Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 24, 2017, 10:07:52 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
101767 Posts in 2375 Topics by 1089 Members
Latest Member: Sarge
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Politics
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] Print
Author Topic: Politics  (Read 283857 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8674


« Reply #1100 on: June 10, 2016, 08:22:05 AM »

This is the journal that published a finding much beloved of liberals a few years back that purported to find scientific evidence that conservatives are more likely to exhibit traits associated with psychoticism, such as authoritarianism and tough-mindedness, and that the supposed “authoritarian” personality of conservatives might even have a genetic basis (and therefore be treatable someday?).

The authors regret that there is an error in the published version of “Correlation not Causation: The Relationship between Personality Traits and Political Ideologies” American Journal of Political Science 56 (1), 34–51. The interpretation of the coding of the political attitude items in the descriptive and preliminary analyses portion of the manuscript was exactly reversed.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/epic-correction-of-the-decade.php
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6907


« Reply #1101 on: June 10, 2016, 11:12:06 AM »

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?_r=0
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39793


« Reply #1102 on: June 25, 2016, 01:49:57 PM »

https://www.facebook.com/ObamaTheWorstPresident/videos/1101438939899206/?pnref=story
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39793


« Reply #1103 on: July 26, 2016, 08:37:19 AM »

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438322/debbie-wasserman-schultz-democratic-national-committee-disaster
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8674


« Reply #1104 on: July 26, 2016, 11:30:09 AM »


I consider it 100% her fault that I take pleasure in her political demise.

Instead of serious arguments and contests over issues, for them it is always, lie, cheat, deceive, dodge and spin, never allowing us to just defeat them straight up.

These leaks expose what was already obvious to everyone.

Her fall is to cover her real leader, Bill and Hillary.  It was the Hillary campaign that rigged the system.  Vasserman Schultz (as in Sargent Schultz, "I know nothing") was the puppet.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6907


« Reply #1105 on: July 26, 2016, 11:50:21 AM »

Hillary has already made her honorary chairwoman of her campaign!

As , usual with the libs.  When finally caught , some slight embarrassment, maybe an apology but never real consequences.

By the way, ironically, the actor who played Sgnt Schultz in 'Hogan's Heroes' was a Jew who fled Nazi Germany:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Banner
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8674


« Reply #1106 on: July 26, 2016, 12:14:21 PM »

ccp:  Hillary has already made her honorary chairwoman of her campaign!  As usual with the libs.  When finally caught , some slight embarrassment, maybe an apology but never real consequences.

Debbie knows where some of the bodies are buried. 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8674


« Reply #1107 on: September 06, 2016, 07:50:21 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkgA2rUAY-o
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39793


« Reply #1108 on: September 08, 2016, 11:53:09 AM »

Great find.  I'm having some fun posting it elsewhere.  Similarly, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4vmkagMS8Q
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39793


« Reply #1109 on: September 19, 2016, 01:49:25 PM »

https://patriotpost.us/humor/44911
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39793


« Reply #1110 on: September 29, 2016, 03:24:14 PM »


By James Taranto
Sept. 29, 2016 2:01 p.m. ET
464 COMMENTS

“Congress Disses Obama One Last Time” reads a Politico headline. “Diss” (or “dis”) is a slang term for “disrespect,” so the implication is that lawmakers have personally slighted the president, when in fact all they have done is exercise their authority under the Constitution.

And what they did is more aptly characterized as a first than a last. The House and Senate both easily mustered the two-thirds majorities required to approve the only veto override in Obama’s more than 7˝ years in office. In this column’s view Obama is right on the substance—the new law is a bad one—but the story of how it came to pass is one in which everyone in Washington, including the president, looks terrible.
More James Taranto

Follow James on Twitter

    Trump and Iraq Sept. 28, 2016
    Trump Is Now Normal Sept. 27, 2016
    ‘Donald Trump’s Special’ Sept. 26, 2016
    The Campaign to Normalize Terrorism Sept. 23, 2016
    Labor of Lovitz Sept. 22, 2016

The new law, styled the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act or Jasta, “would allow victims of terrorism on U.S. soil to sue foreign governments found responsible for those attacks,” as Politico explains. Its main target is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and it is supposed to benefit one of the most sympathetic groups in America, survivors of the victims of the 9/11 attacks.

