Let Trump Be Trump, Kellyanne
Kellyanne Conway is right -- the media obsesses over presidential tweets from Donald Trump. What she fails to understand, though, is that there's a very good reason for this obsession. Trump tweets make news because they are newsworthy. If Trump tweets were bland and boring repetitions of White House policy, pre-vetted by the communications team, then it's likely nobody would pay any attention to them. But they're not. They are, as one interviewer pointed out to Kellyanne this morning, Trump's preferred method of communication to the American public. And what he's got to say makes news because nobody else in the administration can speak for Trump.
Trump was supposed to morph, somehow, into a more presidential figure after being sworn in. That didn't happen, obviously. Trump is still Trump. Part of being Trump is his id-fueled communications to his supporters, often via Twitter. Nobody knows what Trump'll tweet next, which is part of the obsession Kellyanne complains about, but is also due to how many times Trump has previously made news for himself and his administration -- good or bad -- by tweeting. If there wasn't the potential for breaking news, then there would be no media obsession (or, at the very least, Kellyanne's disapproval of it would then be justified).
The problem stems from the inherent nature of the Trump White House. In normal times, the press can talk to any number of sources -- press secretaries, presidential advisors, cabinet members, administration experts -- and they know that these sources are speaking with the full authority of the president. They speak for the president or even with the voice of the president, which means whatever they say will be treated as the official policy emanating from the Oval Office on down. In such normal times, it would be highly abnormal for the president to ever contradict one of these aides or advisors, because any administration wants to clearly speak "with one voice." So a story about a president contradicting or overruling a spokesman would be big news, in normal times.
Trump's administration is anything but normal, however. There are competing factions within the White House, making it nothing more than a glorified group of high school cliques clawing at each other for prominence. It actually matters whether a media source belongs to the Jared Kushner faction or the Steve Bannon faction, in other words. Other White Houses have experienced such power struggles, but this is usually seen as a bad thing by them. Trump, though, revels in the competition among his subordinates. It's a feature, not a bug. Because of this, the duelling cliques can fight right out in the open, which has given the media an absolute goldmine of leaks, which are solely designed to undermine one faction or another. Contradictions abound, even within the highest ranks of the White House staff.
But it's even worse that that, because Trump himself feels free to chart his own course on just about anything, in his early-morning Twitter sessions. This means that no media source -- no matter how prominent or official or on-the-record -- can hope to "speak with the voice of the president." Nothing any White House source says can be trusted in the slightest. Kellyanne says something on the morning news shows, and hours later the press office completely contradicts her, and nobody even notices any more, because that's just how things roll in the Trump White House. The media has some sport explaining the egg on the face of whichever Trump spokesperson has just been undercut, but by now it's a regular occurrence. Sometimes other advisors will contradict White House spokespeople, and sometimes Trump himself will shoot them down with a single tweet.
Either way, there is exactly zero trust from both the public and the media of anything anyone (other than Trump) says in the Trump administration anymore. Nobody can guarantee that Trump will wind up agreeing with them, their policy, their stance on an issue, or even the basic facts of the case. Statements by the vice president, by cabinet members, by close advisors, and by any number of underlings have been proven to be completely false later on. Nobody can be trusted to speak for Trump but Trump. Sure, it's soothing to hear people like Nikki Haley and Rex Tillerson professing a sober and sane outlook towards the rest of the world, but it's become impossible to believe either one of them even knows what Donald Trump actually thinks about basic foreign policy at all. Just look at the answers to whether Trump believes in man-made global warming (which have been all over the map this weekend) for proof of this. But no matter what someone like Haley says, everyone still waits to see what Trump will tweet about it -- because nobody knows whether he'll back up his spokespeople or totally undercut their stance.
This is why Trump tweets matter. Because he never holds back in them, and says what he truly believes. To put this another way: you can trust a Trump tweet, because it comes straight from the presidential fingers. You know that's what he really thinks, no matter how many aides or secretaries contradict him or try to spin it later on.
This is all exacerbated by how little Trump actually talks to the press. Trump has always had a love/hate relationship with the media, in that he loves seeing his name in the news but he hates it when the news makes him look bad. A key point is that Trump thinks he himself does a perfectly wonderful job of talking to the media. But he seems to be chafing against the restrictions his own team is putting on his press access. By my count, we've had one single solo Trump press conference and one single major television sit-down interview from Trump in his over four months in office. That's not a lot, by Trumpian standards. He used to enjoy sparring with the press on the campaign trail on an almost daily basis, and he even threatened a few weeks ago to abolish the daily White House press briefing entirely and instead directly give a press conference every couple of weeks.
This is what gives the lie to Kellyanne Conway complaining about the media's obsession with Trump's tweets. The question should be posed directly to her: "Well, if you don't want us paying so much attention to Trump's Twitter account, then why doesn't the White House staff just 'let Trump be Trump' and allow him to hold a full press conference every couple of weeks?" If the press could get direct quotes from Trump on any and all issues, his tweets would be pretty irrelevant. If Trump was breaking news in the White House press room instead of on Twitter, then there'd be no reason to obsess over his tweets. So let Trump be Trump -- he loves matching wits with reporters, so why not allow him to do so on a regular basis?
The Republican Party has reportedly hit upon a strategy for the 2018 midterm campaign -- paint the press as the enemy. It's the press that is making Trump and the Republican agenda look bad, in other words, so vote for me because I hate the press! The press needs to push back against this by pointing out the White House is so scared of what he'll say that they are the ones restricting the flow of information from Donald Trump to the people. In fact, it is people like Kellyanne herself who are allowing the press to obsess over tweets when they should be talking directly with Trump himself. Free Trump from his Twitter cage, and let him speak directly instead -- and the problem Kellyanne is upset about will completely go away. If Trump was making news on a regular basis with his direct quotes, then his tweets would be nothing more than an afterthought, barely worth a footnote in the reporting.
Kellyanne Conway is right. The press does obsess over Trump's tweets. But that's only because he makes so much news in them. When nobody can trust that a statement by a White House official won't get contradicted by a Trump tweet hours later, then this obsession will continue. But the ones responsible for this situation are the people in the White House who are terrified to let Trump channel his inner Trump in direct contact with reporters, not the reporters themselves. Since Trump thinks he does such a great job in press conferences, why not let him do more of them, Kellyanne? Let Trump be Trump!
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Trump tweets make news because they are newsworthy.
Oh come'on CW..
On what planet is 'covfefeed' newsworthy???
The press does obsess over Trump's tweets. But that's only because he makes so much news in them.
Quite the contrary..
It's the press and the hysterical Left that makes so much "news" in them...
As the 'covfefeed' saga proves..
It's the press and the hysterical Left that makes so much "news" in them...
As the 'covfefeed' saga proves..
Want me to prove it??
Have the hysterical Left, including everyone here, *ignore* President Trump's tweets for ONE WEEK...
20 MILLION quatloos says that it simply can't be done....
On what planet is 'covfefeed' newsworthy???
Any place where the elected leader is possibly showing signs of dementia or some other mental defect.
Any place the official spokesperson claims the president was using slang known only to top advisors instead of simply admitting the president mistyped a word.
Any place where, despite his claim of knowing all the best words, the president commonly misuses actual words or uses made up words that he thinks already exist.
Kellyanne made a deal with the devil - she got her White House job and now she doesn't like it. Boo hoo. That is what happens when you mix with an egomaniac - you are disposable and irrelevant, and most painful for Kellyanne, she is worthless. Nobody cares what she says because she is repeatedly caught lying or is contradicted by a tweet.
Kellyanne wants the press to stop paying attention to tweets and start paying attention to her.
When the most newsworthy aspect of your job is how far you can make Anderson Cooper's eyes roll, you gotta just give it up. For her role in putting an idiot in the White House, Kellyanne deserves a lot of punishment, so it is schadenfreude time for the decent people of America.
8% of Americans (0% of decent Americans) think the AHCA should be passed by the Senate "as is".
The AHCA is slightly less popular than Obamacare, if you define slightly as about 6 times less popular :)
What a farce. This from the boaster who told us we were going to have lower premiums, lower deductibles and better coverage. Then we got higher premiums, higher deductibles and worse coverage.
CW,
I was with you completely until this part:
This is why Trump tweets matter. Because he never holds back in them, and says what he truly believes. To put this another way: you can trust a Trump tweet, because it comes straight from the presidential fingers. You know that's what he really thinks, no matter how many aides or secretaries contradict him or try to spin it later on.
While what he says in a tweet could possibly be what "he truly believes", that is a very generous assumption! However, It doesn't explain why so many of he tweets contradict each other!
You say, "You know that's what he really thinks", but do you honestly believe that???
Maybe we can assume that is what Trump is thinking at the very moment he tweets something out, but to say that his tweets represent his true beliefs is being far more generous than I would be.
Trump is a liar. He is a pathological liar. He lies when he speaks. It doesn't matter if he supposedly "believes" the lies he is telling at the time, he is still lying! This is the scariest thing about having Trump as our leader.
Also, I think you had a typo:
So let Trump be Trump -- he loves matching wits with reporters, so why now allow him to do so on a regular basis?
Guessing you meant "not" in place of "now"?
While what he says in a tweet could possibly be what "he truly believes", that is a very generous assumption! However, It doesn't explain why so many of he tweets contradict each other!
and
Trump is a liar. He is a pathological liar. He lies when he speaks. It doesn't matter if he supposedly "believes" the lies he is telling at the time, he is still lying!
You got it. CW is right, but so are you.
CW is saying that the only thing you can trust when it comes to what random thoughts are fleeting through 45's brain is his tweets. He didn't say it was the truth. And, as you point out, he is a pathological liar so his next tweet also is a clear view of his thoughts at a later point, even though it might completely contradict an earlier tweet.
What a clown.
Donald isn't so much lying as he changes his mind from one nanosecond to the next
neilm
You got it. CW is right, but so are you.
CW is saying that the only thing you can trust when it comes to what random thoughts are fleeting through 45's brain is his tweets. He didn't say it was the truth. And, as you point out, he is a pathological liar so his next tweet also is a clear view of his thoughts at a later point, even though it might completely contradict an earlier tweet.
Perfectly stated collectively by CW, Listen, and Neil... and exactly why anyone claiming that it doesn't matter what Trump tweets reveals a stunning lack of intellect and detachment from reality. What the President of the United States says and even doesn't say absolutely matters and reflects directly and is of great consequence to the people of America.
On what planet is 'covfefeed' newsworthy???
Earth... third planet from the Sun. Anyone who can't grasp the basic concept that it does matter what the President of the United States says... and in some cases doesn't say... lays bare an intellect that is unmatched in its level of fatuousness.
Just in case President Pathological didn't make his beliefs clear in his multiple tweets of earlier, he drops this nugget this evening.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
That's right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS countries, not some politically correct term that won't help us protect our people!
8:20 PM - 5 Jun 2017
Words absolutely matter to him, believe him, and his words absolutely matter to all of us. The President of the United States is insisting in multiple tweets of today's date that it's a "TRAVEL BAN," adding tonight "for certain DANGEROUS countries," and he apparently thinks that calling the "TRAVEL BAN" by another name takes away some of its magical protection power. Hmmmmm... this is not at all unlike Trump's belief that the term "radical Islamic terrorism" bestows some magical power, but did anyone fail to notice how many times Trump used this term during his trip to Saudi Arabia?
Saudi Arabia... notably absent on the "DANGEROUS countries" list. Cue the sword dancing. :)
JL
9
Donald isn't so much lying as he changes his mind from one nanosecond to the next
Donald isn't so much lying as he changes his disease addled mind from one nanosecond to the next
It's a thing he shares with Saint Ronald of Reagan. ;)
I guess instead of, "You know that's what he really thinks", it would be more correct to say, "You know that's what he really wants us to believe!"
CW - When discussing the factions in Trump's White House, it's good to remember that there are more than the Bannon & Kushner factions. There's also the National Security folks, and they're doing a bit of strategic leaking themselves.
For instance, the story has leaked that, when Trump gave his NATO speech, a paragraph had been put into the speech in which he would have affirmed America's commitment to Article 5 of the NATO charter, which is the 'one for all and all for one' part of the alliance that essentially makes it work as a credible deterrent. Allies had made it clear that they wanted to hear the President affirm that article to their faces, but it seems someone, perhaps Trump himself, took that paragraph out of the speech.
Tillerson's people have been telling the press that Trump meant for the paragraph to be in there, but we get back to the other point you make in today's article: Tillerson can't tell anyone with a straight face that he speaks for Trump.
Donnie Nutso is losing cred both at home and on the street. Let's hope he isn't completely wrecking America's cred long-term as well.
Russ,
Any place where the elected leader is possibly showing signs of dementia or some other mental defect.
Any place where the elected leader who has an -R after their name is possibly showing signs of dementia or some other mental defect.
There... Fixed it for you...
Nancy Pelosi has been on the other side of loopy for several months now...
You haven't said DICK about it...
So, please.. spare me your Party line bullshit....
