO voters voted for that "extremist"...
A fact you ALWAYS deny/ignore because it TOTALLY demolishes yer argument.. :D
Californians, like Texans (the other state that was a Republic before becoming a state), have a long-standing love affair with the idea of succession, but never follow through, partly because it's foolhardy to leave a club in which you're one of the most powerful members.
Silence gives assent, bud... :D
For the Record, since Gorsuch is (surprisingly) more moderate than many expected Trump's pick to be, I predict that he will be confirmed. Dems will vote against him, but half-heartedly, knowing that this nomination could easily have been worse.
Then you and I are in complete agreement...
Scary, iddn't it. :D
Actually, I have called him "Twitler", not "Hitler".
You've done both....
As for complimenting Hitler...I thought he did a wonderful job at destroying the fashion trend of the mini mustache for all future generations! There's your compliment.
Hokay... Odumbo did a WONDERFUL job destroying this country's prestige worldwide..
There... I just complimented Odumbo....
Of course, my "compliment" like yours was totally and 1000% irrelevant to the topic at hand..
But, of course, that's how ya'all roll.. :D
Secession was a stupid response when the Republicans did it after Obama won, and it is just as stupid now.
Silence gives assent... :D
Secession was a stupid response when the Republicans did it after Obama won, and it is just as stupid now.
So any Democrat who supports California succession is a complete and total moron, like Republicans who support Texas succession...
Is THAT yer claim??
Welp, President Trump's nominee for SecState has just been confirmed by the Senate with 4 Democrats voting in favor...
Yea... The Democrat's vaunted opposition is impressive..
NOT!!! :D
I am also constrained to point out that tens of millions of ODUMBO voters voted for that "extremist"...
Lets narrow that down a bit, shall we?
Trump got 62,985,105 votes, according to Wikipedia.
8%(or about 5,038,808) of those told pollsters shortly after the election that they approve of Obama's Job Performance, but voted for Trump.
Even more interesting, I think is this map, released yesterday, that compares the presidential vote to the congressional district map. This more than any other shows what happened last November, I think. I'd love to know what Neil thinks of this.
8%(or about 5,038,808) of those told pollsters shortly after the election that they approve of Obama's Job Performance, but voted for Trump.
And, of course, we KNOW that Trump voters tell pollsters the absolute truth all the time, right?? :^/
Once again, you concentrate on the minutiae rather than concede how wrong you are...
Tens of Millions or Millions of Odumbo voters, it doesn't matter...
What you have to explain is how all those millions and millions of smart, diverse, savvy, tolerant, Left Wingery loving Odumbo voters ALL OF THE SUDDEN became irredeemably deplorable racists....
Can you explain that?
"Can you explain the, Colonel? The fact is, there was no transfer order, was there? Santiago wasn't going anywhere, was he Colonel!"
-Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN
The fact is, those millions of voters felt let down and lied to by the Democrat Party and Odumbo...
So, they decided that they would give the new guy a chance...
No racism... No nothing..
They just wanted someone who would make America great again..
And they knew that Hillary didn't have a chance in hell of doing that...
So, they voted for President Trump..
It's that simple...
This map that compares the change in the vote from 2012 to 2016 confirms that Trump's win was a result of his strength in the midwest, and indicates that Hillary actually beat Obama's numbers in California and along the southern border, while Trump did less well than Romney in the south and far west.
Also, you need to keep in mind..
Yer going to want millions and millions of those irredeemably deplorable racists to vote Democrat in 2018 and 2020...
DO you HONESTLY think that the BEST way to go about that is to insult them, attack them and call them names???
I'm just sayin'....
And THIS map:
washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/obama-trump-counties/img/promo-obamatrumpvoter.jpg
shows how millions and millions of Odumbo voters voted for Trump...
