A single author, Carl Hulse, begins:
The trick in Washington has always been to make sure a government shutdown is pinned on the other guy. President Trump is the first to ever pin one on himself.Pelosi and Schumer "goaded" him into that position? I read it as: Trump surprised Pelosi and Schumer with a move that they had no planned response for. Trump took the lead. In Hulse's telling, Trump was pushed.
In a new twist on the old game of shutdown politics dating to the 1990s, Mr. Trump was essentially goaded on Tuesday by Representative Nancy Pelosi of California and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York into embracing ownership of a shutdown yet to come if Democrats do not accede to his request for $5 billion to build a wall on the southern border with Mexico.
“I will take the mantle,” Mr. Trump told the two Democratic leaders in the Oval Office, saying he would proudly close parts of the executive branch if he did not get his way. “I’m not going to blame you for it,” he continued. “The last time you shut it down, it didn’t work. I will take the mantle of shutting down, and I’m going to shut it down for border security.”So Schumer subtly enjoyed a little victory. In a good negotiation, perhaps, you get the other guy to feel buoyed by a sense of winning. But who's who? They can't all win, can they?
A smiling Mr. Schumer seemed more than satisfied with Mr. Trump’s retort. “O.K., fair enough,” he said.
The moment was a little reminiscent of the climactic scene in “A Few Good Men,” when Tom Cruise’s character elicits an incriminating answer from Jack Nicholson’s Marine colonel. In this case, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer were more than happy to handle the president’s truth. Ms. Pelosi couldn’t say the term “Trump shutdown” enough times.If I had just written "Mr. Schumer seemed more than satisfied," I would not proceed to say "Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer were more than happy." ("More than happy" is especially bad. It's a cliché, and for some of us, it's a cue to go looking for that old George Carlin clip.)
Anyway, casting Nancy and Chuck as Tom Cruise is a funny image. Remember, though, "A Few Good Men" is a movie, with a script that determined the ending. In the Nancy/Chuck versus Donald showdown, the American people will get whatever ideas they want — massaged by the media they select.
What I notice is that Trump played the media yesterday. He kept a negotiation going on in front of the cameras, even as Pelosi requested that the press go away. The media might like to take direction from Pelosi, but they're not going to turn away from the fantastic theater that Trump was putting on for them. Now, the video is out there, and the only thing the media can do is interpret and frame. The NYT idea is that Pelosi and Schumer were running the show. If they were, why were they the ones who wanted the cameras turned off?
In the 7th paragraph, Hulse says the things that suit the Trump-positive headline ("Playing by His Own Rules, Trump Flips the Shutdown Script"):
Mr. Trump has consistently played by his own rules in Washington, and perhaps this is just one more example of how he can upend the conventions of the capital and win a shutdown showdown on his own terms. Many of his most enthusiastic supporters are both anti-Washington and pro-border wall, so his decision to potentially close down a section of the federal government to secure funding for the wall could play well with them. It could also generate some welcome backing from his base at a time when he seems under siege on the legal end and is struggling to staff his administration as the two-year mark nears. In addition, the 2020 campaign is already on the president’s mind, and his efforts to limit immigration have worked for him in the past....I know! We've been hearing from Politicians With More Experience ever since Trump brought his unique instincts into their domain. As Trump likes to say, we'll see what happens.
Politicians with more experience in government shutdowns aren’t so sure that is a good idea....
पोस्ट्स
१८२ टिप्पण्या:
Carl Hulse is the first reporter I named on the blog. On the 4th day of the Althouse blog, January 17, 2004, I made fun of his mixing the metaphors in "Momentum, the holy grail of political campaigns, is evidently spreading through the Democratic presidential candidates like the flu."
"Momentum, the holy grail of political campaigns, is evidently spreading through the Democratic presidential candidates like the flu."
Well stated.
A large proportion of neutrals and even some Democrats want actual border security, too, so the more publicity, the better for Trump.
What's worse in 2004 NYT still had editors on staff...
What's the actual outcome of a "government shutdown" in my life?
Based on past instances, I'd say zilch.
Rarely seen a person as uncomfortable, tightly wound, and nervous looking as Chuck Schumer was yesterday in that impromptu press conference. Trump had the controls. Schumer was like a kid hanging onto the rail of the rollercoaster, eyes looking down or straight ahead. Occasionally he would turn to the press with a forced smile, like a kid answering his partner on the rollercoaster that, yes- he was fine. Schumer's eyes belied his forced smile. He looked scared and about to lose it.
No one has ever conceived of a Trump in the world of politics. He turns it on its head daily. It's incredible to watch.
By the way, Pelosi has just become a bizarre marionette-ish person. Hands bobbing up and aside, while she puts together play sentences made up of words that don't have meaning together. She's the next Speaker of the House. 3rd on line of succession. Wow. I would not feel comfortable leaving her to manage a shoe store. (no offense to shoe store managers)
Credit to NYT for correctly recognizing Trump is flipping the script. Tump has the tailwinds of a public in opposition to open borders. If House Democrats want to spend the next two years smearing Trump with innuendo from countless investigations- Surpise! They're gonna need government open to do so. Trump has more discretion over what parts shut down in a partial shutdown. $5B in a budget of $4 Trillion is a rounding error (unfortunately).
MSMedia will try to pin the shutdown on Trum...wait...how can we use our talking point if you agree with it?!??!
I wonder if GHWB said "athaletics."
Have we ever had a national politician, much less a President, like Trump? It's been more than 3 years, and Washington still can't figure him out and change their reactions.
The body language of the participants speaks for itself. Schumer and Pelosi clearly were not prepared for this, did not know how to respond - especially in front of the cameras - and were very uncomfortable.
(I wonder if the width of those sofas is intentional for putting the visitors off their game? I would not put that past Trump!)
And I think Pelosi is going to regret her language, and Schumer his parochial Washington dismissal of Trump's Senate gains.
Hagar
Schumer won’t look at Trump when he is talking to him.
This government shutdown will be different. Something like 80% of the government is funded through June.
It is funny with these "journalists" writing about traditions "going back to the 1990s." In 1999 I was already well past retirement age, and I am still here. It just was not that long ago.
Pelosi requested that the press go away, this is understandable, on account of because...
Pelosi Vows to Lead with ‘Transparency and Openness’
Billy Jeff also a ghost of the distant past?
So which will win the coverage wars, impeachment or immigration and government shutdown?
Trump needs to video tape all meetings he has with Democrats. He can't go wrong.
What I saw, Pelosi bragging that Dems have taken over the House, and things will change. Open and transparent. Not like Republicans, passing things in the middle of the night. Dems are running things open so the public can see...today we are is tough negotiations to keep the govt open, but we have to get these cameras out of here, and get in a private, closed door setting
Yes the Pelosi that had to pass it to see what was in it, is claiming they are going to run things in public, as soon as you turn off the cameras.
What is it with these old Democrat women and piss? Hillary concocted a scheme to paint a picture of Trump paying prostitutes for a pee party in Moscow and now Nancy visualizes Trump peeing on her? What would Freud make of all this?
Hillary and Nancy, the Golden Shower Girls.
when 'the government' is 'shut down' the executive branch gets to decide that what it wants to shut down.
O'Bama decided to pay Overtime to National Park personnel to put up barricades on South Dakota highway pull offs so that people couldn't Look at My Rushmore.