Any place the official spokesperson claims the president was using slang known only to top advisors instead of simply admitting the president mistyped a word.
You mean, he used SPIN!!
"OH MY GOD, WHAT A FUCKING NIGHTMARE!!!"
-Marissa Tomeii, MY COUSIN VINNY
Any place where, despite his claim of knowing all the best words, the president commonly misuses actual words or uses made up words that he thinks already exist.
And, that is important, exactly how???
Why not answer honestly???
The Left hysterically hates President Trump and will use anything and everything, no matter how inane or minute to attack him..
THAT would be the honest response...
Neil,
8% of Americans (0% of decent Americans) think the AHCA should be passed by the Senate "as is".
Cite???
And if it's WaPoop or HuffPoop, I'll be very disappointed...
:D
Neil,
What a clown.
And yet this CLOWN totally devastated YOUR chosen champion...
So, if Trump is a clown what does that make NOT-45....
A totally incompetent LUSER that she could not beat a clown for POTUS.... :D
Veronica,
Donald isn't so much lying as he changes his disease addled mind from one nanosecond to the next
Do you have ANY facts to support your bullshit??
No you do not.. As usual, you are just talking out your ass because you are a Party slave...
Veronica,
Earth... third planet from the Sun. Anyone who can't grasp the basic concept that it does matter what the President of the United States says... and in some cases doesn't say... lays bare an intellect that is unmatched in its level of fatuousness.
Wrong.. As usual...
It's NOT newsworthy on planet Earth except for a very hysterical portion of society who have had their political asses handed to them on a regular basis in the past 6 years...
Do you have ANY facts to support your bullshit??
No you do not.. As usual, you are just talking out your ass because you are a Party slave...
It's funny how ya'all (NEN) CLAIM to be all about facts...
Yet, ya'all NEVER have any to support the anti-Trump hysteria ya'all wallow in...
It's funny how ya'all (NEN) CLAIM to be all about facts...
This is getting ridiculous.. I have been commenting here for over a decade.. Ya'all should know by now that when I say "ya'all" I mean ONLY the "ya'all" that it applies to..
In other words, if you have never done what I am saying, then the "ya'all" doesn't apply to you...
I am tired of dancing on eggshells over ya'all's tortured egos and hurt feelings...
Henceforth, the NEN designation is a thing of the past.. If you have never done what I am talking about then you know that the "ya'all" doesn't apply to you...
ABC "Pink Slime" Trial Opens With Scathing Attacks on Media Bias, Corporate Secrecy
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/abc-pink-slime-trial-opens-scathing-attacks-media-bias-corporate-secrecy-1010391
This is why the MSM ratings are so low, they would KILL to have approval ratings that Trump has....
Russ,
Any place where the elected leader is possibly showing signs of dementia or some other mental defect.
google.com/#q=Nancy+Pelosi+signs+of+dementia
theblacksphere.net/2016/11/hillary-clinton-shows-dementia-rally/
prntly.com/2016/08/07/hillary-clinton-may-be-showing-signs-of-dementia/
http://www.naturalnews.com/055254_Hillary_Clinton_walking_dead_medical_event.html
thepoliticalinsider.com/wikileaks-just-dropped-bombshell-hillarys-health-truth-revealed/
Funny how you only care about leaders who possible have dementia when said leader has an -R after there name...
Now, come on.. Isn't it factual that you don't really believe that Trump has dementia?? Isn't it factual that you are using this latest inane excuse to beat Trump over the head, metaphorically speaking..???
Com'on... Confession is good for the soul...
"My soul's prepared, Dr Jones. How's yours?"
-Akim, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE
:D
Why Elites Hate
The liberal contempt for middle America is baked into the idea of identity politics.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-elites-hate-1496702030
This is why Democrats can't win elections..
Because they think that insulting voters is the best way to get their votes... :^/
BUSTED!!!!
Federal worker busted for leaking top-secret NSA docs on Russian hacking
A 25-year-old Federal contractor was charged Monday with leaking a top secret NSA report — detailing how Russian military hackers targeted US voting systems just days before the election.
The highly classified intelligence document, published Monday by The Intercept, describes how Russia managed to infiltrate America’s voting infrastructure using a spear-phishing email scheme that targeted local government officials and employees.
http://nypost.com/2017/06/05/top-secret-nsa-doc-details-russian-election-hacking-effort-report/
Bring back the firing squad!!!
@kanyewest you should make a shirt that says, "being white is terrorism"
-Sara Winners, federal contractor busted for espionage
Typical Left Winger.....
And can we PLEASE stop with the bullshit claim that Russians "hacked" the election...
There is absolutely NO single iota or smidgen of a piece of evidence that Russians changed a single vote...
AT WORST, what happened is that Russians exposed Left Wingers' private email..
In other words, COMPLETE transparency....
Which is something the Left claims that they are COMPLETELY supportive of..
Ya'all got COMPLETE transparency and ya'all STILL complain....
And can we PLEASE stop with the bullshit claim that Russians "hacked" the election...
the NSA doesn't seem to think it's bs
https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/top-secret-nsa-report-details-russian-hacking-effort-days-before-2016-election/
@[24/26]
did you notice that those two posts contradict each other? one can't prosecute someone for leaking a document that details russian hacking of US voting if there's no russian hacking of US voting. perhaps it was the fatigue of posting thirteen straight times.
JL
Looks like I got her name wrong...
Reality Leigh Winner
Her parents must have REALLY disliked her...
"Maverick?? Did your parents not like you or something?"
-Kelly McGillis, TOP GUN
Michale,
Now, come on.. Isn't it factual that you don't really believe that Trump has dementia?? Isn't it factual that you are using this latest inane excuse to beat Trump over the head, metaphorically speaking..???
Yes, I do think that there is plenty of evidence that Trump is suffering from some form of dementia. Look at any transcript of the interviews he has given or any of the speeches he gives that aren't scripted for him and you will see a man who is losing the ability to speak coherently. Mental lapses like telling the Chinese PM that we had successfully bombed Iraq. A complete lack of self control when it comes to emotional outbursts.
I watched my grandmother's and then my mother's slow demise into dementia. Starting a sentence about one subject and then jumping to a totally different topic without a hint of realization of what they were saying. The anger and frustration they would exhibit at the smallest things, often without any provocation.
You point to stories about Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, but those are individual cases of the person saying something that didn't make sense. When you can demonstrate that they are frequently showing signs of possible dementia, then we can discuss them. Also, neither one of them is the President of the United States. If either one of them could launch nuclear missiles on a whim, then I would be more concerned about their mental health.
What is truly sad is that people like you who claim to be so patriotic aren't concerned about your President's health. I'm guessing that will change once Trump is charged with collusion and Trump claims he isn't mentally fit to stand trial.
perhaps it was the fatigue of posting thirteen straight times.
Fatigue????
Have you MET me!!!??? :D hehehehe
did you notice that those two posts contradict each other?
The only contradiction is the Left Wingery's misuse of the term Russian hacking...
There may have been hacking, but it was against personnel not the election itself...
Irregardless, it doesn't matter if the NSA report is accurate or not.. The NSA report could have detailed the mating habits of Romulans and Denoblians...
If it's classifed and the information is released, then the person releasing the information has committed as felony..
The accuracy of the information is irrelevant...
the NSA doesn't seem to think it's bs
At the time, it was Odumbo's NSA....
'nuff said...
Yes, I do think that there is plenty of evidence that Trump is suffering from some form of dementia.
No there isn't.. It's all in your head..
You point to stories about Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, but those are individual cases of the person saying something that didn't make sense.
Saying things, head bobbings, passing out..
Face reality.. You don't care about the NOT-45 or Pelosi reports because they have -Ds after their names.
But you buy, hook line and sinker, infowars-esque reports of ANYTHING that puts the President in a bad light..
Your slavery to your Party is VERY transparent...
@JZarif There are many Americans protesting US govt aggression towards Iran. If our Tangerine in Chief declares war, we stand with you!
-Reality Winner
Scumbag terrorist sympathizer...
Your slavery to your Party is VERY transparent...
Your ZEALOTRY to your Party is VERY transparent..
My bust....
WOW! Dem Lawmaker Walks Out of Town Hall Event After Crowd Starts Chanting “We Love Trump!”
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/06/wow-dem-lawmaker-walks-town-hall-event-crowd-starts-chanting-love-trump-video/
BBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Looks like it's DUMBOCRATS who can't handle the heat!!!!! :D
It is to laugh... :D
@CW,
i almost feel sorry for kellyanne conway. more than any other adviser or campaign leader, she won the election for donald by reining in and refocusing his worst impulses. she's still trying valiantly to do that job, but at the moment it's nigh on impossible.
donald's tweets from yesterday are putting the last nail in the coffin of the muslim ban. his national interview with lester holt gave lie to the narrative that comey's firing was about anything other than obstructing the russia investigation. criticizing nato and pulling out of the paris climate accord killed any soft power he may have had globally.
if conway were not relegated to the backseat of the administration policy bus, perhaps then she'd be able to do both donald and our nation some good. but at the moment, her ability to conduct damage control is outpaced by the damage donald and his other advisers are doing.
JL
donald's tweets from yesterday are putting the last nail in the coffin of the muslim ban.
If it were a muslim ban, you might have a point...
But the FACTS clearly show it is NOT a muslim ban..
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/06/02/ftp439/#comment-101769
Regardless, would you like to make a wager on the SCOTUS ruling??? :D
Regardless, would you like to make a wager on the SCOTUS ruling??? :D
My track record with SCOTUS rulings is worse than ya'all's Anti-Trump track record..
You might actually win!! :D
Of course, if the Left prefers, we can wait until dozens or hundreds are killed in the US by terrorists before ya'all realize that the danger and the threat are real....
Of course, when (not if, but when) that happens, the Left will simply blame Trump for not doing enough to protect Americans....
:^/
Trump’s proposed visa pause follows the precautionary principle. Supporters of the Paris climate accords use that principle all the time. They accuse critics of the Paris accords of forcing the world to wait until it is destroyed by a tidal wave before it can take action against climate change. Yet many of those same advocates of the environmental precautionary principle would have the Trump administration wait until the country is attacked by a Libyan, say, before it can tighten visa protocols in Libya. But of course, if the Trump administration did wait until after an attack, it would be accused of overreacting to a one-shot incident. And if the travel pause were broader, to take in countries already associated with terror attacks on U.S. soil, it would be lambasted for its even greater racist, xenophobic reach.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/run-hide-blame-trump-15240.html
Yep, that's our Democrat Party... Talking out both sides of their asses....
With climate change:
WE CAN'T WAIT FOR A HORRENDOUS STORM THAT KILLS THOUSANDS!!! WE MUST ACT NOW!!!!
With counter-terrorism:
WE MUST WAIT FOR A TERRORIST ATTACK THAT KILLS THOUSANDS!!! THEN WE CAN ACT TO PREVENT IT!!!
Democrat "logic"..... :^/
Trump's rambling is clear and obvious, no matter how much you try to deny it.
" … there is no collusion between certainly myself and my campaign, but I can always speak for myself - and the Russians, zero."
Other sentences are missing words. Again, from the AP: "If they don't treat fairly, I am terminating NAFTA," and, "I don't support or unsupport" - leaving out a "me" in the first and an "it" (or more specific noun) in the second. Other sentences simply don't track: "From the time I took office til now, you know, it's a very exact thing. It's not like generalities."
He told NBC's Lester Holt, "When I did this now I said, I probably, maybe will confuse people, maybe I'll expand that, you know, lengthen the time because it should be over with, in my opinion, should have been over with a long time ago."
Channeling his inner Sarah Palin, Trump’s rants often seem to lose any connection with reality at all. Take the example of Trump’s interview with the Washington Post editorial board in March. During that exchange one of the editors asked Trump if he would consider using a tactical nuclear weapon against ISIS:
TRUMP: I don’t want to use, I don’t want to start the process of nuclear. Remember the one thing that everybody has said, I’m a counterpuncher. Rubio hit me. Bush hit me. When I said low energy, he’s a low-energy individual, he hit me first. I spent, by the way, he spent 18 million dollars’ worth of negative ads on me. That’s putting [MUFFLED]…
RYAN: This is about ISIS. You would not use a tactical nuclear weapon against ISIS?
TRUMP: I’ll tell you one thing, this is a very good-looking group of people here. Could I just go around so I know who the hell I’m talking to?
Trump's rambling is clear and obvious, no matter how much you try to deny it.
All of what you post is simply YOUR spin, the LEFT spin on what Trump has said....
And, ya'all have PROVEN that you are ruled solely by Party ideology and NOT facts...
Yer just like those Right Wing hysterics who said Obama was a muslim double agent..
THEY had "facts" too, but it was NOTHING but ideologically based spin...
It would be different if ya'all didn't jump HYSTERICALLY at every little thing...
Covefeefee and two scoops of ice cream is as SERIOUS, in ya'all's minds, as Trump starting WWIII.....
Ya'all simply have NO CREDIBILITY when it comes to attacking Trump...
It's THAT simple...
