Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by mchammer, Sep 24, 2019.
And I, for one, like it most of the time.
I understand the appeal. It's sorta like having a guy on your football team who does a particularly flamboyant end zone dance. It's obnoxious and juvenile, but it's harmless - until it is easily used to empower the Left. That's when I have a problem with it.
Bill Clinton (of all people) offers some advice that I actually think it's pretty smart. Link.
Considering how much Trump has accomplished, I’d say he’s the last President that needs to be told to do his job. Or did I misread what Bill meant?
Bill Barr spoke at a Federalist dinner Friday and he blasted the Dems for “using every tool” to “sabotage” the Trump administration by setting a “dangerous” precedent in implying that the government is illegitimate. Dems were calling for his impeachment even before he was inaugurated.
He backed up his criticisms with these facts;
Democrats in the Senate preventing President Trump from building his government – under the Trump Presidency, the Senate has needed to invoke cloture 236 times – only 17 in 8 years under Obama and only 4 in Bushes first term.
Nationwide injunctions are also increasing with over 40 under President Trump and only 2 under Obama
Every major policy under President Trump has been subject to immediate freezing by the courts
– Courts as well are increasing judicial reviews and getting themselves into national security and foreign affairs which are Executive Branch activities – travel ban is an example
Barr speaks the truth. I’m so tired of the hypocrisy of these people playing games with our great country. They are getting rich and fight over power more than they care about America.
“You can’t get rich in politics unless you’re a crook. Harry Truman.
What I think he means is that he should push on with his duties rather then getting bogged down in the impeachment battle. That's basically what Clinton did, and it definitely served him well.
Trump is going to tweet, but he doesn't slow down and get bogged down.
That's interesting, because in the last month or two, I've heard a lot more from Trump about the impeachment than about policy.
The Tim Morrison transcript was finally released yesterday
It shows the NSC staff, including his former boss Fiona Hill, didn't trust the judgment of Alexander Vindman and worried he was improperly accessing documents
I see you there
What in the hell is supposed to do when the House is focused solely on impeachment? I posted a story several days about the trade deal with China he has been working on. I can't explain what you have heard, but I don't think any reasonable person thinks Trump is sitting around and not promoting his agenda. But maybe that's just me.
I really think the essence of the message was stop tweeting, except about work. Leave the impeachment to the lawyers.
Collins on a Sunday Show - more clips are in the thread if interested
All politicians lie all the time and nothing they say should ever be believed
I forget who said that but it has been my guiding light for 50 years and has never led me astray
maybe Lenny Bruce or HL Mencken?
I'll admit, I didn't read it. Clinton is a POS so I don't care what he says.
If Trump tweets about work, he'll be criticized for not taking the impeachment seriously, and who on here doesn't think that is true?
My 2 cents is that the tweet kerfuffle gave Castor a great opportunity to expose her views on some things - like who the Constitution says gets to set foreign policy and the effect of elections. At one point she even said something to the effect that the president's views were "at odds with American foreign policy" (I dont recall the exact words but it was something like that). Plus, she gave Castor another opening when she indicated Trump's tweet (which she would not have known about unless Schiff read it to her), caused her to feel "fear." Really? Fear a tweet? That probably DQd her from ever holding that post again. The US needs tough people in that position -- not shy Victorian era reticence.
Castor's response was a judgement call on the spot. he chose to bend over backwards to show her deference. IMO, he blew it. Those were openings to take it to her and expose her. Plus there were other key areas where her live testimony were at odds with her previous depo, such as that the Obama folks prepped her with fake Q & As on how to handle the Hunter Biden issue. Live she said they had "raised no concerns with regard to Hunter." That was untrue.
So I thought Castor was good Day One but choked Day Two. It seems all the R-males were afraid of hitting the female witness hard. They were probably correct that the bed-wetting class would have attacked them if they had, but this is where you need to be willing to jump in and take the arrows. Trump does it every single day. He needs and deserves House members and House counsel willing to show the same courage.
With #TrashyStefanik trending on Twitter the democrats once again prove they're the biggest hypocrites.
I don't think he's suggesting that Trump completely ignore the impeachment process. However, when Clinton was being impeached, he very overtly focused on issues during the 1998 midterms. In fact, in his 1999 State of Union address he didn't even mention the impeachment and stayed focused on a very positive and popular policy agenda that would make the GOP look bad for ignoring. (He even made a pitch for entitlement reform, which was very big for a Democrat.) What that allowed him to do is frame the impeachers as petty and partisan while he was pitching a serious agenda and serving the public's interest. Trump could do something similar, and I think it would serve him well as it served Clinton well.
I can hear you! Ha ha...
I think I've constructed a party out of both sides and am calling it Democrat because I believe that is what we might have if we didn't have Liberal extremists. I have thought of myself as a hybrid strict constructionist while admitting to amending it a bit on social issues. But my party platform is not about a judge making a law based upon something such as privacy which is not in the Constitution; it's just how I'd amend the thing. I'd want (or at least the 2/3 then the 3/4 ratification) my social views (abortion/gay marriage) adopted.
The strict constructionist comes from my aforementioned cynicism and absolute suspicion in the judgments of politicians. The penumbra is a vision for abuse.
I am not an atheist. I'm not a vocal Christian. I have my beliefs, I can't prove them but they involve the sermon on the mount in terms of a personal way of approaching life (along with a shot of Buddhism along the lines of controlling my desires which by extension mitigates my suffering) and a tenuous hold on faith because of a cultural and emotional attachment to Jesus countered by a bit of skepticism about literal belief in the Bible. My point in bringing in zealots to the conversation is to say I don't want them to have power. And it is because of that the I am divorced from "right-wing" Republican/Christians.
Probably Trump's greatest weakness (other than being a douche) is his inability to stay on message. Very easily distracted and ends up making so many unforced errors. Like his tweet about Yovanovitch during the testimony. What possessed him to turn a complete non-event into a bigger story by attacking a fairly harmless former female ambassador. It was really dumb. Does not seem to listen to his advisers or more likely he has surrounded himself by yes-men.
You can be a liberal strict constructionist. You can support abortion rights and gay marriage. Those are perfectly defensible positions, even if I may disagree with them. Strict constructionism has the do with the adherence to the letter of the law. Like I've indicated before, I'd favor overturning Roe v. Wade even if I was pro-choice, because it's a hideous abuse of judicial power completely untethered from the written law.
Absolutely. This is why I roll my eyes when I hear the Left lament Trump's disregard for the rule of law. If you believe in the Left's method for interpreting law, you don't even believe in law, at least not in the sense of lawmakers getting together, working out compromises, writing down laws, and having them applied to the public. In the Left's world, there is no point in writing down laws at all.
As you're aware, there are different angles on religion. One angle deals with how we live our lives, and frankly, most religions have something to offer here. In fact, there's a lot of overlap. When it comes to how you live and treat others, a Christian, a Jew, and a Hindu are going to mostly agree. Stealing is bad. Lying is bad. Killing or injuring others is bad. Extreme envy and jealousy are bad. Caring for others and being generous are good.
What gets divisive is the theological angle, because it is per se rigid at least on the fundamentals. As a Christian, I believe that God created the universe, that sin is the path to eternal destruction, that all have sinned, and that Jesus Christ is the only way to be forgiven for sin. Though I respect those who don't hold that view, I'll never back down from it, as other people of different faiths wouldn't back down from theirs. It doesn't get much more divisive than, "if you disagree with me, you will burn in hell for eternity."
But here's what's so great about the Constitution if it's applied as it's written. By guaranteeing the non-establishment coupled with free exercise of religion, it's relatively easy to find common ground on how people should live their lives without having to compromise on theology. Why? Because non-establishment ensures that the government doesn't advantage one religious institution at the expense of another and ensures that politicians don't corrupt religious institutions. (Many religious people forget that the establishment clause was every bit as much about protecting the church from government as it was about protecting government from the church.) Free exercise ensures that the government won't interfere with how I practice my faith.
That leaves religious leaders with the authority to freely sort out and disagree on theological issues while allowing those same leaders and their followers to often find common ground on the "how we live our lives" issues, which actually turn into policy.
The system breaks down when someone wants the government to disrupt that balance either by using its power to exercise hostility to one or multiple faiths or when someone wants a government powerful enough that it will inevitably interfere with someone's ability to practice his or her faith. That forces people to choose between their government and their religion, and that will eventually lead to violence. If truly forced to choose between one's faith and one's government, most will choose his faith. How can he not? Government is temporary and flawed by compromise and sometimes corruption. One's faith is eternal and perfect.
Incorrect on all counts. Trump likes the show and helps the story along with tweets. Should be viewed as merging politics and entertainment.
"Unforced errors" is his middle name. Look at the state of things. We have a roaring economy, extremely low unemployment, and we're in relative peace. He should coast to an easy reelection. The only reason why he's even vulnerable is unforced errors.
Really? He could be 100% silent with the things you mentioned and the Dems would still be pushing impeachment with the media there to help them along.
Trump is the reason he is vulnerable? Man, you are really smart on a lot of this stuff but I have to disagree here. It doesn't matter what Trump does or says or not, he will be excoriated by the media.
My take is this:
They attacked George Bush mercilessly. They are attacking Trump mercilessly. They refuse to acknowledge the Republican agenda for our country and consider it to be evil. No matter who the Republican President/Rep is, they will be treated as evil-doers by the Left.
That being said, Trump has given them too much ammunition to work with. He is too reckless. I've said this before but consider this:
1) All he had to do was not say a word about the type of people immigrating illegally from the south. Instead he should have said, "I am sworn to uphold the Constitution and our immigration laws are a Constitutional matter. I will enforce them vigorously noting that Obama deported over 3 million people during his tenure. That is my position. If you are unhappy with the immigration laws then write your Congressman. We want to be humane and just, but we WILL enforce the law and I am sending that clear signal to anyone who is contemplating crossing illegally or is currently here illegally.
2) Make no twitter comments whatsoever about the "witnesses" during the impeachment process.
The problem is we are a headline driven nation and Trump's recklessness gives the Left an advantage in the narrative that is being widely broadcast to the nation which includes millions of people too busy to drill down on the facts. Right now there is a sense that Trump is corrupt. Why is that? Because they have enough ammo to make it seem that way.
He could praise the media and Dems bipartisanship daily and they would turn it against him because he is the anti-establishment.
The Dem are moving the goal posts faster than ShAArk's vette Victoria can hit 60 floorboarded
Washington (CNN)The House of Representatives is now investigating whether President Donald Trump lied to special counsel Robert Mueller in written answers he provided in the Russia investigation, the House's general counsel said in federal court Monday.
"Did the President lie? Was the President not truthful in his responses to the Mueller investigation?" House general counsel Douglas Letter told the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit about why the House now needs access to grand jury material Mueller collected in his investigation."
House investigating whether Trump lied to Robert Mueller - CNNPolitics
You aren't wrong. The media and the Democrats would detest him no matter what he does, because he's a Republican. They especially don't like Republicans who appeal to social conservatives. I don't disagree with you there, and there is nothing we can do about that in the short term. However, we DO have control over how much reason we give the public to believe the Democrats' and the media's characterizations. Trump gives them a lot. He shouldn't and doesn't have to.
Yes. The moderates (me included) are the key. The Left (and the right) know that the base/zealots will never change their values. So how do you get the moderates an and possibly a zealot to cross over? Call the other side Hitler.