His people Also decided to pay overtime to National Park personnel to patrol the Vietnam Veterans Memorial to prevent people from looking at it.
In other Words, the Executive Branch can Spend Money to make the 'shutdown' 'seem' 'bad'
But!
If the Executive is who WANTED the shutdown, he doesn't Have To spend money making the 'shutdown' be visible. Do the demos Really Want to have a shutdown done by the Donald? A shutdown that is invisible to anyone not working for the government? People might decide that the don't Need the government, people might decide that they don't Like the government
My favorite exchange was when Schumer snarked "elections have consequences." and Trump responded "That why the country is doing so well."
Fun with movies. Because of his ego, Trump can't stay away from ordering a Code Red, bragging that he has done so, threatening or promising to order another one, and so on. The Dems think this will scare voters, and make them rush back to the welcoming arms of progressives. What if building a wall isn't just a mean trick? Meanwhile Comey, spitting with hatred for Trump, is reminding me of Witness for the Prosecution: your candour is refreshing, i.e. it leaves you with no credibility.
Ann Althouse said...
"Carl Hulse is the first reporter I named on the blog. On the 4th day of the Althouse blog, January 17, 2004, I made fun of his mixing the metaphors in "Momentum, the holy grail of political campaigns, is evidently spreading through the Democratic presidential candidates like the flu.""
So that's it...John Kerry lost because he caught the holy grail momentum flu!
Correction. Only FIVE PERCENT of the government will get shutdown this time. Who cares?
Is it really a shutdown if WW2 vets aren’t physically prevented from visiting their memorial?
Build the wall
Lock her up
Shut it down
We are stardust
We are golden
And we have got to get ourselves
Back to the garden
I wonder if the width of those sofas is intentional for putting the visitors off their game? I would not put that past Trump!
I've constantly threatened to saw off a front leg on the guest chair in the office. I suspect it was planned...
Obama's oval office had comfy game-day couches
Republicans have a big advantage in this shutdown because they hold the White House. So no Washington Monument strategy, no maximizing pain while the media blames Republicans. This time, the pain can be redirected or even avoided altogether and the media neutralized.
Trump cannot lose his base, which elected him primarily because of his stance on immigration and border control. He has to be seen fighting for that, even if he is not winning. Shutting down the government over funding for the wall is a positive for him. I predict that a confrontation with congress over the issue will cause his approval rating to rise.
Ann Althouse said...Carl Hulse is the first reporter I named on the blog. On the 4th day of the Althouse blog, January 17, 2004,
Love the one comment:
Icepick said...Oh yuck, a link to a MODO column.
I still don't understand why Congress needs to allocate $5.02 billion for wall construction. I thought Mexico was going to pay for the wall.
iowan2@7:09 You see what I see, and have seen, and all Americans have seen for many years, and yet Americans elect this disaster into power instead of prosecuting and hanging it from a lamppost.
The deep couches keep people from wasting time, but they were probably designed to have a row of decorous pillows across the back.
Nobody has mentioned it yet, but for reasons not clear to me, Speaker Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell missed yesterday's shitshow altogether. Now THAT was the genius political move of the day.
News programs all over American television bookended the argument video from the Oval Office with Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republican leadership standing calmly in front of press microphones, laughing out loud at what they had just seen and talking about how they hope to resolve the issue and avoid a government shutdown. Looking like the adult leadership of Washington.
Loads of us old-time conservatives were always perfectly happy with a shutdown. Most of the federal government is a waste of money anyhow, right? The problem the last few times was that the President was a Democrat who was determined to make the shutdown hurt as much as possible. Shut down exactly the things that will upset the average voter.
If the President is behind the shutdown I think he could run it very differently. Gosh - I guess we can't afford to pay all those bureaucrats, what's going to be? Sorry, Mr. Mueller; we'll try to keep track of the missing paychecks...
One benefit to Trump's extra long ties- when he manspreads it obscures the balls.
The worst thing I saw during a shutdown, was when President Obama shut down the War Memorials with barricades and guards and wouldn't let veterans see them. The Veterans moved the barricades themselves. It was weird that they had the preprinted signs up and ready to go (almost like they planned it!) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-investigating-monument-closures-during-shutdown/
Can someone explain to me how giving the "refugees" $50,000 a piece will make the violence go away and allow them to return home safely?
This reminded me of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez joining the sit-in at Pelosi's office.
The House will end-up sending Trump a bill with funding for the wall.
Chuck said...
I still don't understand why Congress needs to allocate $5.02 billion for wall construction. I thought Mexico was going to pay for the wall.
Better yet, have the illegal immigrants pay it themselves? Flip Vox's pro-illegal immigrant argument here.
The most recent IRS data, from 2015, shows that the agency received 4.4 million income tax returns from workers who don’t have Social Security numbers, which includes a large number of undocumented immigrants. That year, they paid $23.6 billion in income taxes. Those undocumented workers paid taxes for benefits they can’t even use, like Social Security and Medicare. They also aren’t eligible for benefits like the earned income tax credit. But the IRS still expects unauthorized immigrants to file their taxes, and many of them do so.
Boom. Paid for.
A syllogism presented by the NYT:
* Major premise: Everyone who has been blamed for a "government shutdown" has lost horribly
* Minor premise: Trump is willing to take blame for a "government shutdown"
* Conclusion: Trump will lose horribly.
* Uh, wait a second ..., it's Trump we're talking about ..., um, you know ..., maybe he won't lose ..., oh damn ...
In 2018 Dems shut the government down and then won 40 House seats. In 2013 Republicans shut the government down and then won 63 House seats. Yet Schumer thinks he got some kind of victory yesterday.
TLDR; Schumer’s an idiot.
EDH said...
This reminded me of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez joining the sit-in at Pelosi's office.
The House will end-up sending Trump a bill with funding for the wall.
Has anyone seen any good and up-to-date reporting on this issue? Yesterday, Pelosi claimed emphatically and repeatedly that Trump does not have the votes in the House for $5 billion in Wall funding. Trump said that he could get a vote in his favor in the House "in one session" (whatever "one session" means).
This was a discrete factual issue that greatly interests me. One of them, Pelosi or Trump, is wrong. Either the votes are there in the House or not. Pelosi has always been untrustworthy in my view. Trump has always been unbelievable in my view.
What I do not understand from yesterday, was Trump's claim that the House should not "waste time" on any vote until there are 60 votes in the Senate. Can anybody make sense of that? If a funding bill is to be passed, it needs to originate in the House, and it of course needs to pass the House in any event. Why not take that vote?
I am not happy to say that "Pelosi is right," but on this one single fact, it seems to me that she may be right.
What I hoped for yesterday, was a letter of some kind, signed by about 20 House Republicans (only 20 would be needed, and far more than 20 have been defeated or are retiring in January, and are lame ducks, many with deep divisions from Trump) indicating that they would not support $5 Billion funding for a Wall. That would end the debate. Because such a letter would telegraph that Pelosi is right and there is no support for a floor vote in the House to fund a Trump Wall.
Short of that, I would just settle for some good reporting on where the whip count actually is on this subject. I think the pressure is going to increase rapidly, to answer that question.
EDH; you are making the argument (one that Milton Friedman made), that illegal immigration is good for the economy. Economists would make additional arguments that immigrants are, on balance, goo for the economy as well.