Unsurprisingly—and necessarily for a successful veto override—the act had wide bipartisan support. The vote to override was 97-1 in the Senate; Minority Leader Harry Reid was the sole dissenter, and it is probably no coincidence he is retiring at the end of the year. (Virginia’s Tim Kaine and Vermont’s Bernie Sanders, off campaigning for Hillary Clinton, missed the vote.) The House vote was 348-77, with only 18 Republicans and 59 Democrats voting against.

So what’s not to like about a bill that helps terror victims at the expense of our friends the Saudis? The Wall Street Journal made the case for the president’s position in an editorial last week: “If Jasta becomes law, crucial decisions affecting U.S. foreign policy will be influenced by judges and tort lawyers, instead of the U.S. President and diplomats.” The editorial further noted that “the anti-Saudi posturing is building at the moment the Saudis are showing a greater commitment to domestic reform and the antiterror effort.”

The president did not make his case so strongly. In fact, the text of that Politico story suggests that it was he who “dissed” Congress more than the other way around:

    Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said he and other senators repeatedly requested meetings with White House officials to hash out a potential deal that could accommodate some of the administration’s concerns.

    But he heard nothing back, Corker said. It’s just been “dial tone,” the senator added.

    “There’s been zero involvement from the White House. Zero,” Corker said, forming a “zero” with his fingers to underscore his point. “When you have a veto like this, it takes involvement, constructive involvement. I mean, there’s nothing.”

But Corker and his colleagues look equally feckless. Twenty-eight of them, from both parties, signed a letter yesterday to Sens. John Cornyn (R., Texas) and Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), the legislation’s lead sponsors, promising to “work with you in a constructive manner to appropriately mitigate” the bill’s “unintended consequences.” Why not do that before passing the law?

The president made that point Wednesday night, in a CNN “town hall”: “We found out some of the people who voted for it said, frankly, we didn’t know what was in it. And there was no debate of it. And it was, you know, basically a political vote.”

It’s more than a little rich for the man who gave us ObamaCare to be complaining now about lawmakers’ failure to read legislation without knowing what was in it. But the president is right on this point, notwithstanding his lack of credibility. Though it’s a bit silly for him to complain that it was “a political vote.” When is a vote not political?

Obama also said: “It’s an example of why sometimes you have to do what’s hard. And, frankly, I wish Congress here had done what’s hard.” Fair enough, but perhaps they would have if he had done the hard work of private persuasion that he seems to think beneath him.

“This is the single most embarrassing thing the United States Senate has done possibly since 1983,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said yesterday, according to the Hill (the House hadn’t yet voted):

    Earnest was responding to a reporter who told him Wednesday’s vote was the most overwhelming since a 95-0 veto override vote in 1983. In that year, the Senate overrode President Ronald Reagan’s veto of a land bill to give a few acres to six retired couples who paid for it, but later learned that it was still government property because of a surveying error.

The Washington Post contemporaneously reported on that veto, which “came under attack . . . from Republicans and Democrats as an act of insensitivity to the elderly.” Reagan’s veto message said the bill “ ‘would create a clearly undesirable precedent’ by encouraging other landowners to claim federal land at no charge.” We’re at a loss to understand why Earnest is siding with Reagan on that question 33 years later.

So here we have a law passed by congressmen who acknowledge it is likely to have deleterious unintended consequences and self-righteously denounced by a president who couldn’t be bothered to make the case to lawmakers ahead of the vote. And some in the press—we’re looking at you, Politico—portray it as just a big personal spat.

Is it any wonder many voters are fed up enough with Washington that they are willing to consider sending a man to the White House who lacks the basic experience and knowledge that one would think would be a prerequisite for the presidency?

For that matter, is it any wonder other voters, having done exactly that eight years ago, worry about repeating the same mistake?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39793


« Reply #1111 on: November 01, 2016, 01:53:19 AM »

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/31/the-podesta-emails-show-who-runs-america-and-how-they-do-it
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6907


« Reply #1112 on: November 01, 2016, 06:41:27 AM »

Interesting article with a peek into the world of the "elites".