And President Trump decisively outperformed Romney nationwide, while Hillary BARELY matched Obama..
blogs-images.forbes.com/realspin/files/2016/12/thumbnail_Slide1.jpg
No matter HOW you want to spin it, millions and millions of Odumbo voters became irredeemably deplorable racists..
Good luck getting them to vote Dem in 18 and 20 if ya'all treat them like that...
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gJPuX_W1Q-E/maxresdefault.jpg
hehehehehehehehehehehehehehe
Funny, iddn't it.. :D
Of course, my "compliment" like yours was totally and 1000% irrelevant to the topic at hand..
But, of course, that's how ya'all roll.. :D
Your claim that I wouldn't compliment anything about Hitler was 1000% irrelevant to the topic at hand.... So my response was right in line with what you were asking for!
So any Democrat who supports California succession is a complete and total moron, like Republicans who support Texas succession...
Is THAT yer claim??
Nope. You are the one who chooses to claim that those people are complete and total morons...not me. Your words. You try so hard to put words in everyone else's mouths to justify your own nastiness. You demand everyone denounce statements that were never made by anyone on here because you know your backing a complete idiot who is gonna implode sooner or later.
Your claim that I wouldn't compliment anything about Hitler was 1000% irrelevant to the topic at hand....
Except that it was.. You have compared Trump to Hitler.
Therefore, the topic was VERY relevant..
It's not *MY* fault ya'all go to the TOTALLY ridiculous place of comparing President Trump to Adolph Hitler...
Nope. You are the one who chooses to claim that those people are complete and total morons...not me. Your words. You try so hard to put words in everyone else's mouths to justify your own nastiness. You demand everyone denounce statements that were never made by anyone on here because you know your backing a complete idiot who is gonna implode sooner or later.
Thank you for proving my point..
Anyone with a '-D' after their name CAN'T be a moron or an idiot...
In your book, ONLY those with '-R' after their names can be that..
That is my EXACT point..
You simply cannot condemn anyone with a '-D' after their name no matter HOW bad they are or how horrible things they do...
Love trumps hate??
UC Berkeley cancels right-wing provocateur’s talk amid violent protest
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Protesters-storm-Milo-Yiannopoulos-event-at-UC-10901829.php
Hardly.....
This is ya'all's Democrat Party now...
Speaking of Judge Gorsuch..
Neil Gorsuch, Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, is a brilliant, witty, handsome, eloquent, perfectly pedigreed judge. He is, to put it another way, an extraordinarily difficult jurist for Democrats to oppose.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/01/neil_gorsuch_is_not_a_villain.html
This is DEMOCRATS... rabid Left Wingers... talking about President Trump's SCOTUS pick....
Anyone wanna tell me again how the Democrats are going to stop this nominee?? :D
Despite all the tough talk from the Democrats, Judge Gorsuch is going to sail thru the nomination process...
This will be my first SCOTUS prediction that actually will come true!!! :D
heh
JM,
Re #18
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!!!
No, what's amazing is that you would try to pass off that ridiculous analogy as applicable.. :D
A better analogy would be where the Odumbo Administration created a list to bake a cake but then said, "Ya know, this cake is not politically correct. We know it's the right thing to do and we know it will keep Americans safe, but it's just not something the hysterical Left Wingery will accept.. Let's shelf it.."
And then President Trump comes along and says, "This is a fine recipe for a cake! Let's use it and then laugh at the Odumbo administration for shelfing it.. "
THAT is a more accurate analogy...
The Democrats are babbling and discouraged. Specifically, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is babbling, and Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) is in tears. They are feeling the impact of their 2016 losses more acutely now than they did in November, as the full limits and consequences of their powerlessness are on full display. The Democratic Caucus is pointlessly attempting to slow the confirmation of President Trump’s Cabinet picks, including boycotting this morning’s Senate Finance Committee votes on Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) and Steve Mnuchin and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee vote on Scott Pruitt. Ouch. How bad do you think the Republican members of those committees felt about the Democrats not showing up? Finance Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) offered his tight analysis to reporters: “Well, they are idiots.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/02/01/the-democrats-are-babbling-and-discouraged/?utm_term=.03aa60a5388c
Heh... "Idiots" describe Senate Democrats perfectly.. :D
Their vaunted opposition to President Trump's nominees is nothing short of a joke....