So why hasn't Trump changed the vetting process if he thinks it is not thorough enough? That is well within his power to do, yet he only focuses on keeping all Muslims that aren't from a nation that has sponsored terrorist attacks against us from coming to the U.S. Why not tell us what improvements he plans on making to the vetting process? Probably because it can't get more thorough than it already is.
Trump is only wanting to block Muslims so that he can claim that he has fulfilled a campaign promise. He doesn't care that it does nothing to make the country safer.
Regardless, would you like to make a wager on the SCOTUS ruling??? :D
i'd be stealing your quatloos. as things stand now it might be 8-1 or even unanimous.
thomas, the only strict originalist on the scotus, will likely vote to uphold the ban. however, yesterday's tweets harm the ban's case with textualists roberts and alito, since the tweets are hard evidence that donald views this ban as a continuation of the prior, withdrawn ban.
kennedy, the swing vote, is a hardcore libertarian, and a travel ban most definitely restricts liberty. this ban has NO chance with any of the four 'living constitution' justices, so that's basically it.
what would really be interesting though is to see how trump reacts if gorsuch votes against the ban. in terms of his judicial philosophy, gorsuch is most like roberts, but trump may believe that gorsuch "owes" his vote, so a very angry tweet could be forthcoming.
JL
See Michale run away from addressing the facts.
Run, Michale, run!
See Michale deflect from the topic and go to his tired "party loyalty" bullshit. Deflect, Michale, deflect!
I want to leave you with my favorite rambling of all. After warning that Clinton was giving away the jobs of hard-working Pennsylvanians to please her wealthy donors, Trump said,
“You’re unsuspecting. Right now, you say to your wife: ‘Let’s go to a movie after Trump.’ But you won’t do that because you’ll be so high and so excited that no movie is going to satisfy you. Okay? No movie. You know why? Honestly? Because they don’t make movies like they used to - is that right?”
And people like you just stood there applauding this gibberish!
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
So why hasn't Trump changed the vetting process if he thinks it is not thorough enough?
He has, but the Democrats are fighting him on THAT as well..
Trump is only wanting to block Muslims so that he can claim that he has fulfilled a campaign promise. He doesn't care that it does nothing to make the country safer.
And yet, MANY muslim countries are NOT on the list..
Totally decimates your theory.. :D
See Michale run away from addressing the facts.
Run, Michale, run!
You just don't get it..
You HAVE no facts... THAT is your entire problem..
YOu just have hysterical Party zealotry...
i'd be stealing your quatloos. as things stand now it might be 8-1 or even unanimous.
Yea... And NOT-45 was going to win in a 50-state sweep...
Do you see the resemblance between the two predictions??
They are both based on NOTHING but wishful thinking and Party zealotry...
If it's a sure thing, you should have NO PROBLEM with a wager...
The fact you are not wanting to proves my case.. :D
With climate change:
WE CAN'T WAIT FOR A HORRENDOUS STORM THAT KILLS THOUSANDS!!! WE MUST ACT NOW!!!!
With counter-terrorism:
WE MUST WAIT FOR A TERRORIST ATTACK THAT KILLS THOUSANDS!!! THEN WE CAN ACT TO PREVENT IT!!!
Thank you for making the call for action to combat climate change! Or do Republicans say:
WE MUST WAIT FOR A HORRENDOUS STORM THAT KILLS THOUSANDS!!! THEN WE CAN ACT TO PREVENT IT!!!
Much like the lying orange turd you worship, you are also wrong when it comes to Democrats views on how our country allows foreigners to come to the U.S. No one says just let anyone come in. No one calls for completely open borders.
If Trump wants to truly protect us from terrorists, then why not apply his vetting process to all foreigners, regardless of where they come from? Because white people can't be terrorists!???
If it's a sure thing, you should have NO PROBLEM with a wager...
The fact you are not wanting to proves my case.. :D
okay then, if you're sure you want to... just don't say i didn't warn you.
Yea... And NOT-45 was going to win in a 50-state sweep...
if you'll recall, i was NOT willing to bet on THAT outcome.
JL
WE MUST WAIT FOR A HORRENDOUS STORM THAT KILLS THOUSANDS!!! THEN WE CAN ACT TO PREVENT IT!!!
The fact that you believe that humans can STOP a horrendous storm shows how deluded you are.. :D
If Trump wants to truly protect us from terrorists, then why not apply his vetting process to all foreigners, regardless of where they come from? Because white people can't be terrorists!???
No, because moronic Democrats who put Party before country would scream hysterically to the high heavens and riot and destroy property and assault people...
If it's a sure thing, you should have NO PROBLEM with a wager...
The fact you are not wanting to proves my case.. :D
okay then, if you're sure you want to... just don't say i didn't warn you.
Oh I know I want to.. :D It'll be nice to actually WIN a SCOTUS bet.. :D
if you'll recall, i was NOT willing to bet on THAT outcome.
And if YOU'LL recall, you didn't correct those who did bet on that out come.. :D
No one calls for completely open borders.
“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the Hemisphere,”
-NOT45
The Left has been all in for Open Borders for a while now...
http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/29/the-left-goes-all-in-on-open-borders/
Do you ever get tired of being wrong??? :D
And if YOU'LL recall, you didn't correct those who did bet on that out come.. :D
that was their mistake, not mine. and this one is yours. if quatloos aren't enough, what stakes do you suggest?
JL
Tedious.
@liz,
i agree, but what do you suggest to remedy that?
JL
that was their mistake, not mine. and this one is yours. if quatloos aren't enough, what stakes do you suggest?
I'm easy...
@m
loser posts here that they have no idea what facts or opinions are, and would like the winner to teach them how to tell the difference.
JL
i agree, but what do you suggest to remedy that?
How about talking about something substantive, instead of nonsense words and how many scoops of ice cream President Trump has???
Tone down the hysterical shreiks when President Trump farts... Don't treat each and every mis-spoke and mis-step as President Trump just started WWIII..
And for christ's sake... At least have some FACTS to support yer accusations....
Not Anonymous Sources report on an Anonymous letter...
All of that will go a LONG way to get out of the childish tedium of ya'all's comments.. :D
every day for a week
BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I know ya'all LOVE anonymous sources so ya'all will eat this up!!! :D
Exclusive: Comey will stop short of saying Trump obstructed justice in Flynn probe, source says
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/exclusive-comey-stop-short-trump-obstructed-justice-flynn/story?id=47865739
So much for ya'all's hoped-for "bombshell"...
I told ya'all that President Trump could have stopped Comey from testifying..
The fact that President Trump DIDN'T proves that he is not worried about anything Comey might say..
This report would support that confidence..
Sorry, ya'all lose again.. :D
loser posts here that they have no idea what facts or opinions are, and would like the winner to teach them how to tell the difference.
OK.. So your claim is that the SCOTUS will rule against the immigration ban by a score of 8-1 or unanimous.. If that happens, you win..
My claim is that the SCOTUS will reverse the lower courts on preventing the ban from taking effect, but still allow the cases to proceed thru the courts... If that happens, I win...
Anything between those two outcomes or outside those two outcomes is a push...
I can agree to those terms...
ha! you don't get off that easy michale. loser posts it every day for a week no matter whether it's 9-0 or 5-4. just because you wanted to get into an unfair bet, that doesn't oblige me to make it fair for you.
JL
Shakespeare in the Park, an annual summer program by The Public Theater that puts on plays by William Shakespeare in Central Park, kicked off May 23 with a performance of Julius Caesar.
But this rendition of Shakespeare’s tragedy comes with a twist — Caesar is played by a character that bears a striking resemblance to President Donald Trump.
http://www.mediaite.com/trump/senators-stab-trump-to-death-in-central-park-performance-of-shakespeares-julius-caesar/
We can always discuss how the disgusting and perverse violence a'la Kathy Griffin is not an aberration but is rather the norm for the Left Wingery...
That is certainly substantive...
ha! you don't get off that easy michale. loser posts it every day for a week no matter whether it's 9-0 or 5-4. just because you wanted to get into an unfair bet, that doesn't oblige me to make it fair for you.
Ha! I am just going by what YOU posted...
i'd be stealing your quatloos. as things stand now it might be 8-1 or even unanimous.
Apparently, you are now not so sure that it might be 8-1 or unanimous.. :D
Apparently, you are now not so sure that it might be 8-1 or unanimous.. :D
agreed, i'm not so sure the count will be that high, ergo, i said MIGHT.
JL
Fair enough...
, since the tweets are hard evidence that donald views this ban as a continuation of the prior, withdrawn ban.
Which tweets are those??
Apparently, I don't follow President Trump as religiously as you do... :D
Which tweets are those??
the ones he tweeted yesterday between six and seven AM. in chronological order:
1. People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!
2. The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C.
3. The Justice Dept. should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down Travel Ban before the Supreme Court - & seek much tougher version!
4. In any event we are EXTREME VETTING people coming into the U.S. in order to help keep our country safe. The courts are slow and political!
JL
The house troll is showing signs of dementia.
Victoria is showing signs that she has no facts or no arguments so she must resort to childish name-calling and immature personal attacks..
Shush, little bit.. The adults are talking...
Apparently, I don't follow President Trump as religiously as you do... :D
not my fault if i'm better informed than you are. does this mean you withdraw your request for a bet on the travel ban outcome?
what's wrong mcfly? chicken?
:D
JL
1. People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN
So, it's a travel ban???
Why is that a problem??
2. The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C.
3. The Justice Dept. should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down Travel Ban before the Supreme Court - & seek much tougher version!
How is any of those relevant to the SCOTUS case??
Don't get me wrong.. You think you have a case and you are a lot smarter than I am.
I am just trying to understand your thought process...
But, if that is all you have, it appears it's nothing but Party ideology talking...
4. In any event we are EXTREME VETTING people coming into the U.S. in order to help keep our country safe. The courts are slow and political!
Now this disputes Russ's claim above that President Trump hasn't changed the vetting process... Why didn't you correct him??
And how is the vetting process relevant to the SCOTUS's decision????
Again, you are smarter than me.. I really want to understand if you are on to something or not..
not my fault if i'm better informed than you are. does this mean you withdraw your request for a bet on the travel ban outcome?
what's wrong mcfly? chicken?
:D
hehehehehe
Nope.. See above... :D
not my fault if i'm better informed than you are.
And THAT is why all the questions..
I need to find out if you ARE actually better informed??
Or are you just differently informed from the likes of WaPoop and NY Grime and DailyKshit...
Still need a better name for DK... That one is lame... :^/
It’s the Hypocrisy, Stupid
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448320/hypocrite-democrats-lecture-country-exempt-themselves-resemble-jimmy-swaggart
Heh... Democrats are the new Jimmy Swaggarts...
I like that.. :D
It’s the Hypocrisy, Stupid
http://tinyurl.com/y9wkaupy
Heh.. Democrats are the new Jimmy Swaggarts....
I like that. It's so... so... fitting... :D
@michale,
My suggestion would be to call publications by their names. if you think they're unreliable, let that opinion stand on its own, the name calling weakens it.
the tweets matter first of all because the whole argument against the ban is that trump's "intent" went beyond the text of the present ban. in the tweets he states outright that his intent goes beyond the text of the current ban, making his opponents' argument for them.
second, in the legal system language matters, and calling it a "ban" instead of something more nuanced puts it at a huge disadvantage with a libertarian like kennedy. have you ever heard of a "ban" that didn't restrict liberty?
as to the last tweet, what's relevant is that it's a criticism of the entire branch of government to which the scotus belongs. even more than other branches of government, judges REALLY don't like having their legitimacy or independence questioned.
JL
Caesar is played by a character that bears a striking resemblance to President Donald Trump.
Actually Funny or Die did the same thing awhile back.
Fans of Shakespearean theater often blog about the similarities between the Bard's description of Caesar and the Donald.
Moreover, some on the alt-right have embraced the comparison, noting that Ceasar's demagoguery was music to the ears of dispossessed masses often dismissed by Roman elites as 'deplorables'.
And his nemesis, Brutus, was a politician who was famously not much of a speech-giver, or as Michale might call him, NOT-1.
NYp[80] Remember that the issue isn't 'Can Trump ban citizens of certain countries from entering the US?', but rather 'Is this travel ban legitimate?'
The difference is what makes Trump's tweet so damaging to his case.
So Justice Dept. lawyers were arguing that, firstly, it isn't a 'travel ban', but rather 'intensified border scrutiny' regarding citizens from particular countries because of national security, etc., etc.
But why those countries in particular? Collectively, none have ever sent a terrorist into the US that we know of. A 'national security' argument would probably lose, and be laughed at.
If the answer is, "I dunno, had to keep a campaign promise, and those were the Muslim countries without Trump properties", the ban probably also loses.
For proponents of the ban who claim that it can't be found discriminatory because it doesn't cover ALL Muslims, is, as a Judge recently wrote, like saying that a law that affects local black men could not be deemed discriminatory because it wasn't directed against ALL blacks, which would be patent nonsense.