I watch how CNN fired Donna Brazille but we all know her disease is short lived.  She will simply mover around the revolving door to another lucrative opportunity somewhere else among the elites and not miss a heartbeat. 

The Clinton Podesta machine will find some other way to reward her for being a "soldier" among them.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8674


« Reply #1113 on: November 01, 2016, 09:30:48 AM »

Interesting article with a peek into the world of the "elites".

I watch how CNN fired Donna Brazille but we all know her disease is short lived.  She will simply mover around the revolving door to another lucrative opportunity somewhere else among the elites and not miss a heartbeat. 

The Clinton Podesta machine will find some other way to reward her for being a "soldier" among them.


I hate it when all our conspiracy theories are proven right.

She still is the head of the DNC, serving in place of someone who was caught doing the same thing, using her power wrongly to advantage one side, the Clintons.

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6907


« Reply #1114 on: November 01, 2016, 09:42:11 AM »

 "serving in place of someone who was caught doing the same thing"

and who I would  add is now serving in the Clinton campaign getting rewarded for being such a good soldier in the Democrat elite mafia machine.

It is a merry go round of power, influence, and money.

That is why I believe (small) Colin Powell had the need to announce to the World that he is voting Clinton.  He wants to stay in the loop of the connected, influential, financial power brokers.  (Go with the expected winner and make sure the winning team knows).
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14507


« Reply #1115 on: November 01, 2016, 10:07:10 AM »

I don't think our "elites" grasp that outside the D.C./coastal bubbles things are getting volatile. America is already in a cold civil war and it could get hot quicker than most imagine.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8674


« Reply #1116 on: November 02, 2016, 08:19:23 AM »

Colin Powell's Presidential choices of Obama, Obama and Hillary just tell us where he sits politically.  We thought he picked Obama because he is black but he picked him because he is liberal.  Powell never was a conservative or a Republican beyond name only.  He was a great military strategist and is a person quite successful in advancing his own power, influence and money.  As Elizabeth Warren would say, good for him.  But a constitutionalist he is not.  Nowhere in the constitution does it say we can right racial wrongs with reverse discriminatory schemes or that a woman has the right to slaughter her young.  These are merely liberal political views.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39793


« Reply #1117 on: November 18, 2016, 12:00:22 PM »

If you listen to Democrats, Donald Trump is the worst thing ever to happen to our nation. But that evidently doesn't mean they're above working with him to get some of their agenda going. The Democrat National Committee New York Times reports, "Congressional Democrats, divided and struggling for a path from the electoral wilderness, are constructing an agenda to align with many proposals of President-elect Donald J. Trump that put him at odds with his own party. On infrastructure spending, child tax credits, paid maternity leave and dismantling trade agreements, Democrats are looking for ways they can work with Mr. Trump and force Republican leaders to choose between their new president and their small-government, free-market principles." Divide and conquer — it's the Democrat way.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6907


« Reply #1118 on: November 18, 2016, 06:28:51 PM »

"If you listen to Democrats, Donald Trump is the worst thing ever to happen to our nation. But that evidently doesn't mean they're above working with him to get some of their agenda going."

IMO the Republican strategy should , yes,  be to seek common ground especially for public consumption.  But make no mistake about it:

*common ground* is not the same as compromise.   Zero compromise , nadda.

We have already compromised too far.

There is never enough for the liberals.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39793


« Reply #1119 on: December 12, 2016, 12:41:05 PM »

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/democrats-donald-trump-232491
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6907


« Reply #1120 on: December 12, 2016, 01:00:56 PM »

Should be ready to steam roll the libs.  And be ready to follow through on delivering a better economy and better future for ALL Americans .  And that is the only way to turn the lib tide back.  IMHO of course:

Gimme Shelter
The Rolling Stones
Come on
Oh, a storm is threat'ning
My very life today
If I don't get some shelter
Oh yeah, I'm gonna fade away
War, children, it's just a shot away
It's just a shot away
War, children, it's just a shot away
It's just a shot away
Ooh, see the fire is sweepin'
Our very street today
Burns like a red coal carpet
Mad bull lost its way
War, children, it's just a shot away
It's just a shot away
War, children, it's just a shot away
It's just a shot away
Rape, murder!
It's just a shot away
It's just a shot away
Rape, murder yeah!
It's just a shot away
It's just a shot away
Rape, murder!
It's just a shot away
It's just a shot away yeah
The floods is threat'ning
My very life today
Gimme, gimme shelter
Or I'm gonna fade away
War, children, it's just a shot away
It's just…
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39793


« Reply #1121 on: January 22, 2017, 08:43:53 PM »

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/315393-franken-emerges-as-liberal-force-in-hearings
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39793


« Reply #1122 on: January 22, 2017, 08:45:26 PM »

second post

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/22/over-200-inauguration-day-protesters-face-felony-rioting-charges/?utm_campaign=conservativereview&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39793


« Reply #1123 on: January 22, 2017, 09:18:50 PM »

http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2017/01/20/billionaire-george-soros-has-ties-to-more-than-50-partners-of-the-womens-march-on-washington/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14507


« Reply #1124 on: January 22, 2017, 09:19:51 PM »


https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/c20hmisvqaalpka-1.jpg

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8674


« Reply #1125 on: January 22, 2017, 10:38:46 PM »


Franken emerging as all other potential leaders have been burned through and as the liberals prepare to sit on the sidelines and criticize.

Please correct me, anyone, if I am missing something about Al Franken.  His only 'humor' is sarcasm.  He has zero charisma.  He never was a lightweight on liberal policy and conservative bashing.  He kept a low profile in his first term for good reasons, what were they?  a) they stole the election for him and b) he is not a very likable guy.

I missed the questioning on the nominees, but wouldn't it be great to hear the nominees question the Dem Senators:  Let's see, you've been overseeing federal education for how many years, 6 years and your President for 8 years and which direction is it going under your watch?  Downward spiral.  What would you say to the following chart that clearly shows a negative correlation between federal involvement in our schools and outcomes, and federal money and outcomes?  You all oppose school choice, why?  And you call yourselves pro-choice?  Did they teach words and their meanings in your public school?  Would you say the brand of liberalism you practice is more about clarity or deception?
« Last Edit: January 22, 2017, 10:42:03 PM by DougMacG » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14507


« Reply #1126 on: January 23, 2017, 12:23:04 AM »


http://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2017/01/22/ha-here-are-some-of-the-best-aka-ridiculous-signs-captured-at-the-womens-march/

Must see!
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6907


« Reply #1127 on: January 23, 2017, 07:08:03 AM »

Soros was on some station the other day stating how Trump will fail and has no chance.

Then continues his behind the scenes work doing everything in his power to see to it that he fails.

All the while investing on his failure.

The holocaust screwed up this guys brain.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39793


« Reply #1128 on: January 23, 2017, 11:49:59 AM »

I'm going to score this one for the pravdas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/22/spicer-earns-four-pinocchios-for-a-series-of-false-claims-on-inauguration-crowd-size/?utm_term=.fd30796b717e&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14507


« Reply #1129 on: January 23, 2017, 12:11:14 PM »


Unlike Obama's cultists, Trump's supporters have jobs.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39793


« Reply #1130 on: January 25, 2017, 07:07:10 AM »

I'd have fired him!
===================

WSJ:

Regrets, they’ll have a few. That’s our prediction for the Trump Administration on news that the White House has asked James Comey to stay on as FBI director.

“Extraordinarily competent” is how Chief of Staff Reince Priebus described Mr. Comey in a TV interview earlier this month. The director even got something approaching a hug from President Trump at a weekend event to honor law enforcement officials and first responders.

If experience is a guide, Mr. Comey is the sort of man to be embraced with extreme political caution. Democrats cheered last summer when he invented a legal distinction between extreme carelessness and gross negligence to give Hillary Clinton a legal pass for mishandling classified information. Now they blame him for throwing the election to Mr. Trump for informing Congress, 11 days before the election, that he was reopening the investigation.

Republicans have also been burned by Mr. Comey, not just over his Clinton gymnastics but also his efforts to undermine the Bush Administration’s antiterror efforts during a prior stint as Deputy Attorney General. Now he will be responsible for current investigations into suspected links between the Russian government and some of Mr. Trump’s close associates.

We believe as much as anyone that FBI directors should be willing to go after criminality irrespective of politics. The trouble with Mr. Comey is that he is nothing if not political, especially when it comes to opportunities to burnish his personal reputation by going after the objects of liberal wrath.

Ask Frank Quattrone, the investment banker wrongly targeted by Mr. Comey in the post-Enron prosecution frenzy; or Scooter Libby, victim of the Javert-like exertions of Mr. Comey’s close friend Patrick Fitzgerald during the Plamegate hysteria.

It’s possible the Administration decided to keep Mr. Comey to spite Democrats who want him fired, or perhaps to avoid another nomination battle, though former New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly would probably sail to confirmation. Maybe the Administration is also betting Mr. Comey will be a more pliable director if he feels a debt to the President for not firing him.

If so, that’s a bad bet. Mr. Comey has repeatedly demonstrated that he is willing to abuse his authorities in order to court Beltway favor. Whether or not that someday comes to haunt the Trump Administration, it makes him unfit to lead the FBI. 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39793


« Reply #1131 on: January 25, 2017, 11:37:23 AM »

Though humorously written, this article actually makes a very interesting legal argument-- that the emoluments issue is a "political question" the consitutional case law properly regards as outside the jurisdiction of the courts:

The Emoluments Clause for Dummies
Everyone’s an expert, but the truth here is that majority rules.
By Brian C. Kalt
Jan. 24, 2017 7:11 p.m. ET
60 COMMENTS

In the age of Trump, everyone’s an expert. Case in point: On Monday a group of attorneys and scholars asked a federal court to declare that President Trump is violating the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause. Suddenly, thousands of people on Facebook and Twitter—accountants, photographers, kindergarten teachers—developed strong opinions about this facet of constitutional law, though few had even heard of it before this week.

When law and politics intersect like this, people typically care less about the legal niceties than whether their side wins. As someone who studies arcane constitutional law for a living, I find this vexing—but also entirely appropriate.

Those who hate Mr. Trump can cite the redoubtable Laurence Tribe for the notion that the president is committing impeachable offenses as we speak. The Constitution bars anyone with an “office of profit or trust under the United States” from accepting “emoluments” from foreign states, and Mr. Tribe says that Mr. Trump’s business income from foreign governments may qualify.

Those who love Mr. Trump can cite the conclusion of Seth Barrett Tillman, steeped in years of historical research, that the Framers did not consider the presidency an “office under the United States,” so the Emoluments Clause does not apply to Mr. Trump.

Neither side on social media, though, engages the legal arguments with any depth. I have not seen anyone on Facebook say that Mr. Tribe’s textual analysis uses the wrong interpretive techniques, or that Mr. Tillman’s reading of some historical episode is inapt. Most people’s “legal” opinions are translated directly from their politics.
Photo: iStock

But this might actually be healthy. The Framers purposely assigned many legal questions in the American system not to judges but to politicians. If this is one such question—and I think it is—then President Trump will be subject to the Emoluments Clause only if Congress impeaches him. Judges must stay out of it when the Constitution puts the ultimate decision in the hands of Congress.

The implications of this design are clear. Congress is naturally mindful of politics, even when weighing technical constitutional questions. But lawmakers answer to the voters—and only the voters—for whatever constitutional interpretations they adopt. In some sense, the majority rules.

The Framers anticipated this. Sure, Congress is supposed to take the law seriously. But when there are no strong precedents—as with the Emoluments Clause—plausible legal arguments almost always run in both directions. The winning side will be the one with the stronger political position, not necessarily the one with the best scholarship.

So even if you haven’t studied the legal intricacies or history of the Emoluments Clause, feel free to spout off online. If enough people holding enough power want the same result you do, you will win the “legal” argument.

If, like me, you find this frustrating, and if (bless your heart) you care about the correct technical answers, go ahead and seek them out. You can then share an informed opinion on Facebook, secure in the knowledge that no one will care. That may seem depressing, but remember: There is a roughly 50-50 chance that the side you think is right on the merits will win. Good luck.

Mr. Kalt is a law professor at Michigan State University.
 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14507


« Reply #1132 on: January 25, 2017, 11:58:00 AM »

Fired and investigated. A serious mistake, IMHO.


I'd have fired him!
===================

WSJ:

Regrets, they’ll have a few. That’s our prediction for the Trump Administration on news that the White House has asked James Comey to stay on as FBI director.

“Extraordinarily competent” is how Chief of Staff Reince Priebus described Mr. Comey in a TV interview earlier this month. The director even got something approaching a hug from President Trump at a weekend event to honor law enforcement officials and first responders.

If experience is a guide, Mr. Comey is the sort of man to be embraced with extreme political caution. Democrats cheered last summer when he invented a legal distinction between extreme carelessness and gross negligence to give Hillary Clinton a legal pass for mishandling classified information. Now they blame him for throwing the election to Mr. Trump for informing Congress, 11 days before the election, that he was reopening the investigation.

Republicans have also been burned by Mr. Comey, not just over his Clinton gymnastics but also his efforts to undermine the Bush Administration’s antiterror efforts during a prior stint as Deputy Attorney General. Now he will be responsible for current investigations into suspected links between the Russian government and some of Mr. Trump’s close associates.

We believe as much as anyone that FBI directors should be willing to go after criminality irrespective of politics. The trouble with Mr. Comey is that he is nothing if not political, especially when it comes to opportunities to burnish his personal reputation by going after the objects of liberal wrath.

Ask Frank Quattrone, the investment banker wrongly targeted by Mr. Comey in the post-Enron prosecution frenzy; or Scooter Libby, victim of the Javert-like exertions of Mr. Comey’s close friend Patrick Fitzgerald during the Plamegate hysteria.

It’s possible the Administration decided to keep Mr. Comey to spite Democrats who want him fired, or perhaps to avoid another nomination battle, though former New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly would probably sail to confirmation. Maybe the Administration is also betting Mr. Comey will be a more pliable director if he feels a debt to the President for not firing him.

If so, that’s a bad bet. Mr. Comey has repeatedly demonstrated that he is willing to abuse his authorities in order to court Beltway favor. Whether or not that someday comes to haunt the Trump Administration, it makes him unfit to lead the FBI. 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39793


« Reply #1133 on: February 07, 2017, 06:10:10 PM »

 By William McGurn
Updated Feb. 6, 2017 7:21 p.m. ET
746 COMMENTS

Quick: What do “Tonight Show” host Jimmy Fallon, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, NBC’s “Saturday Night Live,” US Weekly and former President Barack Obama have in common?

All have been accused of the high crime of “normalizing” Donald Trump. The idea is that anyone not relentlessly emoting against the 45th president is helping him build the new Reich. As with so much of the Sturm und Drang surrounding Mr. Trump, the point here is not to advance an anti-Trump argument but to preclude argument altogether.

After all, does one argue with Hitler?

The crazy is not entirely mad. In 2009, activists note, Republicans found themselves in a similar fix, with Mr. Obama ensconced in the Oval Office and lopsided Democratic majorities running Congress. By crashing Mr. Trump’s administration, the activists hope to excite their base and revive their party the way Republicans did.

Perhaps. But there’s a good argument that the Democrats are getting played. This was, in fact, the headline over a recent New York Daily News piece by Mike Gecan, co-director of the Industrial Areas Foundation—the same IAF that was co-founded by Saul Alinsky and helped inspire a young community organizer named Barack Obama.

Mr. Gecan argues that the parallel for what’s happening in Washington right now is Wisconsin in 2011. Back then, Gov. Scott Walker backed a bill stripping public-employee unions of collective-bargaining rights. The left erupted in protest, with demonstrators occupying the State Capitol and a movement pushing a recall of the governor in what became a national drama.

Just one problem: It didn’t work. The bill was passed and ruled constitutional. Gov. Walker won the 2012 recall election in June even as Mr. Obama carried Wisconsin in the presidential in November. And Republicans increased their majorities in the Wisconsin state House and Senate.

Mr. Gecan says protest is no substitute for hard, grass-roots persuasion. “Many Dems either don’t know how to relate to people with moderate or mixed views or they don’t want to,” he writes. “They prefer rock stars and celebrities to bus drivers and food service workers. They like cute sayings and clever picket signs, not long and patient listening sessions with people who have complicated interests, people who might not pass the liberal litmus test.”

Certainly it’s possible Mr. Trump will end up alienating people who would otherwise work with him but are weary of cracks such as the one implying a moral equivalence between America and Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Yet the American people are not hearing Mr. Trump in a vacuum. They are hearing him in the context of what is coming from the mouths of his critics, the extravagance of which risks overwhelming anything preposterous Mr. Trump might say himself.

One example: Have any of those outraged by Mr. Trump’s tweet disparaging a “so-called judge” paid the least attention to the glaring emptiness of legal reasoning behind the judge’s stay? Ditto for Sally Yates: Anyone else spot the irony in praising a Justice Department appointee for standing up to fascism with an unconstitutional challenge to executive authority?

These are only the mildest forms. At the Women’s March on Washington, Americans heard Madonna fantasize about bombing the White House. On Twitter, they read a then-Politico journalist use a four-letter obscenity to suggest an incestuous relationship between the president and his daughter. Last week American TV screens were filled with images of the champions of tolerance setting fires and smashing windows at Berkeley to stop a gay conservative from addressing College Republicans. On, Wisconsin!

Now Mr. Trump’s progressive opponents seem determined to eat their own. Recently they protested outside Mr. Schumer’s Brooklyn home, under the banner of that same four-letter obscenity, which is highly popular among those who regard Mr. Trump as the triumph of the vulgar.

In New York, where Hillary Clinton won nearly 80% of the citywide vote, this kind of protest may be a crowd pleaser. So is a strategy that calls for boycotting presidential inaugurations, not showing up for Senate committee votes or voting “no” on every Trump cabinet pick. But in, say, North Dakota—a state Mr. Trump carried by 36 points and where Sen. Heidi Heitkamp is up for re-election in 2018—folks might see things differently.

Again, it’s entirely possible President Trump has unleashed furies that will do him in or at least prevent him from doing his job. But the Wisconsin outcome remains equally possible. Which two years from now would leave Mr. Schumer leading an even more shrunken Democratic Party, especially if President Trump manages to get the economy growing again.

If the Wisconsin outcome happens, it won’t be the pro-Trumpers who normalized him. It will be the enemies who shunned democratic politics in favor of celebrity preening, F-bombs and protests designed to intimidate.

Write to McGurn@wsj.com.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39793


« Reply #1134 on: February 09, 2017, 10:18:05 AM »

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/318621-trump-white-house-besieged-by-leaks
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39793


« Reply #1135 on: February 13, 2017, 10:49:53 PM »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/13/republicans-railed-against-clintons-extremely-careless-behavior-now-theyve-got-a-trump-dilemma/?utm_term=.94d24897c8ce
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39793


« Reply #1136 on: February 14, 2017, 11:29:31 AM »

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/319343-trump-aide-says-leaked-stories-bear-almost-no-resemblance-to-reality
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39793


« Reply #1137 on: February 18, 2017, 01:16:07 PM »

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/320229-poll-americans-want-democrats-to-work-with-trump
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39793


« Reply #1138 on: February 19, 2017, 11:38:12 PM »

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-impeachment-democrats-235184
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39793


« Reply #1139 on: March 01, 2017, 08:53:03 PM »



http://www.dailywire.com/news/13993/democrats-complained-about-trump-using-navy-seal-aaron-bandler?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39793


« Reply #1140 on: March 01, 2017, 09:03:09 PM »

second post

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/02/study_60_of_online_obamacare_defenders_are_paid.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39793


« Reply #1141 on: March 02, 2017, 09:48:46 AM »

This will be the thread for discussion of this and related matters.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4271412/Obama-confidante-Valerie-Jarrett-moves-Kaloroma-home.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39793


« Reply #1142 on: March 02, 2017, 01:59:17 PM »

https://patriotpost.us/posts/47752

BTW apparently the day after he met with the Russki ambassador, he met with the Ukrainian ambassador.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39793


« Reply #1143 on: March 05, 2017, 11:09:32 AM »

http://www.youngcons.com/trey-gowdy-begins-interview-calmly-but-immediately-starts-chucking-lightning-bolts-when-hes-asked-about-jeff-sessions/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39793


« Reply #1144 on: March 07, 2017, 05:36:25 AM »

Well, that was predictable. Senate Democrats hounded Attorney General Jeff Sessions to recuse himself last week from any investigation into Russia and the Donald Trump presidential campaign, and no wonder. Now Democrats are threatening to hold up President Trump’s nominee to be deputy AG unless he promises to appoint the special prosecutor they want.

On Tuesday the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a confirmation hearing for Rod Rosenstein, who for many years served as U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland and is now up for the number two job at the Justice Department. With Mr. Sessions recused, the final decisions on any probe would fall to Mr. Rosenstein if he is confirmed by the Senate.

Suddenly, Democrats see a political extortion opportunity. “I’ll use every possible tool to block DOJ Deputy AG nominee,” Senator Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.) tweeted Sunday, “unless he commits to appoint independent special prosecutor.” Minority Leader Chuck Schumer took to the Senate floor Monday to declare that whether Mr. Rosenstein would appoint a special prosecutor “will be front and center tomorrow, and far and away the most important question he needs to answer.”


A special prosecutor is the worst possible way to inform Americans about the Russia episode. He’d operate in secret with a goal of criminal indictments when what the U.S. political system needs is information about what happened. Democrats have made many allegations but fear there may be nothing to find. A special prosecutor would let them continue to claim for months or years that the 2016 election was stolen even if no indictments were ever handed up.

The irony is that Mr. Rosenstein is the independent operator that Democrats say the country needs. He started as U.S. Attorney in 2005 under President George W. Bush and was confirmed by voice vote. In 2007 Mr. Bush tried to put Mr. Rosenstein on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, but Maryland’s Democratic Senators scuttled his nomination.

President Obama kept Mr. Rosenstein on the job, and in 2012 then-AG Eric Holder appointed him and another prosecutor to look into national-security leaks. Mr. Holder called Mr. Rosenstein “highly-respected and experienced,” adding that he had “every confidence” that Mr. Rosenstein and his colleague Ronald Machen would “doggedly follow the facts and the evidence in the pursuit of justice wherever it leads.”

Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, then Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, called the two “strong, capable and independent.”

In other words, Mr. Rosenstein is the kind of person Democrats should want as deputy attorney general. And if they believed their own previous advertising, they’d trust Mr. Rosenstein to make fair and honest legal judgments about any Russian investigation without appointing a special counsel.

Mr. Rosenstein should refuse to bend to this extortion in any case as a matter of political principle. He’d be bowing to undue pressure and suggesting that he and the Justice Department can’t be trusted to do the job. He also hasn’t reviewed the facts that have been collected so far by the FBI, if there are any.

Still, this episode is instructive: Democrats have for weeks demanded total and immediate information about the Trump Administration’s connections with Russia. Now they’re threatening to delay the confirmation of someone who could help determine what really happened.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39793


« Reply #1145 on: March 27, 2017, 03:47:29 PM »

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158812654486/trump-and-healthcare
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14507


« Reply #1146 on: March 27, 2017, 03:59:50 PM »


The left always pushes both the Hitler and the incompetent themes for any republican president.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39793


« Reply #1147 on: April 02, 2017, 01:30:39 PM »

http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/326801-freedom-caucus-poised-for-pivotal-role-in-infrastructure-fight
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39793


« Reply #1148 on: April 17, 2017, 06:44:39 AM »

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-renewed-focus-on-health-bill-vexes-gop-tax-overhaul-strategy-1492356644
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8674


« Reply #1149 on: April 17, 2017, 08:33:27 AM »


Healthcare with two dozen taxes in it is part of tax reform.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!