Less than two weeks in to President Trump's administration and the Democrat Party is floundering, unable to come up with ANY semblance of an effective tactical plan...
Am I wrong??
"You're not wrong."
-God, AKA Chuck
:D
The Democrats are babbling and discouraged. Specifically, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is babbling, and Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) is in tears. They are feeling the impact of their 2016 losses more acutely now than they did in November, as the full limits and consequences of their powerlessness are on full display. The Democratic Caucus is pointlessly attempting to slow the confirmation of President Trump’s Cabinet picks, including boycotting this morning’s Senate Finance Committee votes on Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) and Steve Mnuchin and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee vote on Scott Pruitt. Ouch. How bad do you think the Republican members of those committees felt about the Democrats not showing up? Finance Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) offered his tight analysis to reporters: “Well, they are idiots.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/02/01/the-democrats-are-babbling-and-discouraged/?utm_term=.03aa60a5388c
Heh... "Idiots" describe Senate Democrats perfectly.. :D
Their vaunted opposition to President Trump's nominees is nothing short of a joke....
Less than two weeks in to President Trump's administration and the Democrat Party is floundering, unable to come up with ANY semblance of an effective tactical plan...
Am I wrong??
"You're not wrong."
-God, AKA Chuck
:D
Anyone with a '-D' after their name CAN'T be a moron or an idiot...
In your book, ONLY those with '-R' after their names can be that..
As usual, YOUR WORDS, NOT MINE! You claim you don't have a '-D' or an '-R' after your name, and I condemn you all the time...so your argument fails.
You simply cannot condemn anyone with a '-D' after their name no matter HOW bad they are or how horrible things they do...
Sure I can... Unlike you, I try to address the actions being committed and do not focus on the party they belong to. If I condemn the actions of 50 people with an '-R' behind their name and only one person with a '-D' behind their's, it's because I disagree with the actions of all 51 people! You defend Trump's actions claiming that Obama did the same thing, yet in the same breath you bash Obama for doing it.
As usual, YOUR WORDS, NOT MINE! You claim you don't have a '-D' or an '-R' after your name, and I condemn you all the time...so your argument fails.
But YOU claim I DO have a '-R' after my name.
So YOUR argument fails.. :D
Sure I can... Unlike you, I try to address the actions being committed and do not focus on the party they belong to.
Oh what a crock.. I have seen EVERYONE here, you especially, condemning the entirety of the Right for the actions of one person...
You defend Trump's actions claiming that Obama did the same thing, yet in the same breath you bash Obama for doing it.
Once again, you are ignoring the argument and creating a straw-man argument because you have no defence for the REAL argument...
But YOU claim I DO have a '-R' after my name.
So YOUR argument fails.. :D
Glad to see you admit that I was correct.
Oh what a crock.. I have seen EVERYONE here, you especially, condemning the entirety of the Right for the actions of one person...
Find me a time that I use the phrase "Right-Wingery" that isn't a response to a comment of yours about "Left-Wingery"! Yes, I agree that we all condemn on side for the actions of one person from time to time, but no one can hold a candle to you when it comes to doing that! In this feed you've done it multiple times.
! Yes, I agree that we all condemn on side for the actions of one person from time to time, but no one can hold a candle to you when it comes to doing that! In this feed you've done it multiple times.
I only do it in response to ya'all doing it..
If ya'all want to cease doing it against the Right Wingery, I'll cease doing it against the Left Wingery..
But ya'all CAN'T cease doing it because ya'all are slaves to ideology...
I have no such impediment as you have acknowledged.. :D
Game... Set... Match... :D