Michale
74
Victoria is showing signs that she has no facts or no arguments so she must resort to childish name-calling and immature personal attacks..
The only "facts" or "arguments" I need is that "house troll" answered when called... such a good slave.
I told ya'all that President Trump could have stopped Comey from testifying..
No, Trump could NOT have stopped Comey from testifying. He could have only delayed his testimony.
The fact that President Trump DIDN'T proves that he is not worried about anything Comey might say..
This report would support that confidence..
You are such a gullible party slave. Trump is fuming this week; have you seen his Twitter feed? ;)
There is no war room. Jared got interviewed by the Attorney General's office International Criminal Division yesterday, and Trump is mad as hell at Sessions for recusing himself. Uh, oh! Looks like Jefferson Beauregard Sessions might be next up on the firing line. Forbes just broke a story deconstructing how the Eric Trump Foundation was used to funnel charity money back to the Trump Organization, and then there are all those subpoenas, warrants, and sealed indictments, law firms refusing to represent him... and Flynn just delivered about 600 pages of documents. Nice little complicit bird... proves there is more than one way to tweet. :)
US suspects Russian hackers planted fake news behind Qatar crisis
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/russian-hackers-planted-fake-news-qatar-crisis/index.html
US investigators believe Russian hackers breached Qatar's state news agency and planted a fake news report that contributed to a crisis among the US' closest Gulf allies, according to US officials briefed on the investigation.
The FBI recently sent a team of investigators to Doha to help the Qatari government investigate the alleged hacking incident, Qatari and US government officials say.
Intelligence gathered by the US security agencies indicates that Russian hackers were behind the intrusion first reported by the Qatari government two weeks ago, US officials say. Qatar hosts one of the largest US military bases in the region.
The alleged involvement of Russian hackers intensifies concerns by US intelligence and law enforcement agencies that Russia continues to try some of the same cyber-hacking measures on US allies that intelligence agencies believe it used to meddle in the 2016 elections.
geez. cold war 2.0
JL
joshua,
my remedy is to ignore the tedium and only engage in enlightened discussion with those who are willing and able to do the same ...
[84] And this while both far left and far right media in our country are complaining about 'russophobia' among moderates.
Putin thinks he's got the US neutered under Trump, and is moving to blatantly undermine the West, hoping perhaps that, if it things get chaotic enough, perhaps Russia can step forward as a leader on par (diplomatically) with the US.
Although Russia remains a nuclear superpower, and has the second largest military in the world, its economy is not so much, ranking about 12th in the world - or six slots below California. Its military spending, even after recent and planned increases, is only about a fifth of what the US spends on its forces, and with a perpetually faltering and undiversified economy, it's questionable whether Putin could ever afford to bring his military back up to the level of threat that it achieved during the days of Soviet Rule.
And the question lingers: how far is he willing to go, and to what extent is he willing to sacrifice his and his country's reputation in the eyes of the world to achieve his goals? How far does he believe he can push the West before the game becomes truly dangerous?
I've been worrying that Trump is Putin's diversion, his smokescreen, or like one of those flash-bang grenades that SWAT teams use to disorient their targets and thieves use for heists. While we obsess over the big, conveniently orange distraction in the White House, Putin is free to do things like those described in the article relatively risk-free, knowing that even when he's caught at it, the news is unlikely to knock flashy attention getters like Trump or LePen off the front page.
michale [1] -
Allow me to quote:
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
-Amendment XXV, Section 4
There you go! That's precisely why it's newsworthy. Here's a question for you: how much political hay have you made over the years on Barack Obama stating that there were "57 states" when he was trying to refer to the number of Democratic primaries? Hmmm?
Newsworthiness is in the eye of the beholder...
:-)
-CW
ListenWhenYouHear [7] -
OK, first off, you're right on that typo. They're hard to catch when the typo is a correctly-spelled word, that's for sure. Nice catch, and it has now been corrected. Mea culpa.
Not to armchair-psychoanalyze Trump or anything, but I really believe that whenever Trump tweets anything, for the most part he really believes what he types at that particular moment.
Later, when he tweets something contradictory, he really believes that, when he types it.
Either that, or he's just trying to screw with the media and people like me. Always a possibility...
I think how I feel most about Trump's tweets can be summed up in two letters I used in this article: id.
Really, that's probably closest to the truth. I tried to pretty it up with multisyllabic words and all, but that's the core of it, at least from where I sit.
-CW
Balthasar
87
And the question lingers: how far is he willing to go, and to what extent is he willing to sacrifice his and his country's reputation in the eyes of the world to achieve his goals? How far does he believe he can push the West before the game becomes truly dangerous?
And the really sad part is, that paragraph you wrote there about Putin applies even more so to Benedict Donald.
To be clear here: Trump is the Titanic who hit an iceberg on May 9 and is taking on water bigly, the deck shuffling and dealing has already begun... so... who will be getting on the lifeboats and who is going down with the shit? Stay tuned.
neilm [8], and nypoet22 [9] -
Exactly right.
-CW
Kick [10] -
It's almost like he's intentionally trying to undercut his own legal position on the issue.
Strange, isn't it?
-CW
Kick [11] -
Isn't that supposed to be "Saint Ronald of Reagan, blessed be his name [genuflect]"?
Just askin'...
Heh.
-CW
Oh, CW... I see we have twin time stamps. ~(_8^(|)
michale [14] -
So, let us all know, wise one -- are you in the know? What is your particular definition of "covfefe"?
Do tell!
Heh.
-CW
michale [18] -
OK, two things. One, you gotta get beyond "covfefe." Seriously, that's like so "last week" dude... Trump's moved miles beyond that on his Twitter account by now. Keep up!
Second, did you read the whole article? Or what? The whole point is: Trump refuses to communicate via ANY OTHER official channel, which is what makes Twitter the key channel for his communications.
If we're supposed to ignore his tweets, then please point to any: official presidential statements, direct quotes in press conferences, official quotes in interviews, or ANY OTHER form of Trump communicating to the public, in the last six or seven days.
You can't -- because there have not been any.
That's my entire point. Trump tweets are important because he (or his advisors) are terrified of him communicating to the public in any other fashion. Period. That's why there haven't been any. Period.
Trump tweets would be irrelevant if he'd ever speak to the public any other way, dude. Deal with it. As usual, he's his own worst enemy.
-CW
Kick -
Hey there. I'm addressing this whole comment thread, but it's really late at night, and I probably won't make it through to the end in this session. So just wanted to say "hey -- someone ELSE is up this time of night -- hi!"
:-)
-CW
michale [22] -
Even accepting your premise for the sake of argument (which is utter moosepoop, but whatever...), Nancy Pelosi is currently the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives. In other words, pretty powerless.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, has the nuclear football close at hand every day.
See the difference?
You should.
-CW
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
-Amendment XXV, Section 4
Did somebody mention lifeboats? ;)
And since the President pro tempore of the Senate is one Orrin Hatch, we've been referring to the 25th lately as the "Escape Hatch."
OK, random comment to keep up with breaking news -
Does anyone else have a problem with the name of the leaker being "Reality Winner"?
I had a big problem with one of our Middle East sources being named "Al-Libi" a while back, and that same trigger was just pulled. I mean, "Alibi" as a name? Really?
Maybe I just read too much Robert Anton Wilson as an impressionable youth. "Justin Case" and all of that... heh...
-CW
Kick [99] -
And since the President pro tempore of the Senate is one Orrin Hatch, we've been referring to the 25th lately as the "Escape Hatch."
OK, now THAT's freakin' FUNNY!
Heh...
:-)
-CW
97
CW
Hey there. I'm addressing this whole comment thread, but it's really late at night, and I probably won't make it through to the end in this session. So just wanted to say "hey -- someone ELSE is up this time of night -- hi!"
:-)
Well, hello there. It is an honor to share live commentary and twin time stamps, sir! :)
Wednesday, June 7th, 2017 at 00:47 PDT
nypoet22 [28-ish] -
I realize it's early, but I'd like to nominate John McCain for "Political Neologism Of The Year" for his entry: "centipede."
Definition: "A political scandal that never ends, because there are always so many more shoes to drop."
Brilliant!
[Heh]
-CW
Kick -
So, do tell, what time zone are you actually in? It's approaching the end of Seth Meyers' show where I live right now...
:-)
-CW
michale [29] -
I live in a region where hippie names are pretty common for anyone under the age of 40. Lots of "Rainbow"s, lots of other such creative monikers.
The amusing thing is that when they go to school and want to rebel against their parents, they become Young Republicans.
Heh. Thought you'd appreciate that.
-CW
I realize it's early, but I'd like to nominate John McCain for "Political Neologism Of The Year" for his entry: "centipede."
I second that. I'm so proud of Senator McCain. He has come a long way since the days of "bomb bomb bomb... bomb bomb Iran," and I believe his very best is yet to come. :)
ListenWhenYouHear [30]
[see: Ronald Reagan, 1986-1988]
-CW
CW
104
I am presently in CDT. :)
nypoet22 [37] -
Yeah, you're right abotu Kellyanne, but I still find it very hard to feel sorry for her.
-CW
Kick [108] -
Wow, then you're up even later than me!
We're all just killing time until 10:00 AM, Eastern Time, Thursday morning... eh?
Heh.
-CW
But... I Get Around.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qZe4APttU0
michale [38] -
Your "Dear Leader" is saying differently. According to him, the "politically correct" term "TRAVEL BAN" is not even macho enough, because he flat-out promised a "Muslim Ban" on the campaign trail.
I mean, to contradict this point is to contradict Trump tweets -- which brings us back to the core argument of this article.
You really gotta keep up on this stuff, dude...
-CW
michale [43] -
So Trump wanted a 90- or 120-day "pause" while he instituted extreme vetting (oh, excuse me, "EXTREME VETTING"). It got tied up in the courts. But now he promises you that extreme vetting is taking place.
So who cares, at this point, about the "pause"?
Why is he fighting so hard in court for something that was supposed to have happened by now?
Either you don't believe Trump back then, or you don't believe him now. Take your pick...
-CW
CW
100
Wow, then you're up even later than me!
Late was a couple hours ago here. I just took an early morning swim. I love the smell of chlorine in the morning. ;)
We're all just killing time until 10:00 AM, Eastern Time, Thursday morning... eh?
So... you're going to skip the 4 gentlemen testifying publicly and privately today?
My suggestion would be to call publications by their names. if you think they're unreliable, let that opinion stand on its own, the name calling weakens it.
Suggestion noted and appreciated...
I am simply playing by the established rules vis a vis this particular issue..
the tweets matter first of all because the whole argument against the ban is that trump's "intent" went beyond the text of the present ban. in the tweets he states outright that his intent goes beyond the text of the current ban, making his opponents' argument for them.
Regardless of the President's intent, the text of the law is the only factor to be considered...
What you are saying is that, if a Democrat had proposed the exact same law, it would not have ANY issues with the courts.
And THAT is pure political bigotry...
second, in the legal system language matters, and calling it a "ban" instead of something more nuanced puts it at a huge disadvantage with a libertarian like kennedy. have you ever heard of a "ban" that didn't restrict liberty?
Lefties want to BAN a lot of things all the time...
What you are talking about it marketing and I don't think Justice Kennedy would stoop to be affected by marketing...
as to the last tweet, what's relevant is that it's a criticism of the entire branch of government to which the scotus belongs. even more than other branches of government, judges REALLY don't like having their legitimacy or independence questioned.
So, you are saying that the SCOTUS Justices are going to lash out in a fit of pique and ignore the law and the text of the President's ban..
You must have a very low opinion of the Justices..
If THAT is all you have, I am a lot more secure in my position now.. :D
Actually Funny or Die did the same thing awhile back.
Oh.. Well, that makes it ok then..
{/sarcasm}
Fans of Shakespearean theater often blog about the similarities between the Bard's description of Caesar and the Donald.
DEMOCRAT fans of Shakespeare..
Regardless... As usual, you ignore my point and throw up a bunch of useless drivel thereby confirming my point...
michale [54] -
Yeah, your SCOTUS predictions have been pretty bad. It gives me a warm feeling, because I know that no matter how many high court predictions I get wrong, I'll never top your record.
Heh.
No offense, or anything...
:-)
-CW
Victoria,
No, Trump could NOT have stopped Comey from testifying. He could have only delayed his testimony.
Delayed the testimony for as long as Trump is president.. That is effectively stopping Comey from testifying..
You like to play your semantic games but, like Balthy, you ignore the point thereby proving the point..
PWNED!! :D
JL,
geez. cold war 2.0
JL
Oh, come on!! Are you falling for THAT again!!!
I would have thought you would have learned your lesson when you got burned by the fake WaPoop story about Trump leaking intelligence to the Russians or the fake CNN story that Kushner tried to create a back-channel to the Russians..
CW,
Yeah, your SCOTUS predictions have been pretty bad. It gives me a warm feeling, because I know that no matter how many high court predictions I get wrong, I'll never top your record.
Heh.
No offense, or anything...
None taken.. I, unlike most everyone here, have absolutely NO PROBLEM conceding when I am wrong. :D
With so many wrong predictions, this time I am due!! :D hehehehehe
Kick [111] -
I'm gettin' bugged driving up and down the same old strip / I gotta find a new place where the kids are hip
[114] -
Say what? Do tell! Got a link?
-CW
CW,
Even accepting your premise for the sake of argument (which is utter moosepoop, but whatever...), Nancy Pelosi is currently the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives. In other words, pretty powerless.
But she is a Democrat LEADER....
And Russ just mentioned a "LEADER" with dementia..
But of course, no one here will point to Pelosi's MASSIVE evidence of dementia because she has a -D after her name...
That was my point..
Donald Trump, on the other hand, has the nuclear football close at hand every day.
And ya'all voted to give NOT-45 the nuclear button even though there is ample evidence of HER dementia...
How is that any different???
Answer: It's only difference is that NOT-45 has a -D after her name...
"Simple logic"
-Admiral James T Kirk
michale [67] -
I'd vote for Caligula, personally. Or maybe Nero.
:-)
-CW
michale [122] -
The difference is obvious. It's between "what might have been" and "actual reality."
-CW
OK, two things. One, you gotta get beyond "covfefe." Seriously, that's like so "last week" dude... Trump's moved miles beyond that on his Twitter account by now. Keep up!
But it's a PERFECT example of the Hysteria of the Left Wingery...
Once that is acknowledged, I'll be happy to move on.. But I go where the facts take me.. :D
That's my entire point. Trump tweets are important because he (or his advisors) are terrified of him communicating to the public in any other fashion. Period. That's why there haven't been any. Period.
Fine. Listen to his tweets if ya'all must..
But fer christ's sake.. Be a little more discriminating in ya'all's behavior..
Ya have to admit.. When everything Trump tweets arises to the level of a catastrophic ending of civilization, ya'all have a major hysteria problem...
nypoet22 [72] -
Thanks for providing the original tweets, for the record.
Just had to say that.
-CW
CW
121
Say what? Do tell! Got a link?
*LOL* Okay, now... the operative words there were supposed to be:
My buddies and me are getting real well known /
Yeah, the bad guys know us and they leave us alone. ;)
JL,
My apologies....
JL,
geez. cold war 2.0
JL
Oh, come on!! Are you falling for THAT again!!!
I would have thought you would have learned your lesson when you got burned by the fake WaPoop story about Trump leaking intelligence to the Russians or the fake CNN story that Kushner tried to create a back-channel to the Russians..
I thought you were referring to Veronica's hysterical OH MY GOD THE WORLD IS ENDING!!!! comment about President Trump personally hacking the QATAR government and making them do some such thing...
Only after seeing Liz's comment and then looking closer at Veronica's childish and immature personal attack rant did I make the connection to your comment..
My sincerest apologies for the misunderstanding...
michale [76] -
This proves the main point the original article made.
Nothing any "Trump advisor" says is "operable" because Trump himself might contradict it in a tweet.
Multiple Trump "White House spokesmen" went out in front of the cameras to proclaim "it's not a travel ban" for WEEKS on end. Then Trump threw them all under a bus.
As for how he undercuts his own case, well, I leave that as an exercise for the student. As time goes by, you'll understand this aspect of it,
I'm sure.
-CW
CW,
The difference is obvious. It's between "what might have been" and "actual reality."
Which doesn't change the fact (there's that word again :D) that ya'all are PERFECTLY OK with a leader who has their finger on the nuclear button and shows signs of dementia...
BUT ONLY as long as that leader has a -D after their name.. :D
If there is another logical conclusion that fits the data???
"I'm all ears.."
-Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Election Debate
Balthasar [81] -
So, I have to ask -- who is our Brutus? Who is our Marc Antony?
Inquiring minds want to know...
-CW
CW,
our "Dear Leader" is saying differently. According to him, the "politically correct" term "TRAVEL BAN" is not even macho enough, because he flat-out promised a "Muslim Ban" on the campaign trail.
And NOT-45 promised "open borders"... NOW ya'all claim that she said no such thing..
Why is Trump held to campaign rhetoric, but NOT-45 is not??
Ah yes... The infamous -R and the awe-inpsiring -D.... :D
"Ahh yes, the raktajeno.. A vital clue"
-Dr Bashir, STAR TREK DEEP SPACE NINE, Trials and Tribble-lations
:D
CW
Yes, the old man truly is showing signs of dementia. Who the hell is Veronica? If he'd just stick to using my commenter name, he wouldn't come off as mentally challenged and in the throes of dementia... so like his Orange Crush. :)
Michale at [125] said: But fer christ's sake.. Be a little more discriminating in ya'all's behavior..
It's obvious what's going on here to anyone reading and comprehending. Michale is trying to mold this place into a safe space. ;) *LOL*
There you go! That's precisely why it's newsworthy. Here's a question for you: how much political hay have you made over the years on Barack Obama stating that there were "57 states" when he was trying to refer to the number of Democratic primaries? Hmmm?
Newsworthiness is in the eye of the beholder...
I mentioned it once or twice.. And that was it..
Ya'all have been screaming about it for days and devoted an entire commentary to it...
Don't you honestly believe that is somewhat obsessive??
Yes, the old man truly is showing signs of dementia. Who the hell is Veronica? If he'd just stick to using my commenter name, he wouldn't come off as mentally challenged and in the throes of dementia... so like his Orange Crush. :)
VICTORIA TRANSLATION:
I have no facts or rational response so I am just going to resort to childish name-calling and immature personal attacks and try to drag CW into my childish and immature flame war...
michale [134] -
"Once or twice"? Really? That's what you're going to go with?
Wow.
OK, then we have officially parted with the reality of this blog. Do you really want me to do a full database search?
I thought not.
OK, in general, that's it for me tonight. Gotta to to bed now, will respond to further comments later...
-CW
CW,
Since you are up and around, I was hoping you could take a look at this..
====================================
michale [53] -
So why wasn't Saudi Arabia on his list? Hmmm?
I'll answer your question WITH a question... (anyone else, feel free to chime in..)
Do you know the parameters of the list?? By that I mean, do you know exactly WHY Odumbo put those countries on the list???
When you discover that, you will have your answer as to why SA is not on the list...
=========================================
Seems that no one wants to answer this because it PROVES their opposition to the immigration restriction is based on NOTHING but Party loyalty...
I figured you probably just missed it.. :D
michale [67] -
I'd vote for Caligula, personally. Or maybe Nero.
:-)
"You too!!??? You too!!!??"
-Will Smith, MEN IN BLACK III
:D
Michale
128
I thought you were referring to Veronica's hysterical OH MY GOD THE WORLD IS ENDING!!!! comment about President Trump personally hacking the QATAR government and making them do some such thing...
You're losing it, dude. Your dementia is on display, and you clearly have no ability to read and comprehend the written word. I posted a CNN article and supplied a link. There is ZERO commentary there. There is nothing in the article saying remotely the shit you made up there.
Only after seeing Liz's comment and then looking closer at Veronica's childish and immature personal attack rant did I make the connection to your comment..
It's a link to a CNN article, and it doesn't say any of the shit you're making up. You just got through bragging about how you'll admit when you're wrong, and you follow that up by making up baseless bullshit regarding things that never happened. What rant are you referring to? I posted a link and words directly from a CNN article that say nothing like you're describing.
Do you actually expect to be taken seriously when you just make up baseless claims like this? Seriously.
You keep asking for honesty from everyone else while you post whatever unhinged bullshit you please.
Victoria,
You're losing it, dude.
Says the person who thinks I am talking about the CNN article when, in fact I was talking about your immature personal attack in the comment BEFORE your CNN comment..
Yer losing it, Victoria....
You keep asking for honesty from everyone else while you post whatever unhinged bullshit you please.
Says the person who posts hysterical bullshit with absolutely NO BASIS in fact whatsoever... :D
Do you actually expect to be taken seriously when you just make up baseless claims like this? Seriously.
You seem to..
ALL of your accusations against Trump are based on NOTHING but anonymous sources.. Not a SINGLE fact to be found in ANY of your rantings..
And you complain about MY 'baseless' claims??
Now THAT's funny!! :D
Michale
135
VICTORIA TRANSLATION:
I have no facts or rational response so I am just going to resort to childish name-calling and immature personal attacks and try to drag CW into my childish and immature flame war...
And your reading comprehension rears its ugly head yet again. It wasn't a response to anything. It was a statement that in no way requested a response from anyone, but... as usual... you had to hijack my post and twist it around into something it wasn't meant to be because that's what house trolls do.
No one can post anything to someone else without you hijacking it and mischaracterizing it, whining about its contents, and then butchering it to suit yourself. You simply can't allow anyone to post anything to another poster because that's what house trolls do. They hijack posts, twist around words, impede the flow of dialogue of others, and whine like a baby about what everyone else is posting... all while carrying on in exactly the way they please and making up whatever bullshit they want... with seemingly zero self-awareness whatsoever. :)
Victoria,
And your reading comprehension rears its ugly head yet again. It wasn't a response to anything.
Yes, it does rear it's ugly head..
Kick wrote:
Michale
74
Victoria is showing signs that she has no facts or no arguments so she must resort to childish name-calling and immature personal attacks..
The only "facts" or "arguments" I need is that "house troll" answered when called... such a good slave.
It's a response to me.. There it is in plain black and white english...
So, you want to talk to me about reading comprehension??
No one can post anything to someone else without you hijacking it and mischaracterizing it, whining about its contents, and then butchering it to suit yourself. You simply can't allow anyone to post anything to another poster because that's what house trolls do. They hijack posts, twist around words, impede the flow of dialogue of others, and whine like a baby about what everyone else is posting... all while carrying on in exactly the way they please and making up whatever bullshit they want... with seemingly zero self-awareness whatsoever. :)
Would you want some cheese to go with your whine, Victoria???
Maybe I should call the WAAAAAAAAmbulance because you are clearly losing it....
:D
You have NOTHING but personal attacks and immature name-calling.. Then you try and drag CW into your disgusting game...
Yer such a class act... :^/
Michale
140
Says the person who thinks I am talking about the CNN article when, in fact I was talking about your immature personal attack in the comment BEFORE your CNN comment..
Not even a nice try. The CNN article I posted with no commentary is the only one that mentions Qatar. So kindly direct me to the place in the preceding comment where I say anything that remotely resembles anything about (quoting you) "President Trump personally hacking the QATAR government and making them do some such thing."
Yer losing it, Victoria....
Oh, really. If it's me who's "losing it," you will naturally be able to point me to the place in either of those posts where I say anything that remotely resembles that baseless bullshit you posted and attributed to me. Knock yourself out, but you won't find it because I never said it... so it's clearly you who is losing it. Call the wambulance. :)
Says the person who posts hysterical bullshit with absolutely NO BASIS in fact whatsoever... :D
Oh, no. You mean a poster is not posting to suit you? You poor thing. It must be so hard to come to the realization that this ain't your safe space. It must hurt you so much to be reading a Democratic blog and find people who don't worship at the altar of your idol. :)
Michale
143
At [135] you hijacked [133] and butchered it and twisted it, and now you want to act like it was a discussion about a post from yesterday. Not EVEN a good try... so transparent... so lame.
You simply can't allow anyone to post without hijacking it and bastardizing it, can you? It's what you do. You posted a boatload of things to JL about me that I never said, while at the same time taking issue with my inability to post facts about Trump. Poor you, Michale.
You're making shit up about me to other posters while at the same time taking issue with me saying things you don't like about Trump. The only flaw in your logic is: I didn't say the things about Trump that you made up.
Now maybe do you see the problem? Try really hard and maybe it'll come to you. *LOL* :)
You simply can't allow anyone to post without hijacking it and bastardizing it, can you? It's what you do. You posted a boatload of things to JL about me that I never said, while at the same time taking issue with my inability to post facts about Trump.
VERONICA TRANSLATION:
Waaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaaa
PWNED... :D
Victoria,
I must have hit pretty close to the mark to get you all riled up like this.. :D
PWNED..... :D
JL
Regarding the post at [128] wherein Michale says: "I thought you were referring to Veronica's hysterical OH MY GOD THE WORLD IS ENDING!!!! comment about President Trump personally hacking the QATAR government and making them do some such thing...
Only after seeing Liz's comment and then looking closer at Veronica's childish and immature personal attack rant did I make the connection to your comment..
JL, I'm not Veronica but the guy who keeps saying how much facts matter to him can't seem to get that through his confused brain. Nowhere in any of my posts do I say anything remotely like this made up garbage by Michale... nowhere. I don't know why he feels the need to pull me into your discussion and make things up that I never said.
While CW was on the board live, I deliberately decided to turn the tables on him and see how he liked being treated in the same manner he treated me (but without accusing him of saying something that he didn't actually say)... well, look how that turned out.
He didn't much like that little taste of his own medicine. ;)
Apologies that Michale feels the need to invoke my name (well, actually NOT my name but someone else named Veronica) and make stuff up that I didn't say.
Hope you are well. :)
WOW... I have you REALLY going, eh Veronica!! :D
JL, I'm not Veronica
Actually, you are... But, once again, why let FACTS intrude on yer hysterical pity-party...
but the guy who keeps saying how much facts matter to him can't seem to get that through his confused brain. Nowhere in any of my posts do I say anything remotely like this made up garbage by Michale... nowhere.
Actually, you did.. Since you are on record as saying that Trump is a Putin/Russian stooge, one can assume you believe that Trump is interchangeable with Russia..
This is what happens when you have nothing but fact-less hysteria..
While CW was on the board live, I deliberately decided to turn the tables on him and see how he liked being treated in the same manner he treated me (but without accusing him of saying something that he didn't actually say)... well, look how that turned out.
VICTORIA TRANSLATION:
I was hoping to cajole CW into my childish and immature flame war, but I got caught because my attempts were so transparent...
He didn't much like that little taste of his own medicine. ;)
You kidding?? I LOVED it!!! :D
Because it proved to everyone beyond a shadow of a doubt how lame and desperate you are.. :D
Apologies that Michale feels the need to invoke my name (well, actually NOT my name but someone else named Veronica) and make stuff up that I didn't say.
Says the whiner who has invoked my name over 50 times in this one commentary alone.. :D THREE times in just this one single comment!! :D
So, when it comes to invoking one's name..
Looks like you win that award, Veronica... :D
Victoria,
Just a hint...
You are trying too hard...
Best to remain silent and have people THINK you are a fool rather than actually post something and remove all doubt.. :D
Best to remain silent and have people THINK you are a fool rather than actually post something and remove all doubt.. :D</I
Let me save some of ya'all the trouble..
"Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle.."
Duh huh Duh huh...
There, now ya'all don't have to respond.. :D
Michale
147
You keep asking for honesty on the boards while you post freely and say whatever made up bullshit you please. I saw what you posted about me to JL and deliberately decided to treat you in the same manner you treated me.
You didn't like it much. Go figure!
I have no need to make up lies about Trump as long as you're around to hijack my posts and bastardize them and do it for me... because FACTS matter to you so much, and you go about proving it by libeling me to JL. *LOL*
I must have hit pretty close to the mark to get you all riled up like this.. :D
I'm fine, sugar. You just hit my comedy nerve. I'll stop laughing at your ignorance in a few hours. If you honestly think lying about one poster to another poster is hitting "close to the mark," then you're actually way more ignorant than you come off in print.
Oh, seriously... one more thing. You are so like Trump. You've created a world where facts don't matter and behavior cannot be called to account. Everything is debatable and gets hijacked and twisted, but you would be quite foolish if you thought everyone didn't see right through it... because it's totally transparent.
Have a nice day. :)
Veronica Translation:
Waaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaa libel Waaaaaaa lie waaaaaaaa
:D PWNED...
Let's face reality here, Victoria..
You get caught posting bullshit accusation after bullshit accusation and then get all whiney when you are called on it...
You never have ANY facts to support your accusation and you think you can get away with it because, after all, it's attack Trump and everyone here hates Trump....
Yer just another Kathy Griffin holding up a severed Trump head and don't expect ANY repercussions from it..
I have been here a long time and have seen many like you come and go...
Yer just another hater who is driven solely by Party slavery and zealotry....
Victoria,
It's really simple...
All you need to do is A> quit making personal attacks and quit with the immature name-calling and B> when you make an accusation, have some FACTS to back it up...
It really can't be any simpler than that...
You do that and we can have real, meaningful and adult conversations and Liz will be ecstatic..
But if all you want to do is throw around bullshit and lies and name-calling..
Then that's all you get...
CW,
Does anyone else have a problem with the name of the leaker being "Reality Winner"?
Problem???
No, not really...
But she sounds more like a horse in the Belmont Stakes, not a scumbag traitor and terrorist sympathizer...
:D
CW,
I live in a region where hippie names are pretty common for anyone under the age of 40. Lots of "Rainbow"s, lots of other such creative monikers.
The problem is, is that the Democrat Party is trying to shy away from it's hippie anti-military anti-cop persona...
Having an activist that epitomizes the Left's Anti-Trump hysteria named "Reality" kinda makes such disassociation that much harder....
Of course, a Righty named "Reince" is not much better..
HIS parents must not have like him much either.. :D
heh
Does anyone else have a problem with the name of the leaker being "Reality Winner"?
I know nothing about that, I wish to know nothing more about that.
A problem? Oh, yeah, I have a problem with this sad excuse for attention by a sad excuse for a family.
I know nothing about that, I wish to know nothing more about that
But it goes to the heart of Left's anti-Trump hysteria AND the (illegal) lengths the Left will go to to hurt Trump and, by extension, this country...
Regardless of the President's intent, the text of the law is the only factor to be considered...
What you are saying is that, if a Democrat had proposed the exact same law, it would not have ANY issues with the courts.
that's not what i meant at all, but i think you knew that. the text of the ban is somewhat more ambiguous than the prior version, which is what, in theory, MIGHT have made it stand up to constitutional scrutiny if it existed in a bubble outside of any context of reality. what undermines the ban is not what party donald belongs to, it's the context he has explicitly provided.
What you are talking about it marketing and I don't think Justice Kennedy would stoop to be affected by marketing...
you've got that a bit backward. administration lawyers were "marketing" the ban as something less constitutionally objectionable than it is. while it's possible that you're right and kennedy wouldn't have been swayed into thinking that it was something less restrictive than it is, donald blew a hole in his own marketing with his tweets.
You must have a very low opinion of the Justices..
If THAT is all you have, I am a lot more secure in my position now.. :D
bet's on then?
JL
that's not what i meant at all, but i think you knew that.
Yes, I knew that is not what you meant..
But it is undeniable that it is what you said..
You must have a very low opinion of the Justices..
If THAT is all you have, I am a lot more secure in my position now.. :D
bet's on then?
As long as the decision settles the actual question and doesn't rule on a technicality, the bet is on..
As I mentioned, if you know the criteria that Obama used to select the countries on Trump's ban list, you would definitely not want to bet.. :D
@CW,
Does anyone else have a problem with the name of the leaker being "Reality Winner"?
i guess colbert was right when he said that reality has a left wing bias. if she could do a naughty magazine spread, the puns would flow even more freely. reality exposed!
JL
As long as the decision settles the actual question and doesn't rule on a technicality, the bet is on..
what kind of hedge is that? technicalities are all that exists on either side of the legal issue.
JL
Michale
153
You get caught posting bullshit accusation after bullshit accusation and then get all whiney when you are called on it...
Forget about the FACT that I didn't actually say what you told JL... let's change the subject and make it about something else, right? So you're going with I "get caught"? Oh, I see. How dare I "get caught" posting something you didn't like. How sad for you that everyone here doesn't worship at the alter of Benedict Donald. Since you've been here so long, you've obviously figured out eons before now that you're the only Trump CH [props to Stephen Colbert] and that the majority of other posters are probably not going to be posting to suit your tastes. Feel free to NOT read my posts if you can't handle them.
Or maybe if you paid attention instead of whining about the contents of the posts you don't like, you might learn something that's not exactly public yet. Did it ever occur to you that somebody out there might know something you don't or have a source that you don't? I'm guessing NOT... because you seem to have made it your life's work to play board police... your holster at the ready in defense of The Don.
You never have ANY facts to support your accusation and you think you can get away with it because, after all, it's attack Trump and everyone here hates Trump....
"Get away with it"? Oh, you got me there, occifer. How dare me to "get caught" trying to "get away with" exercising my right of free speech. What are you afraid of? It's just words. They won't actually hurt you. Feel free to NOT read my posts if you can't handle them; they're not for you anyway. :)
Yer just another Kathy Griffin holding up a severed Trump head and don't expect ANY repercussions from it..
Oh, I am "caught" with an opinion, just when I thought I was going to get away with exercising my right of free speech on Chris Weigant's comment section. That is EXACTLY like holding up a bleeding severed Trump head. /sarcasm off *LOL*
I have been here a long time and have seen many like you come and go...
TRANSLATION: I ran them off, but you won't leave and you keep posting and posting, and I don't have the discipline to NOT read your posts and/or hijack them and bastardize them in trolling fashion.
Yer just another hater who is driven solely by Party slavery and zealotry....
Two things:
(1) Hate requires passion. We reserve passion for joyful things... comes from decades of training.
(2) You've been doing it a very long time now, but you got this routine down where you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a Democratic Party bigot. It is the height of naivete to assume that everyone who is anti-Trump is a Democrat, but since when did you mind looking ignorant and naive? I can't remember a time that you minded looking naive or repeating lies about me in nearly every single post you make... all whilst simultaneously demanding PROOF and FACTS.
Anyway, some of my very best buddies are both anti-Trump and Republicans, and then there are those like me who are anti-Trump and NPA and some Independents, but yes, some of them actually are Democrats, but the thing that has brought us together in unison at this time in history is Benedict Donald. Yes, we actually have Trump to thank for something. :)
JL,
what kind of hedge is that?
It's a logical hedge..
Do you remember David's and my bet??? The question was whether or not the TrainWreckCare mandate was constitutional.. The SCOTUS side-stepped that question, changed the mandate to a tax and then ruled on THAT question...
Technically I won the bet, but I gave it to him...
In this case, here is an example..
The SCOTUS rules that, since the time frame has expired, it's a moot point and the Administration has to issue a new law for them to rule..
Basically, my "hedge" is that the SCOTUS has to address the question...
Does President Trump have the authority to issue this travel ban, regardless of any campaign rhetoric...
If the SCOTUS doesn't answer that question, then there can be no clear winner of any bet...
Victoria,
Jeezus, you are really long-winded when you get caught... :D
I really must have gotten to you...
PWNED.. :D
JL,
Here is the question as I see it..
It's two-fold..
Does President Trump have the authority to issue this travel ban...
Is the travel ban as written constitutional..
If the SCOTUS rules in the affirmative to both and reinstates the ban, then I win the bet...
If the SCOTUS rules in the negative and allows the ban of the ban to continue, then you win the bet...
Any other outcome is a push...
No hedging, no equivocation, no what the definition of 'is' is...
Just straightforward and easy to understand plain english...
CW,
Consider, for example, Trump’s inscrutable “negative press covfefe” tweet early in the morning of May 31, a term that currently has 52 million search results on Google. It’s easy to see why: Print and broadcast news outlets pounced on the abbreviated tweet and hyperventilated for days.
This is precisely the problem: Most of Trump’s tweets, especially this sort, should not be reported as breaking news. As Michael Barone, the longtime co-editor of The Almanac of American Politics and senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, points out, “Early on, he [Trump] realized that by sending out a tweet early in the morning, that was very provocative, very in violation of political correctness, he could dominate an entire news cycle.” What’s more, Trump knew he could feed the media’s “addiction” to anything remotely resembling “breaking news,” all to his benefit.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/06/07/the_media_have_been_played_by_trumps_tweets.html
This is the exact point that NONE of ya'all get...
Ya'all are being played by Trump.
Trump sends out a tweet that says JUMP!!! and ya'all hysterically reply with HOW HIGH??!! on yer way up...
Ya'all are playing Trump's game and he is devastating ya'all at it..
This failure of U.S. broadcast media to use proper news judgment in covering Trump is among the gravest professional sins the industry has committed in recent memory because it fails to recognize the manipulation involved. George Lakoff, a professor emeritus of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, asserts that Trump’s tactics are “all strategic” in nature, “not crazy,” as many observers believe.
Lakoff has written several books on political speech and is an expert on the concept of idea framing, which has become an influential technique in the art of political persuasion. He asserts that Trump’s tweets embody one of four strategic communication tactics: preemptive framing, diversion, deflection and trial-ballooning.
“In general, if you frame first you win, and Trump knows that,” Lakoff said. “The media is having trouble with the truth because the truth doesn’t sell – and they could sell it if they went about it the right way,” he added. “Right now they can’t help themselves, having the entertainment elements of their job take over for the news element.”
If Lakoff’s theory is true, the failure of the most influential elements of the U.S. media to exercise proper news judgment when assessing Trump’s tweets has had a greater negative impact on the country’s political discourse than is appreciated.
@m,
Got it. The ban is reinstated you win, it isn't i win, no matter if they decide it's a tax, a pretext for a different ban, or a grilled cheese sandwich. Still don't see what other outcome is possible.
JL
till don't see what other outcome is possible.
I gave you an example of another possible outcome...
The SCOTUS rules that the time limit has elapsed so no ruling is required...
That's a push because it doesn't answer the question that's in dispute...
The ban is reinstated you win, it isn't i win,
Not exactly...
SCOTUS has to rule on the question.. It's a very real possibility that the SCOTUS can say that YES, the President has the authority to issue the ban and YES the ban is constitutional, but since the time-frame is expired, SCOTUS won't allow the ban to be reinstated...
In that very possible scenario, the ban is NOT reinstated but I win the bet because the SCOTUS affirmed the authority of the POTUS and affirmed that the ban was well within the constitution...
Yeah, that's definitely a hedge. No coulda woulda shoulda, either the ban happens or it doesn't. Does anyone care that the main reason given by the scotus for bush v gore was that "time ran out?"
Yeah, that's definitely a hedge.
If that's the way you want to characterize it, that's fine....
But I have been here over ten years, same as you, and I have seen the lengths ya'all will go to to equivocate and obfuscate the point... Especially when ya'all lose... :D
The hysterical screams of VANITY VOTE!!! in the aftermath of the election proves that.. :D
The question before is is Is the Travel Ban A> Constitutional and B> within the authority of the POTUS..
You say the answer to both is NO..
I say the answer to both is YES...
If the SCOTUS doesn't answer those questions, then no one can win the bet...
If you want to call that a "hedge" then I'll accept that...
Weak sauce, michfly ;)
Michale
167
Jeezus, you are really long-winded when you get caught... :D
Feel free to NOT read my posts.
I really must have gotten to you...
*LOL* No, you got to all those others who aren't here anymore. I'm still here. Besides, I'm not the one who whined like a toddler and left sulking to go and find my safe space when another poster agreed with JL about He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and Benedict Donald making similar speeches. :)
But I digress... Ahem... If you're going to keep making up things that I never said and lying to other posters about me and/or my nonexistent Party affiliation in nearly every post, then don't insist that my posts contain PROOF and FACTS about someone who is neither of us while yours contain repetitive lies about one of us.
Seriously, words can't hurt you unless you're really a snowflake. What I say about Trump is not an insult to you. If you insist on taking my posts about Trump and turning them into discussions about me personally that are laced with lies, then it shouldn't surprise you in the least when posts turn personal.
Seriously, though. Have a nice day! :)
Weak sauce, michfly ;)
Nope.. Just once bitten... numerous times bitten, I get a little obfuscation shy.. :D
But I am actually surprised.. If you are so sure that the SCOTUS will rule the ban unconstitutional or that the President doesn't have the authority....
I am somewhat mystified by your reluctance...
Veronica
Seriously, though. Have a nice day! :)
AGAIN with the send-off... How can I miss you if you never leave?? :D
*LOL* No, you got to all those others who aren't here anymore. I'm still here. Besides, I'm not the one who whined like a toddler and left sulking to go and find my safe space when another poster agreed with JL about He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and Benedict Donald making similar speeches. :)
While I won't speak for him, *I* find it sad and pathetic that you are STILL trying to drag JL into your flame war...
Whatsamatter, Victoria?? Need help?? :D hehehehehe
I know, I know.. Safety in numbers and all that.. But I wouldn't have thought you were such a fragile snowflake that you can't handle me on your own..
Ahhh well, live and learn...
I'll quit beating up on you so hard if that will help you make it thru the day... :D
Oh.. Where are those "bombshells" you promised us???
BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Don't you EVER get tired of being wrong!!??? :D
@m,
I'm not reluctant at all, and quite confident that the lower court decisions will be upheld. if you want to hedge your bet that's your prerogative, I'm just calling you a bit chicken for insisting upon it.
JL
But as i said before,it's really not a fair bet anyway, so feel free to back out either partially or in full.
I'm not reluctant at all, and quite confident that the lower court decisions will be upheld.
So, you are stating for the record that the SCOTUS will rule the ban unconstitutional and that the President doesn't have the authority to institute the ban...
If you are so sure, then why not make the wager???
Because for me, that has always been the question...
So, what you call "hedging" is nothing more than cementing the goal posts in place so they can't be moved once the SCOTUS rules.. :D
I'm stating for the record that the outcome will be the ban is not allowed to go into effect. Through what particular route the scotus will get there i have no idea. If you need narrower goal posts than that i understand, but this is as far as my powers of prediction go.
I see what's happening here...
-Maui, MOANA
:D
OK, I get it now... I wanted to bet on the question of constitutionality and authority...
You just want to bet that, somehow, someway, the ban won't go in effect...
Yea, we're talking two different issues/questions here...
Oh well..... :D
Michale
180
Oh.. Where are those "bombshells" you promised us???
Oh, another lie so soon. I didn't promise anything. Go back and read it. I said if they are allowed to testify in public. They have chosen NOT to testify in public. I can't blame them, actually. I'd probably do the same thing. It will come out, though.
Rachel Maddow scooped part of it last night, and they clammed up like mollusks. If you weren't such a snowflake, you could learn something from me... but, alas... you can't seem to handle the truth. :)
Don't you EVER get tired of being wrong!!??? :D
You lying about me in your posts makes you wrong about... hmmmmmm... 90% of the time! BUT.... in answer to your question: Me and Michael Jordan don't ever get tired of taking shots and missing because... and I have this on good authority... that makes us all badasses.
And now... onward... to the latest thread. :p
Through what particular route the scotus will get there i have no idea.
But that is the whole point.
WHY will the ban be not allowed to go into effect..
Is it unconstitutional???
Is it beyond the President's authority???
Is it mean???
You want to bet on what.... But the more important question is not what, but WHY....
If you are so sure, then why not make the wager???
i'll make the wager anyway if you want, but i'll call you chicken for refusing to accept the outcome unless it conforms to your two selected rationales.
when people bet they generally wager on which side wins, not whether it happens by touchdown, field goal, safety or blocked extra point.
JL
Victoria,
Oh, another lie so soon. I didn't promise anything.
Yes, another lie so soon from you...
..... keep your eyes on the Wednesday hearing... got a bombshell coming out of that one...
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/06/02/ftp439/#comment-101693
No equivocation.. Nothing about public or private..
You said that there WILL be a "bombshell" coming out of the hearing...
And you were WRONG!!! :D
And then you tried to lie about it and claim you never said it...
You were wrong and you are lying...
There are the facts........ :D
PWNED!!!
Is it unconstitutional???
probably. the lower court rulings laid out a compelling case that the ban was grounded in discriminatory religious animus, which is unconstitutional.
Is it beyond the President's authority???
probably not. the president's powers are extremely broad in scope, so essentially anything that isn't unconstitutional is legal.
the key question as i see it is motive. parking your car on the street to bring home groceries is legal. parking your car on the street so it can be used as a thief's getaway car is not legal. same action, different reason, different legal outcome.
JL
when people bet they generally wager on which side wins, not whether it happens by touchdown, field goal, safety or blocked extra point.
people wager on just about ANYTHING, including a single touchdown, a field goal a safety or even a blocked extra point...
You claim that the ban won't be re-instated or go into effect...
Yet you won't say the reasoning BEHIND that belief..
And THAT is where the goal posts are...
Many claims from lesser minds have stated that the ban is unconstitutional..
Do you believe that??
Other claims from OTHER lesser mind have stated that the President doesn't have the authority to restrict travel from certain countries..
Do you believe that??
You have stated that one of President Trump's tweets must have pissed off the Justices.. Implying the Justices would rule against the President (unanimously even possibly) because their feelings are hurt...
But my entire argument is the constitutionality and the authority of the President..
If the SCOTUS addresses my argument, then we can have a wager... But if the SCOTUS something technical that DOESN'T address the constitutionality or the authority question, I don't see how you can construe that as a "win"...
Re 190
OK.. NOW we're getting somewhere...
probably. the lower court rulings laid out a compelling case that the ban was grounded in discriminatory religious animus, which is unconstitutional.
So, if President Trump hadn't made any of those statements, then the law in your eyes would be constitutional...
Is that accurate???
Do you know that is was Obama who created the list that President Trump is working from???
Do you know the criteria of that list??
So, if President Trump hadn't made any of those statements, then the law in your eyes would be constitutional...
it's not a law, it's an executive order. the text of the order is constitutionally ambiguous, i.e. open to interpretation. if donald hadn't made and withdrawn an earlier executive order, and hadn't made any public statements about either, his lawyers could argue that it was based solely on legitimate security issues, and they might or might not be successful in that argument.
this brings us back to the parking the car analogy. if there's no apparent context for why you're parking your car in a certain location, you can claim you were parking there to pick up groceries, fill a prescription, whatever, and nobody has evidence to the contrary. if you say you're going to park it there so a bank robber can use it as a getaway car, that reason is out there and there's no going back from it.
JL
Oh, one more thing.
I personally do NOT think the SCOTUS will set a precedent and give this POTUS authority that would allow him to basically ban whomever he wants for whatever reason he wants... you know, like a Christian ban.
Like I said before (learning opportunity here):
A law which is facially neutral violates equal protection (14th Amendment to the Constitution) if it is applied in a discriminatory fashion. Government action also violates principles of equal protection if it is motivated by discriminatory animus and its application results in discriminatory effect.
Remember when I first tried to teach you about animus, I said something like: Motive matters most. Well, "motive/motivation" is animus.
Oh, hell. Searching, BRB!
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/02/03/ftp423/#comment-93418
There you go. ^^^^^ See if what I wrote then isn't how the courts have ruled so far.
So the SCOTUS now? I think they'll find a way to not rule on it. Just my 2 cents.
Now... onward. :p
this brings us back to the parking the car analogy. if there's no apparent context for why you're parking your car in a certain location, you can claim you were parking there to pick up groceries, fill a prescription, whatever, and nobody has evidence to the contrary. if you say you're going to park it there so a bank robber can use it as a getaway car, that reason is out there and there's no going back from it.
But the ACT of parking the car is not illegal or unconstitutional..
It all comes down to the parameters... the criteria that Obama used to create the list in question..
Once the Justices see that, then there is no doubt in my mind as to how they will rule..
Ya'all keep ignoring that one salient point.. And now we know why.. :D
Once the Justices see that, then there is no doubt in my mind as to how they will rule..
then why all the hedging about which argument they have to use? a win is a win is a win, and a loss is a loss is a loss.
no?
JL
Michale
189
..... keep your eyes on the Wednesday hearing... got a bombshell coming out of that one...
And where is the promise? You got a reading comprehension problem. I promised nothing.
No equivocation.. Nothing about public or private..
You said that there WILL be a "bombshell" coming out of the hearing...
And you were WRONG!!! :D
And then you tried to lie about it and claim you never said it...
I didn't say I never said it; I said I didn't PROMISE it. I can't promise what someone else is going to testify or whether they will give that testimony in public or in private.
I said: Direct testimony is NOT anonymous sources, dumb ass. Wednesday should contain a bombshell if they go ahead and allow that testimony. Thursday should be interesting because Comey is a great note taker. That's all I said. Learn to read and comprehend, and stop twisting my words around and defining them through your ignorance and inability to comprehend the written word.
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/06/02/ftp439/#comment-101710
Why don't you make yourself useful and take Donald Trump's language and tell us all about his pathological disease of lying every 3-5 minutes. You take such great pains to twist poster's words around in order to call them a liar while Benedict Donald lies like a rug and you twist yourself into a pretzel defending a true liar. It's comical to watch you whine about liars and then defend President Pants-On-Fire. :p
Did I mention that Comey would be releasing his testimony in writing the day before he actually testifies?
It's really good reading. Kind of a bombshell, if you know what I mean. ;)
Cat's out of the bag now. Whoop: THERE IT IS!
Veronica,
Nice weaseling. You said there was going to be a bombshell. There was no bombshell. You were wrong.
Now you can play the semantic game regarding a promise or a statement. But that won't change the fact that you said there would be a bombshell and there wasn't. And then you lied about it and tried to claim you never said it.
You got caught being wrong and then you got caught lying about it.
These are the facts and they are Undisputed
*yawn*
Victoria,
It's really good reading. Kind of a bombshell, if you know what I mean. ;)
THAT is your "bombshell"!!
BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Besides, you said that the "bombshell" was going to come from Weds testimony.....
You were wrong and you just can't admit it..
*yawn*
I know, right!! :D
@m [48],
If it's a sure thing, you should have NO PROBLEM with a wager...
The fact you are not wanting to proves my case.. :D
if it's a sure thing, you shouldn't have to narrow the terms to give yourself an out. the fact that you keep wanting to proves my case. ;p
if the scotus says the ban can be fully implemented, whatever the reason, i post for seven days that i am ignorant of the meaning of facts and opinions, and implore you to teach me. if the scotus says the ban cannot be implemented, whatever the reason, you do the same. no moving goalposts, no hedging, just win or lose. the only way it could be a draw would be if the SCOTUS strikes down some parts of the ban and allows other parts to be implemented.
think, mcfly, think! ;)
https://i.makeagif.com/media/12-08-2015/qrR1je.gif
JL
if it's a sure thing, you shouldn't have to narrow the terms to give yourself an out. the fact that you keep wanting to proves my case. ;p
I am not narrowing the terms..
The wager is based on what I have said all along.. That the order is constitutional and that the President has the authority..
You are the one who wants to move the goal posts and go with some vague outcome that could happen for a million different reasons..
if the scotus says the ban can be fully implemented, whatever the reason, i post for seven days that i am ignorant of the meaning of facts and opinions, and implore you to teach me. if the scotus says the ban cannot be implemented, whatever the reason, you do the same.
That's not what I am saying... Whether the ban goes into effect doesn't answer the question that YA'ALL raised...
You are trying to worm out because you know that I will be vindicated by the SCOTUS ruling... :D
You are trying to worm out because you know that I will be vindicated by the SCOTUS ruling... :D
funny, i was about to say the exact same thing to you.
the only way it could be a draw would be if the SCOTUS strikes down some parts of the ban and allows other parts to be implemented.
Looks like someone had to move the goal posts to plant some hedges....
heh :D
michale, you're asking me to bet on field goals and extra points, with no regard to who wins the game. beside being intellectually dishonest, this tells me you already know who's going to win, and it's not donald trump.
michale, you're asking me to bet on field goals and extra points, with no regard to who wins the game. beside being intellectually dishonest, this tells me you already know who's going to win, and it's not donald trump.
Your PTSD notwithstanding, I am asking you to bet on the QUESTION..
Is the order constitutional...
Is the order within the purview of the president...
The SCOTUS could very will affirm that the order IS constitutional and IS within the purview of the President, but that since it has expired, it will not be allowed to go into effect..
That would mean that *I* am right and YA'ALL are wrong and THAT is what the wager is all about...
Regardless of all that..
Looks like someone had to move the goal posts to plant some hedges....
Ya gotta admit.. THAT was pretty cute.. :D
That would mean that *I* am right and YA'ALL are wrong and THAT is what the wager is all about...
keep telling yourself that.
Is the order constitutional...
Is the order within the purview of the president...
these are distinctions that make no difference. i have no idea at all whether or how the scotus will rule on either particular question, but i accept your concession that the travel ban will not be reinstated by the scotus.
JL
Ya gotta admit.. THAT was pretty cute.. :D
not even a little bit.
JL
Killjoy...
"First of all, this face?? Is super cute"
-Chuck AKA god, SUPERNATURAL
:D
keep telling yourself that.
Well what do YOU think it would mean??
these are distinctions that make no difference. i have no idea at all whether or how the scotus will rule on either particular question, but i accept your concession that the travel ban will not be reinstated by the scotus.
What part of *COULD* did you not understand??
This is EXACTLY my point on why I am making the wager specific with NO wiggle room..
Because ya'all have a tendency to equivocate and obfuscate the facts when ya'all lose...
i have no idea at all whether or how the scotus will rule on either particular question,
That's EXACTLY my point.. You have NO IDEA..
But I DO... And THAT's why I want the wager.. Because I know I am right.. :D
If you have no idea on whether or not the order is constitutional then you should have spoken up when morons here made that claim that it IS unconstitutional..
By remaining silent, you indicate that you agree..
But if you are not sure whether or not it is unconstitutional, then I agree.
You would be silly to make the wager.....
@michale,
silence does not now and never has equaled assent. continuing to repeat this fallacy does not make it so.
MY opinion is that the ban IS unconstitutional, but the supreme court's reasoning is never a simple yes or no. you're asking me to bet on fragments of a supreme court opinion that itself will be open to interpretation. that's nothing BUT wiggle room. after the fact you or i could argue ad infinitum what the scotus opinions mean or don't mean regarding authority or constitutionality, and still not come to any reasoned conclusion. the only outcome of the case that is factual will be whether or not the ban is allowed to go into effect.
really i don't need you to post that you don't understand the difference between facts and opinions, because you provide evidence to that effect every day anyway.
JL
silence does not now and never has equaled assent. continuing to repeat this fallacy does not make it so.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point...
If a person of integrity is known to call into question statements he believes are in error and does so on a regular and on-going basis and then there are statements made that said person of said integrity DOESN'T call into question, it's logical INFERENCE that said person of said integrity DOES in fact, agree with said statement said person of said integrity did not correct..
And, if I recall correctly, you are a big fan of INFERENCE...
Now THAT was damn cute!!!! :D
MY opinion is that the ban IS unconstitutional,
And what facts do you have that supports that opinion??
You don't even know the BASIS for the list itself..
I have given you numerous examples of past Presidents, INCLUDING OBAMA, who have done EXACTLY what President Trump's order does...
Given these FACTS that completely and utterly decimates your opinion, the question must be asked..
What FACTS support your opinion...
I respect your opinion and if you tell me it's supported by nothing but your opinion, then I'll accept that and move on...
But, from all appearances, your opinion is solely supported by ideology and I don't want to believe that is true...
but the supreme court's reasoning is never a simple yes or no.
Perhaps to periphery issues, but the issue of constitutionality is black and white because the SCOTUS MAKES those determinations..
Which is why I argued for the PUSH because sometimes the SCOTUS will kick the can, or change the wording and then you are correct... It's equivocal... It's not a YES OR NO...
But *IF* the court DOES make that black/white, yes/no determination, then the parameters of the wager would be met and we would be able to agree on that..
really i don't need you to post that you don't understand the difference between facts and opinions, because you provide evidence to that effect every day anyway.
I understand the differences...
Where the conflict lies is that my definition of facts and opinions is consistent..
Yer definition appears to change with the political winds...
No where is this more apparent than with your opinions and facts on NOT-45's crimes vs your opinions and facts on Trump's alleged "crimes"... Night and day...
'S ok... When the SCOTUS rules and it is shown that I was right, I'll have bragging rights...
I wasn't really keen on seeing you grovel anyways.. :D Not my nature... You ever read any Beverly Cleary as a child??? :D
facts:
1. when campaigning for the ban, donald initially called it a ban on muslims. not syrians, not yemenis, muslims. specifically, "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."
2. rudy giuliani referred to the first executive order as a continuation of donald's initial statement against muslims. he said, "So when he first announced it, he said 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.'"
3. white house policy advisor steven miller said of the revised ban, "you're still going to have the same basic policy outcome for the country, but you're going to be responsive to a lot of very technical issues what were brought up by the court."
4. donald's four tweets this monday, which i already provided on an earlier post, say that the president views the second ban as "watered down" and wants a "much tougher version"
all these facts suggest that the president's expressed desire for a "total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states," a violation of the first amendment establishment clause, has not substantially changed. it isn't unconstitutional because of who he IS, it's unconstitutional because of what he and his representatives have SAID.
JL
all these facts suggest that the president's expressed desire for a "total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states,"
And yet, the FACT is that the EO is NOT a total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the United States..
The SCOTUS has NEVER ruled, using campaign rhetoric as their reasoning..
NEVER... NOT ONCE...
it isn't unconstitutional because of who he IS, it's unconstitutional because of what he and his representatives have SAID.
Fine. If you honestly believe that the SCOTUS will rule in your favor based on campaign rhetoric, then you have nothing to worry about.. Make the bet..
But the simple fact is that, when Justices look at a law or an order, they look at the plain text of the law/order...
IF that is ambiguous, THEN they will look at the statements of what people said..
The law ISN'T ambiguous in the slightest.. It states clearly what is what...
So your "FACT" is nothing but an opinion of an opinion...
donald's four tweets this monday, which i already provided on an earlier post, say that the president views the second ban as "watered down" and wants a "much tougher version"
So, the justices are going to rule against the current law/order because Trump said he wanted a tougher one!??? :D
Do you see the legal contortions you have to go thru to get to where you want to be!?? :D
Thank you for sharing your reasoning with me. I really appreciate that, sincerely..
But the SCOTUS will find the law/order constitutional and will find that the POTUS has the authority to implement the law...
That's my position and time will show me to be correct..
Another possibility is that, once President Trump has the SCOTUS stamp of approval in hand, he may revoke the original law in favor of a new tougher one that he wants..
In that case, the order won't be implemented and, by YOUR hedging, you would have one the bet..
But I am sure you will concede that THAT outcome is not what you envisioned when you made the bet and no where in the realm of possibility would you consider that a "WIN" save for the hedged to hell and back wager......
That is why it's only logical to base the wager on the central question...
IS THE EO CONSTITUTIONAL....
I say yes.. You think no...
And here we are...
But I am sure you will concede that THAT outcome is not what you envisioned when you made the bet and no where in the realm of possibility would you consider that a "WIN" save for the hedged to hell and back wager......
fair enough. if the scotus rules that the EO is legally ALLOWED to be implemented, regardless of whether or not it actually is, then i'll consider the bet lost. but that's as far as i'll go.
IS THE EO CONSTITUTIONAL....
the trouble with this narrowing of the goalposts is that the constitution is often ambiguous and not the only law involved. it's the highest of the three legal domains (the others being statute and precedent), but something doesn't technically have to be ruled unconstitutional per se to be ruled illegal or not permitted. legal reasoning is by its nature complex and takes many turns; it's rarely if ever stated in black and white. that's more like trying to predict the precise score of a game than the winner. we could make that bet if you wanted, but i can guarantee right now that each of us would read the decision and think that it proved conclusively that we had won, because legal decisions are opinions. hell, they're even CALLED opinions. that you're insisting we bet upon the subjective content of a judicial opinion proves conclusively that you're not currently able to tell the difference.
JL
But if the SCOTUS says the order is constitutional then it IS constitutional..
That is why I am confused by your reluctance...
The SCOTUS usually settles constitutional questions..
But if the SCOTUS kicks the can down the road or changes the issue or the wording or any of a dozen ways they can NOT rule than I would agree with you that THAT doesn't settle our wager...
As I mentioned, the SCOTUS ruling on the TrainWreckCare mandate is a perfect example of an ambiguous ruling..
But if the SCOTUS says that the order is constitutional (I drop the Presidential Authority question because you indicated that we are in agreement on that).... If the SCOTUS explicitly rules that the order is/is not constitutional then the question is settled...
fair enough. if the scotus rules that the EO is legally ALLOWED to be implemented,
That's a big concession and I honestly appreciate it..
But let me ask you this.. Can you envision a situation where an order before the SCOTUS would be ruled constitutional but illegal??
Example???
I think we're really close to agreement here.. I just wanted to hear your thoughts on this..
Due to your explanation of the Presidents twits, it seems you are thinking that the SCOTUS will rule against Trump just because Trump is an arrogant and insufferable prick...
Just like me!! :D
That's why I think you'll lose because it borders on IMPOSSIBLE that a Supreme Court Justice would look upon that as "evidence"..
If the SCOTUS looked at JUST the text of the order, as they should, it would be an 8-0 ruling in favor of the Trump Administration...
As I mentioned, the SCOTUS ruling on the [obamacare] mandate is a perfect example of an ambiguous ruling..
it may have been constitutionally ambiguous - most scotus decisions are. however, it was NOT ambiguous in that it accepted obamacare as legal.
But let me ask you this.. Can you envision a situation where an order before the SCOTUS would be ruled constitutional but illegal??
the constitution always takes precedence over other law, but something could be legal or illegal based on case law, statute and regulations without the constitution being definitive one way or the other.
JL
Due to your explanation of the Presidents twits, it seems you are thinking that the SCOTUS will rule against Trump just because Trump is an arrogant and insufferable prick...
not at all, it's just that the tweets demonstrate the president's intent and state of mind regarding the travel ban, the law and the justice system. based on that expressed intent, they will likely rule that the second EO was a dishonest or "bad faith" effort to circumvent legal and constitutional limits on discrimination.
it may have been constitutionally ambiguous - most scotus decisions are. however, it was NOT ambiguous in that it accepted obamacare as legal.
But the MANDATE was unconstitutional.. That's why CJ Roberts change the mandate to a tax and ruled on the tax...
the constitution always takes precedence over other law, but something could be legal or illegal based on case law, statute and regulations without the constitution being definitive one way or the other.
And you think that's what could happen with the President's EO??
not at all, it's just that the tweets demonstrate the president's intent and state of mind regarding the travel ban, the law and the justice system. based on that expressed intent, they will likely rule that the second EO was a dishonest or "bad faith" effort to circumvent legal and constitutional limits on discrimination.
But the text of the order coupled with the Obama reasoning in creating the list PROVES that this is not the case...
And, what you call "circumventing" legal and constitutional limits is really nothing more than bringing the law into compliance..
Much like President Bush did with the Military Commissions Act....
And you think that's what could happen with the President's EO??
yes, i believe that's the most likely outcome - constitutionally ambiguous but illegal due to a context of bad faith.
And, what you call "circumventing" legal and constitutional limits is really nothing more than bringing the law into compliance..
no, i mean using legally ambiguous language to discriminate against muslims.
JL
here's the relevant precedent:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/13-1402/concur4.html
Absent an affirmative showing of bad faith on the part of the consular officer who denied Berashk a visa—which Din has not plausibly alleged with sufficient particularity—Mandel instructs us not to “look behind” the Government’s exclusion of Berashk for additional factual details
~kerry v. din, kennedy/alito concurring opinion
.
I am in such a good mood and I really enjoyed our discussion, I will concede the point...
You might be right that the law will be struck down for non-constitutional issues...
Which will simply re-affirm my point that the law IS constitutional....
So, I'll call it a win win and be done with it.. :D
For the record, I still don't believe the Justices will look at campaign rhetoric, but as I said, I am in too good a mood to really care right now.. :D