You might want to make other arguments, that there are problems if illegal immigrants then qualify for expensive social welfare benefits. (As a legislator, I would argue for strict exclusion of illegal immigrants from benefits.) You might argue that illegal immigrants should be barred from ever obtaining citizenship, including the rights to vote and to receive Social Security and Medicare benefits. (As a legislator, I would agree to all of that. It has mostly been done already.) And you might argue that we should do away with birthright citizenship, for the newborns of illegal immigrants born on U.S. soil. And I would agree with that as well!
But no, EDH; nothing you can say will convince me that Donald Trump can fulfill a campaign pledge to get Mexico to pay for "the Wall." What your post indicated is that "Mexico" (illegal Mexican immigrants) has already paid for the Wall, and has been paying for the Wall, and they have paid money into the U.S. Treasury that they will never get back for a long time, and they will continue to do so into the future. If that has been the status quo ante, then what sort of a victory is it for Trump? He's changed nothing, if you are right.
Haha! That was a funny typo. "...immigrants are goo for the economy..."
Good. But also goo. Good goo? Or bad goo? I feel like I am writing Tweets for @realDonaldTrump.
God forbid Chuck ever becomes a legislator.
The shutdown will be ugly and will be most painful for Republicans like Chuck who will have to publicly state that they are in favor of open borders. I presume that includes a lot of other Chamber of Commerce Romney types, not just Dems. They will have to argue that the Rubicon has already been crossed and that it is too late. Come one, come all to America!
You can advance order orange vests from Althouse's portal.
NPR played it as Pelosi schooling Trump on how many votes he can get in the House, and Trump not knowing how to count. It came off very different when I saw it on TV.
chickenlittle: I never once, not ever, suggested that I favor "open borders." I just finished saying that I would vote for an end to birthright citizenship for the children of illegal/undocumented entrants into the United States. I'd vote for the most massive crackdown in American history, on "birth tourism." I favor the denial of almost all social welfare benefits to illegals. I adhere to the legal descriptions of "illegal aliens" and the shorter "illegals."
I do not favor open borders. I have never advocated open borders.
And I will not let some piece of shit like you tag me with any "open borders" label. I favor serious border security. Which is why I regard Donald Trump's silly, vain, egotistical, political toy of a "Wall" as a waste of taxpayer money that would be spent largely to prop up Trump's personal political fortunes.
Fuck you, with your meaningless trashtalk aimed at me, about "open borders." Use it, if you feel that you can, against Democtrats who really do favor open borders. I imagine that there are some of those.
But don't apply it to me, when you have zero basis for doing so.
Pelosi and Schumer wanted to scuttle out the light, but Trump kept shining it on them. He was smart to put them on candid camera like that. He knows what unattractive characters they are and he used that.
They were red-faced and angry afterwards. Trump walked away smiling.
Maybe the reference to "A Few Good Men" was a subconscious reaction to President Trump's references to the wall: They want him on that wall. They need him on that wall.
Dick Durbin-cuckholster "republican" Chuck: "And I will not let some piece of shit like you tag me with any "open borders" label."
Who can forget the speed with which our Vichy Republican Chuck launched attacks against any and all conservatives who pushed back hard against LLR Chuck's Open Borders Hero Durbin?
Chuck went full speed after conservative war hero (a designation which always angers Chuck) Tom Cotten for daring to refute that little Illinois dem worm.
LLR Chuck did not react well to that.
At all.
I guess Cotten would need to be a Stolen Valor Dem like Da Nang Dick to get LLR Chuck on his side.
Unexpectedly.
Brian Stelter republican Chuck: "chickenlittle: I never once, not ever, suggested that I favor "open borders."
LLR Chuck simply defends and promotes every lunatic open borders lefty and their narratives while continuously attacking strong borders conservatives.
Continuously.
Unexpectedly.
Thats all.
But hey, Chuckie is really all about strong borders....(wink wink)....
When did Milton Friedman ever say that illegal immigration was good for the economy? I know he said that you can't have open borders and maintain a welfare state simultaneously, which is what we have in America now.
Bob Boyd said...
Pelosi and Schumer wanted to scuttle out the light, but Trump kept shining it on them. He was smart to put them on candid camera like that. He knows what unattractive characters they are and he used that.
They were red-faced and angry afterwards. Trump walked away smiling.
That is 100% wrong. After the Oval meeting, Pelosi went back to Capitol Hill more secure than ever as the prospective Speaker in the next session of Congress. Her position was strengthened greatly in her own caucus. We have the video evidence of how they appeared afterward; outside the West Wing in front of national television cameras. They seemed pleased that what was once being branded as "the Schumer Shutdown" will now be "the Trump Shutdown" by agreement of the Donald.
[We might well agree that Nancy Pelosi is a rotten legislator, a terrible leader and someone whom the two of us would never want as Speaker of the House. My only point here is that by all accounts, her position as leader within her party was greatly strengthened by the episode. She has great reason to have been delighted by the day.]
Contrast with Trump. As Los Angeles Times White House correspondent Eli Stokols reported: “It sort of spiraled out of control, and when the President left the Oval Office after Pelosi and Schumer left, a number of people saw him, he stormed out of the Oval, walked into an anteroom just off the Oval Office, and had in his hand a folder of briefing papers, and he just scattered them out of frustration, threw them across the room and expressed frustration to the people who were present.”
"I favor serious border security. Which is why I regard Donald Trump's silly, vain, egotistical, political toy of a "Wall" as a waste of taxpayer money that would be spent largely to prop up Trump's personal political fortunes."
Because Truuuump!
Note Chuck isn't suggesting a specific to prevent actual crossings and overstays.
" My only point here is that by all accounts, her position as leader within her party was greatly strengthened by the episode."
By all accounts? FFS, just watch it.
Michael Fitzgerald said...
When did Milton Friedman ever say that illegal immigration was good for the economy? I know he said that you can't have open borders and maintain a welfare state simultaneously, which is what we have in America now.
HERE.
(Shorter version; Milton Friedman thinks that free immigration to fill jobs is good, but free immigration to access the expensive American welfare state is unsustainable.)
I agree with Friedman. And note; Friedman was making an economic observation, and not a policy recommendation.
Bob Boyd describes what he sees with his own eyes, Chuck says No, you're wrong, and provides third hand hearsay from anonymous sources via the Fake News LA Times. Lulz...
Did Friedman include a crime metric? ER metric?
Yeah, so in other words, Milton Friedman never said that illegal immigration was good for the economy. Thanks for clearing that up.
Freidman: "Legal and illegal immigration has a very positive effect on the economy."
Sorry, Michael. My first response to you was to catch up the brain-dead Trump cultists reading this page to where a smart guy like you was starting from.
Now, you have your answer.
And, you're welcome.
And no one seems to fashion a metric to gauge the injustice towards those wading through and waiting on the legal immigration process.
They don't matter.
Chumps.
Michael Fitzgerald said...
Bob Boyd describes what he sees with his own eyes, Chuck says No, you're wrong, and provides third hand hearsay from anonymous sources via the Fake News LA Times. Lulz...
Wow! You mean that Bob Boyd is a White House staffer? Who was in the Oval Office anteroom when Trump sent the papers flying? What's Bob's email address?
Oh...Chuck will focus on teh waqlking away part when what Bob said about Pelo-Schumer wanting to scurry out of the light was very, very evident..while giving credence to an LA Times' reporter account.
Yeah...yeah...
Just recently the "pass it to see what's in it" Pelosi was crowing about the upcoming congress promising to be the most "transparent".
Yet when transparency actually happens, she recoils.
Blogger David Begley said..."Correction. Only FIVE PERCENT of the government will get shutdown this time. Who cares?"
But I don't know which way this cuts. If no one cares, where's the pressure to get wall funding?
"So Schumer subtly enjoyed a little victory."
May not play that way to the great unwashed who like being a sovereign nation.
@Michael Fitzgerald
Its irrelevant whether or not Friedman said illegal immigration is good for the economy.
1) Freidman is not God. Maybe he was wrong. Recent studies say that nearly 70% of illegal immigrants are on some sort of welfare.
2) If they are good for the economy then why have wages been stagnant for the last 30 to 40 years? And income disparity increased? Maybe the economic benefits accrue to the the top 1 to 5% leaving the rest of us screwed.
3) Man is not just an economic animal. If you let everyone into the US that wants to come, it will no longer be the US.
Got that Friedman quote from the Jen Rubin column, Chuck, thanks.
As for Bob Boyd's email, you'll have to ask him. He already told you what he saw though. And you replied with a quote from someone else who said that they heard from someone else who said that someone saw something that was unflattering to president Trump. What's the email address of the person who actually saw the president throw the papers? How about the name of that witness? I believe Bob Boyd, rando internet commenter with Althouse blog history, before I believe Fake News purveyors, anti-Trump liars, and Democrat party operatives of the LA Times. Unlike the LA Times, Bob Boyd has never liked to me, or declared that he has to lie, because Trump.
MSNBC FanBoy Chuck: "They seemed pleased that what was once being branded as "the Schumer Shutdown" will now be "the Trump Shutdown" by agreement of the Donald."
Almost as pleased as the Hillary Campaign was when Trump won the republican nomination.
Almost as pleased as the Carter Campaign was when Reagan won the nomination.
LOL
Ron Winkleheimer@ 10:31AM. 1),2), and 3)- I agree. Friedman did say that you couldn't have open borders with a welfare state, and that's what we got.
What is the sound of one prick tinkling?
Cruel neutrality? That must mean lazy partisanship:
What I notice is that Trump played the media yesterday. He kept a negotiation going on in front of the cameras, even as Pelosi requested that the press go away. The media might like to take direction from Pelosi, but they're not going to turn away from the fantastic theater that Trump was putting on for them. Now, the video is out there, and the only thing the media can do is interpret and frame. The NYT idea is that Pelosi and Schumer were running the show. If they were, why were they the ones who wanted the cameras turned off?
Professor Althouse works doggedly to see Trump as intentional, but she puts little (no?) effort into any similar interpretative work for the other participants. I'm curious what psychic wand Professor Althouse used her right-wing-crank-populated Amazon portal to buy, such that she can read what Pelosi and Schumer wanted, as opposed to merely what they _said_ they wanted. Cruel neutrality would not have one rule for Trump, another rule for the rest of the gang, independent of evidence. People want to see themselves as cruelly neutral, when in fact most often the cruelly neutral as deluding themselves -- or at least some of the rest of us.
#StrongCNNDefender Chuck: "As Los Angeles Times White House correspondent Eli Stokols reported......."
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
I don't know if Trump will ultimately win funding for the wall, but he definitely won the semiotics of that meeting in the Oval Office. The media reports about how Schumer and Pelosi schooled the President are absurd. Schemer looked particularly awkward. Pelosi's tinkle comment afterwards was not a skilled rebuttal of Trump's insistence on the need for border security.
Dick Durbin Cuckholster Chuck: "Wow! You mean that Bob Boyd is a White House staffer?"
What is the name of the White House staffer the LA Times is referencing?
LOL
LLR Chuck loves his lefty spoonfed daily fake news.
Chuckie laps it up greedily....
"God forbid Chuck ever becomes a legislator."
He can't even pass a bar exam, and spends his spergy time pretending to be a Republican and an attorney on blogs.
Although his strategy for doing so is to always cheerlead open border and liberal cunts, so you see he isn't even competent as his cos-play as a Republican.
Lifelong Incel Chuck never misses an opportunity to side with the left.
So..Stephen Moore, featured in Chuck's Friedman piece from 2013 (alluding to Friednman of 1984) says in July this year:
"The 4th of July is one of the most popular days of the year for immigrants from every corner of the globe to take their oath of citizenship. It's a wonderful reminder for all of us that America has always been -- and continues to be -- a nation of immigrants.
It's an especially important reminder for Republicans in Congress. While thay are right to call for tough measures to deter illegal immigration, which means building the wall, ending the catch-and-release policy, and challenging the harboring strategy of sanctuary cities; visas for legal immigration should not be curtailed, but expanded."
https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2018/07/02/stephen-moore-give-us-young-energetic-talented-masses
Craig: "curious what psychic wand Professor Althouse used her right-wing-crank-populated Amazon portal to buy, such that she can read what Pelosi and Schumer wanted, as opposed to merely what they _said_.."
The same one LLR Chuck and every other lefty has been using for 3 years now re: Trump and conservatives.
I can see that ypu too, in addition to LLR Chuck and his lefty allies, do not appreciate the new rules.
Which are really just Team Left/LLR rules..but applied to you and your LLR pals.
Pity that.
Napoleon said that he preferred generals who were lucky rather than smart. To some extent, luck is the way we describe people whose grasp of the situation is intuitive rather than reasoned and deductive. In all the televised Presidential debates we were told by the media how Trump had lost, how Carli Fiorina had utterly demolished him with her poise and intelligence. We again have a situation where the media are telling us not to believe our lieing eyes.
Blogger Drago said...
Craig: "curious what psychic wand Professor Althouse used her right-wing-crank-populated Amazon portal to buy, such that she can read what Pelosi and Schumer wanted, as opposed to merely what they _said_.."
The same one LLR Chuck and every other lefty has been using for 3 years now re: Trump and conservatives.
I can see that ypu too, in addition to LLR Chuck and his lefty allies, do not appreciate the new rules.
Which are really just Team Left/LLR rules..but applied to you and your LLR pals.
Pity that.
12/12/18, 10:44 AM
---
Drago, you are the cutest little tantrum-thrower! And just like cute little tantrum-throwers, you rarely have any idea what is going on, what you are throwing your tantrum in response to. But it is both predictable and adorable! I'd pinch your cheeks through the Internet if I could!
1. Trump keeping the cameras rolling prevented Chuck and Nancy from spinning the meeting to the press. Xlnt move.
2. Amazing that Pelosi gets away with framing Trump's build-a-wall position as a 'defense of his manhood', which is tantamount to blaming Pelosi's belligerence to her being 'on the rag', a condition, of course, that no longer applies to her.
Craig: "Drago, you are the cutest little tantrum-thrower"
Thank you.
President-Mom-Jeans said...
"God forbid Chuck ever becomes a legislator."
He can't even pass a bar exam, and spends his spergy time pretending to be a Republican and an attorney on blogs.
Huh? I took one bar exam, passed it on the first attempt, and never took another one.
Where do you get the nerve to suggest to anyone that I did not pass a bar exam?
This is what your commentariat has become, Althouse. Shame on you for letting it happen this way.
No Wall, No Shutdown. Another Trump victory
Craig, similarly, I find your (and all the other leftists) reflexive, immediate, passionate defense of your lefty ally Chuck both instructive as well as laudable.
One should rise to the defense of one's teammate in just that way.
I only hope that LLR Chuck truly appreciates his immense leftist support on this blog.
I will not let some piece of shit like you tag me with any "open borders" label. I favor serious border security. Which is why I regard Donald Trump's silly, vain, egotistical, political toy of a "Wall" as a waste of taxpayer money that would be spent largely to prop up Trump's personal political fortunes.
Fuck you, with your meaningless trashtalk aimed at me
--
Chuck, our hapless civility enforcer.
Good to see ya back in fine form!
This article is another example, in a long series of examples, of why we no longer tried the fake news in our country. It's a very dangerous thing, having no more trusted news sources. It's all bias all of the time.
Trump had a great meeting yesterday. One which energized his base. But it could easily backfire if he caves again and doesn't get the funding he needs for the wall.
Why can't the media just play this straight?
LLR Chuck: "Where do you get the nerve to suggest to anyone that I did not pass a bar exam?
This is what your commentariat has become, Althouse. Shame on you for letting it happen this way."
Self-proclaimed, and proudly so, Smear Merchant Chuck (yes, he did in fact proclaim that), finds it distateful for others to post things he dislikes.
Discuss.
"Where do you get the nerve to suggest to anyone that I did not pass a bar exam?
This is what your commentariat has become, Althouse. Shame on you for letting it happen this way."
Awww, the little sperg Chuck is having a sad and crying to mommy Althouse, yet again. Whine some more, you pathetic little jizz rag.
Where do you get the nerve to pretend that you did, in addition to pretending that you vote for Republicans?
Continue cry to mommy, or better yet, start threatening to shove things down men's throats (your go to impotent threat, other than threatening female television personalities.
Perhaps Chuck would be more comfortable wurh racist slurs against African-American cabinet members and conservative politicians? Or more vicious political attacks on underage children of politicians of whom he disaproves?
You know, LLR Chuck's stock in trade.
Howie's theme song:
Someone's knockin' at the door
Somebody's ringin' the bell
Someone's knockin' at the door
Somebody's ringin' the bell
Do me a favor
Open the door and let 'em in
Someone's knockin' at the door
Somebody's ringin' the bell
Someone's knockin' at the door
Somebody's ringin' the bell
Do me a favor
Open the door and let 'em in, yeah, let 'em in
Sister Suzie, brother John
Martin Luther, Phil and Don
Brother Michael, auntie Gin
Open the door and let 'em in, yeah
Sister Suzie, brother John
Martin Luther, Phil and Don
Uncle Ernie, auntie Gin
Open the door and let 'em in, yeah
Someone's knockin' at the door
Somebody's ringin' the bell
Someone's knockin' at the door
Somebody's ringin' the bell
Do me a favor
Open the door and let 'em in, ooh yeah, let 'em in
Sister Suzie, brother John
Martin Luther, Phil and Don
Uncle Earnie, uncle Lin
Open the door and let 'em in, yeah
Someone's knockin' at the door
Somebody's ringin' the bell
Someone's knockin' at the door
Somebody's ringin' the bell
Do me a favor
Open the door and let 'em in, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
(..or give 'em $50k)
Hmm.
Medicare, JUST Medicare, cannot account for 140 BILLION DOLLARS. They have no idea where that much money just wafted away to.
That, for the innumerate, is 28 times what Trump is asking for the Wall.
Or, to put it into other terms, the cost of the Wall is .00125% of the Economy.
Literally, Pelosi and Schumer refuse to pay a single penny on a Wall.
Because you can't turn a Wall off
Because you can't downsize a Wall.
You can't reallocate the Wall into ineffective cover of the border.
A Wall just sits there: making Granny climb it. Stopping trucks from passing.
It can't be reasoned with, bribed or distracted.
It has to be destroyed...and that is far too much responsibility for a Democrat to face.
Pelosi hated that meaning because she could NOT be transparent: that she would die before she paid for a foot of Wall.
But she can't say that publically. SHE CAN'T!
So what can she say publically in rebuttal?
Weak tea.
Keep it up Trump.
Meeting not meaning.
Anyone who says we can't pay for the Wall yet says we can pay for Medicaid for all is a fool or thinks you are a fool.
Both is also an option.
We spend more than $5 billion repainting bridges in this country.
There is a large majority of the country in favor of stronger and more enforced border- this is one of the few truly bipartisan issues. How do I know this? Because Obama and the Democrats could have passed a full amnesty bill through the House and Senate in 2009-2010, but did not do so.
Trump wins this because it isn't the government shutdown that is the real political issue- it is border security itself that is the issue, and by taking that "mantle" himself, Trump emphasizes that the border security is a important issue to Trump and his voters specifically. If the government is shut down over the wall, Trump will just repeat what he said at the meeting- the issue is national security, and the Democrats will be defending the minority side of this argument.
Honestly, the Democrats are stupid to fight this battle. They think they need to in order to keep Latino voters on the Democratic reservation, but Latino voters don't really favor open borders either. Trump has backed Pelosi and Schumer into a corner here- they basically are committed to shutting down the government just to prevent a wall from being built while Trump is committed to shutting down the government in order to protect the border. The politics on this is pretty easy to understand.
Seriously, the other Republican candidates in 2015 and 2016 made the same mistake and got schlonged politically.
Let us say that America got a windfall. An undiscovered oil well on federal land, reparations, a huge drug bust full of cash, Republicans shuffling through their couches. Whatever.
Out of the sky falls $5 billion dollars.
The Wall is now free.
Does anyone think that suddenly Pelosi and Schumer are going to drop their opposition?
Anyone? Chuck?
Hey Chuck, will YOU drop your opposition if the Wall is free?
Amy Schumer?
I'm missing something or maybe that cataract surgery need to be moved up.
FIDO,
Clearly not..so long as it is viewed as a positive for...Truuuuuump!
I think so, Rabel.
Can you find your way out of this thread?
Chuck said...
But no, EDH; nothing you can say will convince me that Donald Trump can fulfill a campaign pledge to get Mexico to pay for "the Wall." What your post indicated is that "Mexico" (illegal Mexican immigrants) has already paid for the Wall, and has been paying for the Wall, and they have paid money into the U.S. Treasury that they will never get back for a long time, and they will continue to do so into the future.
What I said was "Better yet", which means better than our Mexican neighbors (still in Mexico, respecting our laws and sovereignty) paying for the wall...
Better yet, have the illegal immigrants pay it themselves? Flip Vox's pro-illegal immigrant argument here.
So which is it: are illegal aliens net drains or contributors to the government? Even if it's only $5 billion net of the $24 billion collected each year, it's still paid for.
Chuck said...
If that has been the status quo ante, then what sort of a victory is it for Trump? He's changed nothing, if you are right.
What Trump will have done is get the wall built. The point of Trump saying "Mexico will pay for it" was to change the debate, from whether to build it, to one about who in the end pays for it. Building the wall is now a fait accompli.
In negotiation parlance, that's called "anchoring" or changing the point of reference.
"Can you find your way out of this thread?"
I'll just follow the tags.
I don't care who pays for it. Just build the damn thing.
EDH; fuck all of that "negotiating" mumbo-jumbo.
What I now know is that Trump is wanting Congress to allocate more than $5 billion of U.S. taxpayers' money for the building of a border wall. Period. Full stop. U.S. money, for The Wall.
And during the campaign, what all of the Republican challengers said to Trump was, "Mexico is not going to pay for your wall." They were right. Now Trump is begging Congress to pay for his wall. A wall that if it were built in any way that lent itself to a Trump photo-op, Trump would exploit for his personal aggrandizement.
I really don't know who was dumber; Trump, for promising a wall that Mexico would pay for, or the minority of Republican primary voters who supported Trump when he made such laughable promises?
I don't care who pays for it. Just build the damn thing.
If Trump was smart, he would set up a 'GoFundMe' page for the Wall.
1) He is daring Liberal Technocrats to shut it down. They are already mightily unpopular. So do they give way to their principles (that would be a lot of moolah) or their pocketbooks?
2) He removes a talking point from the Democrats if suddenly the American people are willing to self fund the Wall. How does Pelosi answer that? "Ai...ai….ai!" seems the most likely initial response
3) It is a dare and a signifier to the Democrats. "If you folks want a Wall, prove it. And further, SHOW the Democrats how unpopular their position is!"
FIDO said...
Let us say that America got a windfall. An undiscovered oil well on federal land, reparations, a huge drug bust full of cash, Republicans shuffling through their couches. Whatever.
Out of the sky falls $5 billion dollars.
The Wall is now free.
Does anyone think that suddenly Pelosi and Schumer are going to drop their opposition?
Anyone? Chuck?
Hey Chuck, will YOU drop your opposition if the Wall is free?
I will drop my opposition when Mexico writes a check to the U.S. Treasury for $5.02 billion dollars, and puts "Border Wall payment" on the memo line.
No, wait; that isn't enough money. Because the $5.02 billion that Trump wants now is just a down payment on what might be a $25 billion cost. Or more? Or are we giving up on the idea of a gigantic, full-border wall.
I'd be all in favor, by the way, of a Bipartisan Commission on Border Security. Figure out how to do better border security and make the border as impenetrable as possible without harming Americans' private interests on the border, or damaging the environment, or damaging cross-border trade. I would back such a Commission, with the clear understanding that no serious group of legislators would come back and endorse any showy Trump notion of a wall.
I want real border security, and not the fulfillment of a stupid Trump campaign promise.
I would throw in a couple of hundred.
I'm betting it would be some sort of "violation of terms"..because Truuuuump!
Sure Chuck..again..as long as it hurts Trump. But you're a fool who thinks there is a bipartisan desire to stem the flow.
I will drop my opposition when Mexico writes a check to the U.S. Treasury for $5.02 billion dollars, and puts "Border Wall payment" on the memo line.
So never. You will always oppose the Wall. There is no 'give' for you on this.
I'd be all in favor, by the way, of a Bipartisan Commission on Border Security. Figure out how to do better border security and make the border as impenetrable as possible without harming Americans' private interests on the border, or damaging the environment, or damaging cross-border trade.
So translates as "I will set such a high and unrealistic bar that it will never happen, but I get the cover of SEEMING to be pragmatic".
Alas, you don't get that mantle because we all understand that 'Bipartisan', 'Private Interests' and 'Environment' are Three fatal poison pills, because you will find ONE person to bitch about it and that, you think, gives you the cover to, once again, ignore the will of the American people.
Because you are a liar and argue in bad faith. Maybe you are even lying to yourself. How sad.
(we know you don't think that..yer just posturing)
with the clear understanding that no serious group of legislators would come back and endorse any showy Trump notion of a wall.
And that is Chuck's definition of 'serious'. Anyone 'serious' has to be opposed to Trump. Anyone who thinks that the technology of a 'wall' is show, is a moron.
Because people like yourself are arguing in horrible faith. You like drones...which can be shut down.
You like ICE agents...who can be bribed or ordered to stand down.
You like satellite pictures which can be ignored or turned off.
ANYTHING that doesn't work passively...like a Wall.
Open Borders/Muslim Brotherhood "republican" Chuck: "I'd be all in favor, by the way, of a Bipartisan Commission on Border Security. Figure out how to do better border security and make the border as impenetrable as possible without harming Americans' private interests on the border, or damaging the environment, or damaging cross-border trade."
Straight out of the DNC/Soros-funded groups talking points.
Again.
As always.
Unexpectedly.
On the other hand, its a positive development when the masks come off completely.
Remember, our Jim Acosta republican Chuck also told us Trump would be unable to renegotiate NAFTA...and get tariffs against American products reduced...and get NATO to increase defense spending...
Basically, Chuck is a walkin'talkin' Media Matters brochure.
Unexpectedly.
Chuck said...
"I want real border security,"
Folks, this is a huge step in the right direction. Now, even LLR Chuck has moved from wanting "border security" to wanting "real border security." Everyone knows that real border security means one thing: a wall.
Winning!
"You fucking troll."
Chuck, Chuck, Chuck. Just when we were beginning to make real progress.
Chuck, you have 48 hours to apologize to Drago.
Very insulting to all of us. I suggest you up your rhetoric from "real border security" to "real strong border security."
Just to signal good faith.
It seems like only yesterday our intrepid LLR was shouting from the rooftops that Trump could not deliver any negotiated deals.
I can see that LLR Chuck is now desperately scrambling for a brand new limited modified hangout.
For obvious reasons.
Good luck with that Chuck. I am certain one of your many many many far left lunatic fans can come up with something.
Laurence, Laurence, Laurence...(may I call you Laurence?). How can you doubt Chuck's desire for "real strong border security"? Why, in this very thread, he has called for a Bipartisan Commission on Border Security!
Not good enough. Needs to be Bipartisan Commission on REAL STRONG Border Security.
And I'm still waiting to see that apology to Drago.
"may I call you Laurence?"
No, but you may call me Original Laurence.
How about Laurence, The One and Only?
Try... The Real Strong One and Only
Durbin Open Borders Fanboy Chuck: "Go right ahead, Meade, and ridicule "real border security" and "strong" border security. It is terminology that Trump has employed, as have others on all sides."
LOL
Chuck is now trying to pretend a wall is not core to Trumps Border security plan!!
Nice try Media Matters Boy!
Sad!
Oh come on Chuck I wasn't ridiculing "real border security" and "strong" border security. The contrary. I'm delighted to see you beginning to use those terms. Keep up the good work.
Now don't you feel regretful for behaving in such a prickly manner?
It's nice to see Chuck take some time off from cheering for the Muslim Brotherhood in order to school the rest of us as to how tough he is on border security.
Border security without physical barriers, of course. The best kind of security for those who don't support open borders.
Drago I am absolutely convinced that The Wall is the core element, and possibly the only element, of Trump's appeal-to-the-base plan.
Chuck: "Drago I am absolutely convinced that The Wall is the core element, and possibly the only element, of Trump's appeal-to-the-base plan."
Hmmmm, wrong again.
No doubt purposefully because not even you are that stupid....though I am keeping an open mind on that.
Jim at said...
It's nice to see Chuck take some time off from cheering for the Muslim Brotherhood in order to school the rest of us as to how tough he is on border security.
You can't possibly quote me, "cheering for the Muslim Brotherhood." You can't do anything like that. I cannot recall when I have ever mentioned "the Muslim Brotherhood."
You see, Meade, what a shitshow these comments pages have become? Althouse's commenters have taken "deplorables" from a tag line and turned it into an actual way of life.
LLR Chuck now pretending he didnt go all in on Muslim Operative/fake journalist Kashoggi.
LOL
It never ends for our #StrongStolenValorDemocratHackDefender Chuck!
LLR and Admittefd Smear Merchant Chuck: "Althouse's commenters have taken "deplorables" from a tag line and turned it into an actual way of life."
Right out of the lefty/Soros/dem playbook Chuck.
I did not see that coming.....
LOL
Chuck,
You've spelled out how you won't agree to anything that might help Trump politically.
You have no "real" standing on these issues after that.
Talk about deplorable.
Chuck doesn't know why we need a wall.
let me clear it up for you, Chuck.
Boarder walls-see Israel- funnel people into areas where they can be more easily controlled.
I would think that would be obvious.
Mead!
back to the garden?
I'd settle for back to my car at the mall parking garage.
Drago said...
LLR Chuck now pretending he didnt go all in on Muslim Operative/fake journalist Kashoggi.
I wrote nothing about Khashoggi (whose name you clearly don't even know how to spell) other than that he was a murder victim.
I posted, insofar as the Althouse commentariat seemed to feel licensed to attack Jamal Khashoogi, no doubt in the name of defending Donald "Maybe He Did, Maybe He Didn't" Trump.
I didn't write one word of detail about Khashoggi's past, his work as a columnist, his ties to other groups, etc. And yet the Althouse commentariat made me out to be a defender of the Muslim Brotherhood, claiming that I had overlooked all of Khashoggi's "sins," and that I had taken on about a dozen positions in international politics that I never even mentioned. Did I post one single comment on that page? I think so. I think it was one single comment from me.
You sick fucking Trump cultists. I sure can press your buttons. You especially, Drago. Your obsession is purely psychopathic.
I could never be goaded into subscribing to the NY Times.
Chuck has been goaded into losing his temper by the Althouse commentariat.
Muslim Brotherhood "republican" Chuck: "I wrote nothing about Khashoggi (whose name you clearly don't even know how to spell) other than that he was a murder victim."
You seem surprised that I am not in the least concerned with correcting my spelling of Jamal Callistoga's (or whatever) name. He is a muslim brotherhood (parent Organization of Al Qaeda and dedicated to Americas destruction) piece of crap and I will lose no sleep over his death.
Unlike you Chuck who now embraces this impkacable enemy of the US 'cuz Muh Principles/Trump!!!
Just think, the iranians kill Americans and hundreds of journalists and thousands of their own citizens and obama sends them billions and helps them advance their nuke program.
And you call obama "magnificent".
So feel free to continue your lefty-aligned Muslim Brotherhood support. It's a nice bookend position for you along with your lefty-aligned open borders pro-Cartel/MS13 position.
Its just all in a days work for a Smear Mercant lefty allied "TruCon" (wink wink) felliw like yourself.
LLR Chuck: "You sick fucking Trump cultists."
Tsk tsk
Tourettes?
LLR Chuck thinks other posters are obsessed.
LOL
Discuss.
LLR Chuck, who has frequently attacked children and threatened others with violence while tossing out one vulgarity after another, accuses others of psychopathic behavior.
Discuss.
let me try again:
https://cis.org/Bensman/CIS-Panama-and-Costa-Rica-How-America-Filters-Potential-Terrorists-Distant-Lands
Back in mid-2013, when Althouse briefly closed her blog to comments, I felt a sense of relief. I'd gotten caught-up in the back and forth trash talking between bloggers and Althouse and the shutdown of the comments forced me to give-up my addiction. I got clean! And even when Ann re-opened her blog to comments, I stayed on the wagon and didn't get hooked again with blogger infighting. Okay, that said, I vaguely remember a time when Althouse would provide data about page views and unique visitors to her blog. Not sure if that data is still available and it's not really relevant except for one thing. I suspect that the majority of readers of this blog are not regular commenters. They may in fact never comment at all. But those people undoubtedly read the comments here and form opinions on all that they read. Regular commenters should consider that very large, "hidden" audience of blog readers when they make their comments. Sarcasm and sarcastic humor are a staple of human conversation just as much as the employment of facts and logic and classical rhetoric. But frothing, unhinged, puerile vituperation cloaked in pleas for moderation from Althouse is clear evidence to me, at least that that particular commenter is, well, out of their depth. They should take a breather, a few weeks perhaps and ponder on the large, unseen and unheard audience of people who may be persuadable on important issues. I learned this lesson long ago, when I was an elected public official who made speeches on camera but sometimes forgot that there were many, many people who I couldn't see but who were watching and listening to me.
Meade@3:18PM ... LMFAO... I think we need a "Chuck's Apology to Drago Countdown Clock".... The clock is ticking, 43 hours and change...
Chuck, a large majority of your fellow Americans want a Wall.
The Wall, compared to the rest of the budget, is a pittance.
There are half a dozen ways in which a Wall is superior to these undefined 'better' ways you assert exist.
The idea of a Southern Wall was spoken of decades ago when that Idiot Sam Donaldson asked how we could make a wall 3000 miles long in the 20th century, seemingly unaware the Chinese did the same around 400 B.C.
And all you can offer in defense of your intransigence is Trump hatred.
So I won't say you are an asshole who supports the Muslim Brotherhood.
You have been an asshole in so many other ways. Like spitting on any real border security by giving Dems a veto.
So we don't take you seriously.
Drago said...
LLR Chuck, who has frequently attacked children and threatened others with violence while tossing out one vulgarity after another, accuses others of psychopathic behavior.
Sheridan; see this comment, just two comments above your own.
I haven't "frequently attacked children." That is a lie. The real story is that in the course of the Republican primaries, when I was hoping that people would see through Trump as the outer-borough grifter that he is, Trump made more comments (as he had, repeatedly, in the past) about a link between vaccines and autism. Personally, I think that the link between Trump and Vaxxerism is a lot clearer. US Weekly magazine picked up on a story that developed when a YouTube blogger who is himself on the autism spectrum made a video using public-domain video and other information to make the case that Barron Trump is autistic. Trump family lawyers came down on the blogger and forced the video off of YouTube. US Weekly reported that story, as well as the comments from Rosie O'Donnell (the mother of an autistic child) suggesting that she thought that Barron was autistic. US Weekly was promptly served with a litigation threat from Trump family lawyers (the same firm that represented Hulk Hogan in the Gawker litigation) telling US Weekly to cease and desist. US Weekly didn't have much to cease and desist from doing, and they published parts of the letter. There was no litigation. The Trump family lawyers said categorically that Barron Trump was not autistic.
I don't know where Barron Trump might fit on any autism spectrum and I have never claimed to know. My comments on Barron Trump have never gone outside of the bounds of this post. When others have taunted me on this subject, my responses have been largely along the lines of this very post.
I do say this; that if Barron Trump really is autistic, the actions of the Trump family in a denial mode are akin to the Kennedy family's treatment of daughter Rose Marie "Rosemary" Kennedy in the 1940's and beyond. And while he is President, it has been a relief that he has seemingly not utilized any executive branch powers to exploit the mythical link between vaccines and autism. A link which has been conclusively shown as junk science. Although there was that one frightening day when Vaxxer and Kennedy nutjob Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was received at Trump Tower during the transition and came out of a meeting with the President-elect and announced that there would be a Presidential Commission on vaccine safety and that he would be on it. (Which was later renounced by the transition staff.)
So Sheridan; are you saying that I should not defend myself from defamations like this, with responses like this? You can be honest with me. I appreciate your comments.
FIDO said...
Chuck, a large majority of your fellow Americans want a Wall.
...
I am curious what caused you to write that. Because a poll released just today by NPR/PBS Newshour/Marist indicates that 69% of respondents (a "large majority" in polling terms) indicated that a border wall was not a priority for them.
"28% of those polled answered that the border wall should be an immediate priority, while 19% replied it shouldn’t be an immediate priority, and 50% said it shouldn’t be a priority at all.
"Of those polled, a vast majority of Democrats—91%—said they didn’t think the wall was an immediate priority or said it was not a priority at all, while 35% of Republicans held that view."
Link here.
Do you have other poll results, or was this something that you pulled out of your ass?
Michael Fitzgerald said...
Meade@3:18PM ... LMFAO... I think we need a "Chuck's Apology to Drago Countdown Clock".... The clock is ticking, 43 hours and change...
It would help me greatly, if you would hold your breath until I do apologize. As for Meade, I will bet him $1000 that I will not apologize.
I am 2-for-2 in my wagering with other Althouse commenters. And I am always looking for more sucker- er, gambling action.
Sheridan=Chuck's newest sockpuppet.
Any kind of gambling, betting, wagering, or gaming on the Althouse blog is an impeachable offense and can result in the loss of commenting privileges. Everyone knows that, Chuck. Including you.
Now I suggest you hop to it and offer Drago your sincere apology lickity split.
@6:53 Chuck admits to a gambling addiction... Oh Sheridan, dear, do you think that Chuck's disturbing blog comments are indicative of an adult on the autistic spectrum, or is it just a cry for help?
Only 44 hours left, Chuck.....
Blogger Rusty said...
"Chuck doesn't know why we need a wall.
let me clear it up for you, Chuck.
Boarder walls-see Israel- funnel people into areas where they can be more easily controlled.
I would think that would be obvious."
It is obvious.
An NPR poll huh? Was a poll of Harvard's faculty?
Republicans don't answer polls anymore, Chuck.
Well, maybe YOU do. And David Brooks. The rest of us geneally don't.
Show me Zogby or Pew.
Might as well have offered a poll by Pravda or Mother Jones
It is sad that I know what a push poll is but Chuck doesn't.
Well, maybe he knows how to try to USE one
The author did not mix metaphors. He used two in one sentence. Big difference. A mixed metaphor is the lines of "Wake up and smell the writing on the wall."
It might have been a lame sentence, but our hostess is wrong about that, as she is about many things.
THEOLDMAN
"ALONG" the lines of... I need to proofread my comments before posting. I am not infallible.
THEOLDMAN
LLR Chuck takes time out from defending himself against the charge of attacking children to continue to attack a child.
Again.
Unexpectedly.
FIDO: "It is sad that I know what a push poll is but Chuck doesn't."
On the contrary, Chuck certainly does know what a push poll is.
And the fact that this one is clearly another lefty slanted push poll is precisely what our #StrongDemDefender Chuck likes most about it.
Not surprising..since he can't distinguish between pushing buttons himself vs his being pushed till he quickly explodes into expletives/excrement.
Meade said...
Any kind of gambling, betting, wagering, or gaming on the Althouse blog is an impeachable offense and can result in the loss of commenting privileges. Everyone knows that, Chuck. Including you.
Meade, since reading your comment I have mixed myself a delicious Hendricks Gin martini with my must-have Noilly Prat vermouth (in a generous 3-to-1 ratio). I won that Hendricks, which isn't cheap, in an Althouse bet.
And lest I seem churlish about it, my fellow wagerers know who they are. I won't name them here. But they are both standup guys who came through and settled their bets honorably. Kudos to them.
I am settling in with a stimulating beverage to enjoy a very special Melania Trump Interview Edition of HANNITY! I can't wait to see how she responds to Sean's inevitable hard-hitting questions about her husband's infidelities which are now the subject of at least one and possibly more Department of Justice criminal investigations.
Life is good. I hope it is as good for you too, Laurence.
IOW Meade, he is drinking to change the subject(s).
Original Laurence to you, Chuck.
And you watch Hannity? Can't stomach him, myself.
Original Mike said...
Original Laurence to you, Chuck.
And you watch Hannity? Can't stomach him, myself.
I cannot stand Hannity either. But I am watching right now. Counting all of the questions not asked. He's actually a terrible interviewer. There have been a lot of people on Fox who are hated. (And some -- Bret Baier, Britt Hume, Chris Wallace, Dana Perino, Chris Stirewalt, etc., etc. whom I adore.) But usually they are good at what they do. The odious Bill O'Reilly was actually wonderful at his job. Tucker Carlson is terrific, doing a somewhat dubious service to the national debate.
Hannity is not even good at basic communication skills. His skill is being Trump's monkey-butler.
But how freaking grateful he must be, to have a Melania Trump interview to air, on the day that his former lawyer and friend Michael Cohen gives a statement in a New York federal courtroom ripping on Trump as he is handed a 3-year federal prison sentence?
So you exchanged emails on here Chuck? Phone number? Do tell how that went.
Hannity had a program on FOX for about 15 years before Trump was elected, Chuck... 42 hours and counting...
Chuck up'd: Fuck you, with your meaningless trashtalk aimed at me, about "open borders." Use it, if you feel that you can, against Democtrats who really do favor open borders. I imagine that there are some of those.
But don't apply it to me, when you have zero basis for doing so.
Listen Chuck you Scrooge at midnight: I wrote my 9:07 AM comment in the future tense:
The shutdown will be ugly and will be most painful for Republicans like Chuck who will have to publicly state that they are in favor of open borders.
I didn't say that you were in favor of open borders, I said that you will be forced to admit that you are. Trump is going to force you, the Dems, and other Romney republicans to admit that they are in fact for porous if not open borders. If you don't admit it, Trump is going to show us that you believe that. This will come to a head very soon. It's what Trump's shutdown will be about. It's not too late for you to repent.
Why do I say this? Because you and they have no alternative. There is no serious plan on the table to limit migration other than a wall. If there is, name it. Tell us about it. You, like the Romneyites, tremble in fear of even talking about immigration. You are exactly like Hillary and Obama who couldn't mouth the syllables "radical islamic."
BTW, I don't think a wall is a phallic symbol; I think a wall is a female symbol. Think penetration barrier. Maybe Althouse is right about Trump channeling female thoughts and feelings. What kind of woman wants unlimited men penetrating their barriers and picking at their fruit?
Hey now...he's trying to enjoy the visage of Melania while imagining his rail gin was bought by Deplorable Althouse commenters.
Hannity is an ass and an embarrassment to the Conservative movement.
Not as limp wristed as Chuck, but then again, not as intelligent as Chuck either.
Which is to say: Chuck, while bad at his disingenuousness, is still better than Hannity at his.
Last time I listened to Hannity, I had an image of a chimp loudly contemplating which hole the round peg went in.
Most of these people seem clueless, about what's going on in this world shep Smith is like the 5th python, yes hannity is one note, but the others aren't even looking at the lyrics
Hannity's extended monologues suck.
But he manages to have decent guests at times.
O'Reilly was another one, chuck Payne is good so is stuart varney and Louis Dobbs throw in tammy Bruce.
Meanwhile Chuck is about to get his nightly combo nuggie/wedgie at his local watering hole.
Col. Jessup was right. We want him on that wall.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा