I also watched "Meet the Press," and I'd scribbled a note for what I wanted to blog from the transcript, and I'm surprised to see that this too is something that began with that Corker quote. The host, Chuck Todd, was talking to Congressman (and former Governor) Mark Sanford, who tried to get the GOP nomination for
Todd asked Sanford if he'd use the word "cult" to describe what has happened to the GOP, and Sanford said:
I wouldn't go so far as cult, but I would just say that, from an electoral sense, people are running for cover because they don't want to be on the losing side of a presidential tweet.... And from a popular standpoint, it's almost a Faustian bargain. I'll pander to you if you pander to me.... And that exchange is very dangerous really, with regard to, again, what the Founding Fathers set up, which is a system designed to garner debate and dissent.Garner! I exclaimed the word out loud.
The idea that you can't speak out and say, "I disagree with you here but I agree with you on 90% of the stuff"... is, again, a twilight world that I've never seen.Huh? You are about to enter another dimension. A dimension not only of sight and sound, but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of imagination. Next stop, the Twilight World!
Todd pushed Sanford to talk about the way "that literally the president can just say whatever he wants, fact free, mischaracterized." And Sanford said:
That's a larger commentary on society and where we are. But because we've gone from George Washington, "I can't tell a lie by cutting down the apple tree"...Apple tree?!!
... to they've become so replete that nobody even questions him anymore. And that's, again, a dangerous spot to be in a reason-based republic. I have a unique vantage point on this front.Yeah! He's famously a liar!
We all know the story of 2009 and my implosion.Implosion.
A lie was told on my half -- behalf, which means I own it.We paused after he said "half" and laughed a lot. Then when we got to "behalf," we were puzzled. What? Did someone else lie for him and it's big of him to take responsibility?
More to the point, I was living a lie in that chapter of life.Yeah, get to the point. You were a liar. Living a lie. Chapter of life. Implosion. A lie was told on my half. Ludicrous! We were laughing here at Meadhouse.
But there were incredible consequences..... Financially, politically, socially, I lost my -- I can go down a long list. A long list. And so maybe the reason I'm so outspoken on this now is there is no seeming consequence to the president and lies.He's envious! How does Trump get away with all his lies? (It's like the sexual harassment conundrum: Why did Al Franken need to resign, why did all those Democrats crash and burn, and Trump gets to be President?)
And if we accept that as a society, it is going to have incredibly harmful consequences in the way that we operate going forward, based on the construct of the Founding Fathers.Consequences, consequences. If the liar doesn't get consequences, there will be consequences for all of us, going forward. Ask the Founding Fathers.
पोस्ट्स
१०८ टिप्पण्या:
>> If the liar doesn't get consequences, there will be consequences for all of us, going forward.
Unless it's Bill Clinton. Then there can't be any consequences, because everybody lies about sex. Even under oath.
If you hike the Appalachian Trail, you garner the consequences.
Sen. Roy Moore is proof of the power of Trump's endorsement.
That Sanford was ever elected to anything after his disgrace is amazing. That he lost the Senate race should have been expected (unless, perhaps, Hillary ("Stand By Your Man") Clinton had endorsed him).
This post is Chuck bait.
Deep State Thrombosis...
Chaos. Cult. Whatever.
The idea that you can't speak out and say, "I disagree with you here but I agree with you on 90% of the stuff"... is, again, a twilight world that I've never seen.
Is that really a fair characterisation of Trump's attitude? I don't think it is, mostly based on my perception of Rand Paul and his relationship with the President. Paul disagrees with the administration from time to time (most passionately on the subject of civil asset forfeiture), but he's mostly avoided personalizing those disagreements, and has supported the President vocally on other issues. That fact that Paul has stopped calling Trump an "orange windbag" is probably why Trump doesn't mind particularly that Paul criticises his administration from time to time. Paul treats him with respect.
Basically, if you insult Trump, Trump will insult you x2, and he has a much bigger megaphone than any other politician right now. I don't think he cares about the disagreement so much as the disrespect. Which, yes, is a tad monarchical, although this is far from the most absurd example of the monarchical tendency in the Presidency.
Here's the straight skinny on what's happening, coming to you direct from my font of hard-earned wisdom:
A goodly number of Republicans & all of the Democrats have been living a bet since 11/2016 -- that Trump would in no time at all fail miserably & his moronic supporters would be forced, forced I say, to see the errors of their imbecilic ways. They would then come crawling back to the GOPe & the Dems with their chastened tails tucked between their legs, begging to be taken back & led properly.
Well, they lost the bet. The economy's humming along & the rest of the world is learning to live & actually work with President Cheeto. There are rumors --- ugly, ugly rumors -- that many foreign leaders actually prefer him to the Light Worker. Rain is still falling down, not up, the sun rises in the East, & cats & dogs are still maintaining a watchful eye on each other.
Now, the GOPe, like the HRC campaign, has to come up with a reason for their continued existence. At least they got it better than the Dems, who now need to come up with a reason to be allowed to govern other than uniting illegal immigrant families at the border.
The Cult of Obama was probably not mentioned.
(Eaglebeak)
As I understand it, Trump (big media guy at the time) had a one-night stand with Stormy Daniels (one night, and so expensive!) during some golf event. He may have had other rolls in the hay with other models, bunnies, etc. Not fabulous, certainly. But he does seem pretty attached to Melania.
As I understand it, Mark Sanford (Governor at the time) claimed he was hiking the Appalachian Trail but ran off to Argentina for a several-week rencontre with his mistress.
Trump is still with his wife--they've been together almost 20 years (20 in September).
Sanford's wife dumped him after the affair became public, and since then Sanford and his mistress have been off again on again, with intervals for whatever, and with an awkward but entirely unrelated child abuse case coming to the fore and then being closed https://www.fitsnews.com/2017/12/15/sources-mark-sanford-child-abuse-case-closed/
As a Trump supporter I have to admit I am inclined to cut him more slack than someone I don't support--but even if I didn't support Trump, I would hardly turn to Sanford for moral analysis or guidance.
Also, lies were told on Sanford's behalf? As I understand it, HE told the lies.
Oh, and also--Sanford swore up and down that no public moneys were expended in the course of his relationship with the Argentine paramour, but later (when the contrary was proved) said he would reimburse the taxpayers.
Trump was right. Better off in Argentina.
The theme of Trump's "lies" puzzles me. He exaggerates; he uses hyperbole; he's sarcastic; he's facetious; he often calls a spade a spade; but I don't think he "lies" anymore than any other politician does. They all lie all the time - you know "if their lips are moving....". So far he's never said anything as outrageous as Obama's "If you like your doctor........ ". Now that was an out and out lie and Obama knew it when he said it.
Sanders certainly is a paragon of virtue that we should all treat with the utmost respect! ( I believe that's being facetious. No, I looked it up, that was sarcasm.)
Re: Khesanh 0802:
Now that was an out and out lie and Obama knew it when he said it.
Honestly, I don't think Obama realised it wasn't true. I don't get the sense that he was ever much in the weeds with policy, and his grasp of the dueling draft legislation at the time Obamacare was being drafted was superficial (again, I think back to his claiming that the mandate wasn't a tax, at a time when one of the drafts outright called it a tax). If Clinton (or Clinton II) said something like that -- well, they were both very interested in policy, so I'd score it a lie in their cases. In Obama's case, I'm sure an advisor told him people would be allowed to keep their doctors, and he just passed it on.
I chose not to watch MTP this morning. Didn’t think I could stomach their discussion of the IG report.
blah blah blah. Someone needs to look Chuck Todd(d) in the eye and ask HIM this:
"So Chuck Todd, your candidate, Hillary, she lost. Is that by itself a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS!?"
It's time to interview the hack press. I want some answers.
”Honestly, I don't think Obama realised it wasn't true.”
It’s been proven to my satisfaction that he knew. I can’t, without a lot of effort, reconstruct the evidence, but I paid a lot of attention to it at the time. I believe it was HHS analysis of the law, early on, that concluded it wasn’t true but he kept on delivering that line.
Trump isn't now swanning around about Daniels like an idiot. Sanford take note.
How does Trump get away with all his lies?
All what lies? Leave out obvious hyperbole and things he is trying to accomplish but hasn’t yet (getting a deal on DACA comes to mind) then he is remarkable among politicians for telling the truth. Contrasted with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Donald Trump is practically a candidate for sainthood.
I received an attack mail (literally, a post card) attacking my local state representative the other day. It was an overwrought, one-dimensional, context-free, smear of a guy who is kind of a mumbling doofus, to be honest.
Sanford surely has seen that daylight world, the dissembling dissembler.
We are casting the douchebags like Sanford and Corker out.
They are traitors. They said things to get elected and did what their globalist masters wanted them to in office.
After each one of them loses a primary their media allies are going to call them in to say how crazy the republican party is now.
The cult of anti-Trump is alive and well. I would pay them more attention if they weren't so repetitive.
Well there is the cult of Achilles, but that's just one guy.
Don't sit under the apple tree with anyone else but me
Anyone else but me, anyone else but me
No! No! No!
Just remember that I've been true to nobody else but you
So just be true to me
Don't go walking down lovers' lane with anyone else but me
Anyone else but me, anyone else but me
No! No! No!
Don't start showing off all your charms in somebody else's arms
You must be true to me
I'm so afraid that the plans we made underneath those moonlit skies
Will fade away and you're bound to stray if the stars get in your eyes
So, don't sit under the apple tree with anyone else but me
I do see that Sandford and Tapper and their Intelligence Deep State handlers are sending out a final warning. If Donald Trump cannot be destroyed by 18 months of intense Mockingbird Media digital assassination, then Trump has forced their hand.They must turn now to a gunfight at OK Corral.
Let's hope Mattis's Marine sentries and Trump's Blackwater Teams are extra vigilant for the next five months.
Sometimes I think the USA is like bizzaro world or Alice-in-the-Wonderland.
So, the best commentator on the truth is a known liar.
Okey-Dokey.
Funny how the "Founding Fathers" and "the Republic" seemed to be doing OK when we had a POTUS impeached for lying under oath, and it looked like his Wife was going to win in 2016.
Big Mike said: [Trump] is remarkable among politicians for telling the truth
I wouldn't say that. He is not a guy I would trust on any factual matter.
But I would say he is remarkable for not dissembling.
The Clintons rarely are caught in a lie. They constantly dissemble.
Trump is continually caught in a lie. But he never dissembles.
(This question of motive is the point in modern politics where people diverge and begin to fight.)
Its annoying how the Republican party is full of pompous, dishonest, blowhards like Sanford, Corker, Christie (FL), Flake, and Kasich.
BTW, I'm reading McCain's latest and its full of the same BS. Ted Kennedy was a man of HONOR, but Trump is beyond the pale. According, to Johnnie McCain.
"Don't sit under the Apple Tree with anyone else but me."
-George Washington prior to leaving Martha for Argentina.
I, for one, would like to know when was the last time a sitting President not regarded as the leader of his own party? It is not exactly unprecedented for a President to endorse a candidate in a primary now is it?
Scott Adams made this point on one of his weblogs. There are a lot of professions where truth is important. Science,... Sam Harris can be very concerned about truth, since he's a scientist.
But politics isn't one of them. Politics is persuasion. All politicians are liars. You basically never see a politician admitting that he is wrong about an issue, even that the other side is making some good points.
Some are more in-your-face than others, and that offends the others.
”Some are more in-your-face than others, and that offends the others.”
‘You’re giving us a bad name!’
It's all grandstanding. He's estimating the size of the support he can get with this or that posture, while hanging on to the deep state payoffs.
Sanford should have been happy just to be a Congressman after his "Appalachian Adventure"
Instead, he just couldn't keep his mouth shut about how "awful" Trump was.
No doubt his next stop is K street or Wall street.
Two places for "truth tellers".
The Q Communications since Last October have become a world phenomena that has not been acknowledged in the Media. And they are very frustrated that they cannot erase what has been diseminated by Q. The end of the Media's mass deception ruling over us will come as no surprize to many. Q is the Joe Rochefort of our day. He works with incrypted puzzels better than most and he shares what he has found out.
GOP Rep. Mark Sanford: Trump "partially to blame" for environment leading to Scalise shooting
Funny how so few people bring this up. That's...that's more than just "standing up to Trump" or whatever the Media wants to characterize Sanford's stance as. That's partially blaming Trump, personally, for a BernieBro who tried to mass murder Republican politicians. That should be over the line.
Off Topic: The Big K just won his 2nd US Open. What a great golf Tournament. Fleetwood must be kicking himself for missing that putt on 18. Not only did he miss scoring record, he missed forcing a playoff!
What a pleasure to get away from the boring Driver-Wedge-Ten foot putt of the typical PGA event. This one was all about 2nd shots and chipping.
Blogger Khesanh 0802 said...
"The theme of Trump's "lies" puzzles me. He exaggerates; he uses hyperbole; he's sarcastic; he's facetious; he often calls a spade a spade; but I don't think he "lies" anymore than any other politician does."
I'm of the opinion Trump is more honest than the media. The media is attempting a Joseph Goebbels "Trump always lies" propaganda campaign.
Sanford is a loser and a joke. Nobody cares about his opinions.
On the other hand, Steve Bannon was on Face the Nation - he calls the nefarious FBI agent, "Peter Stork" which I am going to start doing too.
Mrs. Sandford wasn't getting the job done. It's not exactly a lie but revealed preference.
" I cannot tell a lie. Someone cut down that apple tree on my behalf."
And of course there's always the Cult of the State, with it's horrific body count. I'm guessing Chuck Todd and his colleagues are okay with that cult, and may even be true-believing members of it.
Scalice was shot by a Bernie Bro. A Trump seething Bernie Bro.
shhhhhhh. doesn't fit the narrative.
Trump is continually caught in a lie.
Like what?
Blogger Achilles said...
We are casting the douchebags like Sanford and Corker out.
I still don't understand Corker. Maybe he thought he would get some big job from Trump, like State or Treasury.
Sanford is beneath contempt. His voting was something like 70% with the GOP, not a big plus.
Blogger Big Mike said...
Trump is continually caught in a lie.
Like what?
Yeah, I would like to know, too. Exaggeration yes.
Big Mike said...
Like what?
Saying the Dems are responsible for the separation of families at the border and saying that they want open borders.
This week's narrative is, "Trump is an unhinged liar, and all those people who are happy with his performance? Well, they're a cult. A dangerous crazy CULT, do you hear?!"
Also, I think the reason why "cult" is such a hot word right now is because Professor Weinstein, who was forced out from Evergreen State University, used the word to describe the social justice warriors who threatened his safety -- threatened his life -- over a specious complaint of racism.
Saying the Dems are responsible for the separation of families at the border and saying that they want open borders.
Both are perfectly true. Try again.
ARM
They are and they do.
Obviously this is ridiculous double-think. I blame Canada.
Claiming that Canada runs a trading surplus with us was another knee-slapper. And then admitting that he pulled this 'fact' out of his ass was every funnier.
Say what you want about Trump vs Democrats, but the big action is when Trump kicks the GOPe politicians in the nut sack.
”Saying the Dems are responsible for the separation of families at the border and saying that they want open borders.”
I’m not going to wade into the separation of families but how anyone can look at their actions and claim that democrats do not want open borders is, well, unreasonable.
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...Saying the Dems are responsible for the separation of families at the border and saying that they want open borders.
Don't be silly--they don't want open borders, they just happen to object to any and all enforcement of any laws restricting free entry into the nation. Just a total coincidence, you see?
My standard example from the other side is with abortion restrictions. Pro-life people do their best to put legal restrictions on abortion--they strictly enforce regulations on abortion providers, mandate doctors who perform abortions have hospital privileges, and so on. The pro-life people may in fact care about one or another of the regulations they support, but their overall goal is to reduce access to and/or the number of legal abortions. When a pro-life advocate says "I only want this or that law carried out fairly" you smart sophisticated types immediately say "well you say that's your intent but your REAL goal is to prevent abortions."
It's the same here. You guys won't admit to being for open borders and you'll defend yourselves from that charge by repeatedly saying "I've never said I want open borders" but the fact that you routinely oppose enforcement of any laws hampering unrestricted/illegal immigration gives you away.
It's just disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
"that literally the president can just say whatever he wants, fact free, mischaracterized."
So I guess that; "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan", doesn't count?
Original Mike: ...but how anyone can look at their actions and claim that democrats do not want open borders...
They're not pro-open borders, they're anti-anti-open borders.
Baelfagor said...Honestly, I don't think Obama realised it wasn't true. I don't get the sense that he was ever much in the weeds with policy, and his grasp of the dueling draft legislation at the time Obamacare was being drafted was superficial
Sorry, no; can't have it both ways. As President Obama said "I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director." (That was a second-hand quote from Obama's actual policy director given to the NYTimes...but never as far as I know disputed by anyone.) He's been widely praised in the Media for his comprehensive grasp of the details and minutiae of his agenda and policies--he's a genius details guy (remember his well-creased trousers?)! THAT guy can't plead ignorance (despite the fact that he allegedly learned about all sorts of things from the news, "the same time you guys [in the Media] did).
Anyway the "keep your Dr." stuff was a standard talking point and the larger point was that the massive ACA changes wouldn't harm any of the things people actually liked about their current healthcare plans/system. That, along with the assertion that all these wonderful benefits would come at a vastly decreased cost, was an obvious lie from the start.
@ARM Here's your homework on what's happening at the border. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/illegal-immigration-enforcement-separating-kids-at-border/
The Liberal Democrats aren't *for* open borders in the same way they weren't *for* communism in the 50s and 60s.
They weren't communists. They just hated and attacked anyone who was anti-communist. Y'know, like McCarthy, Reagan, or Nixon.
Today, they aren't Open borders fanatics. They just hate and attack anyone who wants to secure the border, and enforce the immigration laws. Y'know like Trump.
Why don't the Democrat want to enforce the immigration laws?
Its a simple question, they should be able to answer easily.
I don't watch TV news shows, but from the out-takes Chuck and Mark seem to piling it unusually high and deep even by the accepted standards of these "interview" thingies, and their respective professions.
No? Or are the "Warning: Shit Avalanche Danger" signs put up every Sunday morning on the talk-show slopes?
”The text of the Affordable Care Act said that none of its language “shall be construed to require that an individual terminate coverage” that existed as of March 23, 2010, or the date the law was enacted. But as early as June 2010 HHS published a regulation reinterpreting this “Preservation of Right to Maintain Existing Coverage” to obviate that promise.
Even minor policy changes, such as increasing a copay by as little as $5, means that a plan cannot be renewed without rewriting it to obey all of ObamaCare's regulations. In HHS's “regulatory impact analysis” published in the Federal Register, the department estimated that between 40% and 67% wouldn't qualify as a permitted plan, and this was the point—to prevent such policies “from being bought and sold as a commodity in commercial transactions.””
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
Big Mike said...
Like what?
Saying the Dems are responsible for the separation of families at the border and saying that they want open borders.
This photograph dates from 2014 (during the Obama administration) and was not directly related to a mid-2018 controversy over Trump administration policy of separating children from undocumented migrant parents at the U.S. border. The picture was one of several that accompanied an Arizona Republic article about a detention center for undocumented migrant children in Nogales, Arizona.
And Democrats clearly want open borders.
The dems have their issue. It's fake but the press will help them milk it.
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
Claiming that Canada runs a trading surplus with us was another knee-slapper. And then admitting that he pulled this 'fact' out of his ass was every funnier.
Canada runs a trade surplus with the US every single year dating back to 1985
Every Single Year.
You just don't like the truth.
Even Bloomberg thinks ARM is a liar.
I don’t care what Trump sez. I watch what he does. I like all the winning and I’m not sick of it yet!
Sanford's love affair had a kind of Harlequin vibe. To some extent the voters forgave him, but it was a kind of feckless romance on his part. Trump's affairs were somewhat sleazier, but they weren't feckless. He could use the Errol Flynn defense. His love life wasn't admirable, but it was enviable. He wasn't feckless if you catch my drift........Out of FDR, JFK, LBJ, and Clinton, I would say that while in office, Trump has had the best behavior and, with the exception of Clinton, received the most criticism.
ARM seems to be coming out of his post OIG report hibernation with a new DNC talking points memo.
Mexico is a large country - about 130 Million.
Mexico City is a large thriving metropolis, about the size of New York City.
We are not at war with Mexico. The Dems in this country are acting like there is a big refugee crisis, where thousands of poor, innocent Mexicans are making, death-defying journeys to find a better life in the USA. And mean ole Trump is sending them home, locking them up or, worse, separating families.
Total Leftwing propaganda bullshit.
A tiny fraction of Mexico's citizens has learned to make money as cheap labor in the USA, and send the money back to their families in Mexico. The Dems have seized on this to pretend these are the equivalent of the poor, noble European migration and complete assimilation into American citizenry via Ellis Island circa 1910.
I love Mexico and Mexicans, but I don't buy any of this bullshit.
From that Bloomberg arucle.
For example, it could be argued Canada’s statistics agency is overstating exports. Canadian businesses often import goods from third countries such as China only to re-export those goods to the American market. Statistics Canada records that as a Canadian export; the U.S. data would record that as an import from China, not Canada.
That's what it is about no matter what ARM's talking points say.
"And if we accept that as a society, it is going to have incredibly harmful consequences in the way that we operate going forward, based on the construct of the Founding Fathers."
You mean the evil scheme put in place by that bunch of racist old slave-owning white guys, about 10,000 years ago?
7 Truths Liberals Will Never Acknowledge About Illegal Immigration
Saw an old friend last week after fifteen years apart. He let me know 3arly on he hates Trump. Why, interrogated I? Because he lies so much, cane the swift response. Such as, asked I. Well, how about his crowd sizes.
Huh? That was the best he could come up with? Weak sauce, Gertrude.
So I WhatAbout-ed, How about this: If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor?
He was flummoxed. Yeah, that was bad,
I report this repartee to make the following point: Trump’s so-called lies are carnival barks at worst. Schict. Hyperbole. Whatever. Obama’s affected one-sixth I’d the economy. Or covered up crimes.
I’ll take Trump’s.
Especially when they stamp Chinese steel as “Made in “Canada.”
Pretty sure Sanford lost his reelection to the House in the primary, not a Senate primary.
SC has 2 Senators, Tim Scott and Lindsay Graham.
@M Jordan, I would put Trump’s estimates of his crowd sizes under “hyperbole,” wouldn’t you?
But politics isn't one of them. Politics is persuasion. All politicians are liars.
I heard that podcast. (re: Adams about Harris) He said that in most professions, he agrees with Harris. You want the truth from engineers, architects etc. but NOT from politicians.
One example was "Do you want world peace...or the truth?".
Others examples too, but one that stood out to me was "You want him to tell you the economy is great and will get better", so that, in this case, the lie can become a self fulfilling prophecy.
So. "Do you want a strong economy....or the truth?!"
Re: HoodlumDoodlum:
Yes, that quote from Obama was laughable. But seriously, do you think that could possibly be true? Either it means he was utterly delusional about his own capabilities, or he was astonishingly bad at picking advisors. I mean, I can believe either, but I tend to think it was just empty braggadoccio from a man who had at least a dim sense that it wasn't true.
"I'll pander to you if you pander to me.... And that exchange is very dangerous really, with regard to, again, what the Founding Fathers set up, which is a system designed to garner debate and dissent."
For one thing, the FFs did not set up a party system, so any discussion of party loyalty is unrelated to the system they "designed."
And while we are on the topic of lying, the IG report establishes, as if we didn't know, that O lied outright when he said he learned about Hill's use of a private server from news reports. The phony investigation fiasco, and the corruption of law enforcement that followed, stems in large part from the effort to hide that truth.
The Clintons have lived a lie for 40 years.
Dems and NeverTrumpers are fine with all of it.
They taught us not to give a damn about character and truth. We have learned our lesson.
Trump’s a lying liar because lies and if you guys can’t see that, what are you going to tell your children who already hate you?
Sandford?
Any Trump "lies" bigger than "you can keep your doc, bend the health cost curve down, scandal less, most transparent administration", or "extremely careless"...?
LBJ's political wisdom--If you want to get along in politics you better go along. Sanford never learned that lesson.
“Any Trump "lies" bigger than "... bend the health cost curve down”...”
This one I am, graciously, willing to ascribe to stupidity.
”LBJ's political wisdom--If you want to get along in politics you better go along. Sanford never learned that lesson.”
Sanford wasn’t willing to compromise his *cough* principles.
Why don't the Democrat want to enforce the immigration laws?
Its a simple question, they should be able to answer easily.
A more important question is why the democrats are against deporting criminal illegals when they commit a different crime than illegal immigration. Statistics show a larger portion of illegal immigrants commit crimes than our population as a whole. Why fight deportation of criminals when this would reduce the disparity and allow them to make a better argument that illegal immigrants are "just like us"? I can see no rational reason to fight to keep a illegal who has committed a different crime in the US.
Trump’s a lying liar because lies and if you guys can’t see that, what are you going to tell your children who already hate you?
Good luck.👍
It just dawned on me. Canada lies, too! Made in Canada.
'scuse me while I reach for my Althouse to English dictionary here...
I wouldn't go so far as cult, but I would just say that, from an electoral sense, people are running for cover because they don't want to be on the losing side of a presidential tweet.... And from a popular standpoint, it’s almost a Faustian bargain.
I’ll say! You don’t ask the cows how to run the dairy! You want the most milk for the farmer, not the happiest cows! Des vaches qui rit.... Bullshit.
I am one of Sanford’s constituents. I know him personally, and I know of what I speak.
My problem with him was his public criticism of Trump. The last time I met with him, I told him point blank “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say nothing at all.” I told him, based on his own tawdry and embarrasing history, he had no grounds for criticizing Trump.
The other thing I told him was that it was time to get something damned done in DC. Yeah, it’s fine to take a stand and oppose something, but if that leads to NOTHING EVER GETTING DONE, then it’s time to try another approach. Our senior senator, Sweet Lindsey, wrote the book on go along to get along. Sanford is the antithesis. He views himself as the most principled kid in the choir. The problem is that his lofty principles get in the way of progress. I told him this to his face, and I might have well been talking to a tree.
Bottom line? Mark has long thought that he’s a lot smarter and effective than he actually is. Arrington might not be any better, but I guarantee that she won’t be any worse. And she won’t take smarmy potshots at the President.
Either it means he was utterly delusional about his own capabilities, or he was astonishingly bad at picking advisors.
@Balfegor, embrace the power of “and.”
BigMike, Balfigor ... It's healing power .. "and" mends mind lesions.
If Stormy is telling truth what stopped her from making Trump splooge stooge?
"Yeah, get to the point. You were a liar. Living a lie. Chapter of life. Implosion. A lie was told on my half. Ludicrous! We were laughing here at Meadhouse."
Presumably Meadehouse is an expert re why "sweet" humor doesn't work today.
Oh, P&B showed up to tell us about Hillary’s four (it was four, right?) classified emails.
Michael K said...
ARM seems to be coming out of his post OIG report hibernation
I have stood in stunned silence as you guys spun one ridiculous theory after another as compensation for your disappointment in a report that you apparently believed, fervently, would finally put Hillary in jail. I think you have finally found a way to purge all the liberals from this site. Insanity. There's only so much insanity non-believers can take. It's like you all just up and joined the Church of Scientology.
...” a report that you apparently believed, fervently, would finally put Hillary in jail.”
Really? Hillary in jail? Links, please.
The IG report was a review of the Hillary investigation. not Hillary herself. That ship, regretably, has sailed.
"That ship, regretably, has sailed."
Or, as the Brits say, HMS HRC is SOL.
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
Michael K said...
ARM seems to be coming out of his post OIG report hibernation
I have stood in stunned silence as you guys spun one ridiculous theory after another as compensation for your disappointment in a report that you apparently believed, fervently, would finally put Hillary in jail. I think you have finally found a way to purge all the liberals from this site. Insanity. There's only so much insanity non-believers can take. It's like you all just up and joined the Church of Scientology.
The IG report showed clear incontrovertible proof that the FBI was corrupt, biased, and operated outside of standard protocol in order to reach a pre-ordained result - not to charge Hillary.
Everyone knows Hillary broke several laws thousands of times.
People like you just don't want her to answer for her crimes because all you care about is power over other people.
You were happy to watch servicemen go to jail for the same thing Hillary did.
We know democrats hate us.
That is why so few of us vote for democrats.
“There's only so much insanity non-believers can take. It's like you all just up and joined the Church of Scientology.”
Ain’t that the truth. It’s really gotten to be almost too much nuttery and I can put up with a lot.
The best part of the IG report was it made clear the FBI knew Obama used Hillary's illegal server.
Everyone in the investigation knew Obama broke laws servicemen have gone to jail for.
Any decent person knows Obama belongs in jail. And not just for spying on political opponents.
“ HRC is SOL”
SOL? She should be grateful she’s not in prison, but gratitude is not her strong suit.
Inga said...
“There's only so much insanity non-believers can take. It's like you all just up and joined the Church of Scientology.”
Ain’t that the truth. It’s really gotten to be almost too much nuttery and I can put up with a lot.
How are those Golden Showers?
Remember just a year ago I told you you would be running from the Russia investigation.
Here we are and you all are running from the IG report pretending the words in black and white don't exist.
I have been right about everything.
You have been wrong about everything.
But you are stupid so there is that.
The thought that's been bouncing around in my head recently is that this is the 90s in reverse. Back in the 90s nothing ever seemed to stick to Bill Clinton and it drove the Republicans nuts. And we had the Ken Starr circus to investigate but it never went anywhere.
Now it's the Donald to whom nothing ever seems to stick and it's driving the Democrats nuts. We have the Mueller circus trying to dig up dirt, but it seems just as likely to come up empty as Ken Starr did.
The Get Clinton campaign failed in the 90s because Democrats and independents didn't care about Whitewater, or Bill Clinton's sexual escapades, and hey, the economy was good. The Get Trump campaign isn't likely to work because Republicans and independents don't care about Russia, or Trump's sexual escapades, and hey, the economy is good.
Meanwhile, in the Ohio county I lived in for a time, the presidential results have gone as follows:
1996: Clinton +26.5
2000: Gore +7.1
2004: Kerry +5.0
2008: Obama +0.2
2012: Romney +4.7
2016: Trump +35.3
How did a county where the Republican candidate couldn't get 30% of the vote in either of Bill Clinton's 2 runs suddenly end up a place where 20 years later his wife couldn't break 30% of the vote while the Donald took over 65%? Answering that will give more insight into why Trump's words both won this area over and why the anti-Trump hysteria has done little to move the needle with them since.
after another as compensation for your disappointment in a report that you apparently believed, fervently, would finally put Hillary in jail.
Word! We saw this day after day! “If Hillary doesn’t end up in jail, nothing matters!” You guys try to spin it that it’s about uncovering some kind of Clintonian machinations that have returned the FBI to its J. Edgar Hoover roots, but the report says plain as day that there was zero bias, so suck it like a Jolly Rancher.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा