Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe has a history of passionate opposition to President Trump and calling for his impeachment, and he continued the trend Sunday by blaming Trump for a pair of shootings that took place over the weekend in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. Others have also placed blame on Trump for the shooting though Tribe goes as far as to declare Trump a terrorist. I have previously disagreed with Professor Tribe on these tweets against Trump and Republicans and this attack appears unhinged and entirely inappropriate for a respected academic.
Tribe wrote:
“How many more people have to DIE violent deaths at racist hands before impeaching the president for inciting white nationalist terrorism and violence is taken as seriously as impeaching him for obstructing justice? The real national emergency is Donald J. Trump’s terrorism”
Recently, I wrote about an anti-Trump activist featured on CNN who tried to firebomb an immigration center. While the attack by Willem Van Spronsen followed over-heated rhetoric from various Democratic candidates, his political motives or associations were largely ignored by the media. As I said at the time, I think it would be grossly unfair to associate Van Spronsen’s violence with Democratic leaders or their rhetoric. There are also a high number of cases with Trump supporters or people wearing MAGA hats have been assaulted on streets or in cafes. No one is calling out the left for responsibility in stoking such flames. Nor should they. The point was only that the media routinely makes that nexus to Trump by those who are anti-immigrant or white supremacist. None of these political figures, including Trump, can fairly be blamed for the acts of a violent, disturbed individual. If we start to treat political speech as a type of criminal inducement, we would eviscerate the first amendment.
Tribe’s suggestion that an impeachment can be based on this highly tenuous connection does a disservice to the public which relies on academics to give honest and informed analysis. Moreover, there is a curious jumping of the rails in raising slaughters by white supremacists in calling for impeachment for obstruction. The suggestion seems to be that we should impeach a president to achieve a different purpose: remove Trump on obstruction to somehow end racial violence in the nation. That would seem to encourage members to impeach to achieve ulterior purposes outside of the scope of impeachment.
When asked later by the Fox News about the tweets, Tribe would only say that “There is an alarming pattern of incitements that together warrant being taken seriously in conjunction with other, more specific, offenses.” I am not sure what that means in the context of an impeachment. It suggests that a member should vote on one alleged offense while being motivated by other uncharged offenses. We would never allow that in a real court of law. Indeed, the mere suggestion to a jury would likely leave a lawyer in a contempt of court.
While impeachment is not a real court by any stretch of the imagination, it is still a proceeding with a defined standard for members to satisfy. Encouraging members to act with reference to charges outside of legitimate articles of impeachment is itself a type of reckless inducement.
Tribe subsequently clarified by saying that he is not saying that Trump “should be impeached” for “racist incitements alone,” rather that “impeaching the president for inciting white nationalist terrorism and violence [should be] taken as seriously as impeaching him for obstructing justice.”
Tribe later added that he was not suggesting impeachment for racist alone but “impeaching the president for inciting white nationalist terrorism and violence [should be] taken as seriously as impeaching him for obstructing justice.”
Again, “impeaching the president for inciting white nationalist terrorism” would seem a highly subjective standard for impeachment — a standing that could sweep dangerously into political speech protected by the First Amendment. Any majority party could claim that a president was encouraging violent or criminal conduct in his speeches or policies. It would turn a narrow constitutional standard nto a virtual invitation for political removals.
What do you think?
I have previously disagreed with Professor Tribe on these tweets against Tribe and Republicans and this attack appears unhinged and entirely inappropriate for a respected academic.
It appears Tribe is not the only unhinged entity in liberal-land.
May the hockey sticks be with her! Get ’em Sarah “pitbull with lipstick” Palin!
😘
Another Headline the New York Times Has to Rewrite
An appeals court revives former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s lawsuit against the newspaper.
On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit revived former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s 2017 defamation lawsuit against the newspaper. Specifically, the court has vacated a district judge’s dismissal of her case.
Mrs. Palin sued the newspaper after it falsely accused her political organization of inspiring a shooting. In a June 14, 2017 editorial following James Hodgkinson’s attempted assassination of Republican legislators, the Times recycled a bogus claim that Mrs. Palin’s political action committee had incited Jared Loughner to shoot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in a 2011 attack that also wounded others and killed six.
This fake news about Mrs. Palin had been thoroughly debunked years earlier. The smear relied on a map published by her SarahPAC showing crosshairs on various congressional districts, including Ms. Giffords’, that Republicans wanted to flip to the GOP column. But there was no evidence that Loughner had ever seen the map and his obsession with Ms. Giffords had begun years before.
The Times later amended its editorial to acknowledge there was no link between Mrs. Palin and the 2011 shooting. But the Times continued to mention her in a story about horrific events to which she had no connection. Even after acknowledging errors, the paper opted for a more subtle smear.
It was the initial falsehood before the Times corrected its editorial that generated the Palin lawsuit. Federal Judge Jed Rakoff dismissed the suit in 2017 after hearing testimony from Times editorial page editor James Bennet. The judge concluded that the Timesman was credible in explaining that honest mistakes led to the false charge against Mrs. Palin.
But the appeals court says that judging the credibility of a witness is the job of a jury, not a judge considering a motion to dismiss. According to the appellate court, “the district court’s opinion relied on credibility determinations not permissible at any stage before trial.”
The decision of the appeals court lays out the key question which can now be addressed:
Under New York law… “a public figure plaintiff must prove that an allegedly libelous statement was made with actual malice, that is, made ‘with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.’”
… When actual malice in making a defamatory statement is at issue, the critical question is the state of mind of those responsible for the publication. Because the Times identified Bennet as the author of the editorial, it was his state of mind that was relevant to the actual malice determination.
The appellate judges make clear that they take no position on the merits of former Gov. Palin’s claim, but that she has at least a plausible claim which enables the suit to go forward. The appellate decision states:
The [Palin lawsuit] alleges that, from 2006 to 2016, Bennet was the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, where “he was responsible for the content of, reviewed, edited and approved the publication of numerous articles confirming there was no link between Mrs. Palin and Loughner’s shooting.”
… By crediting Bennet’s testimony, the district court rejected a permissible inference from the articles: that one who had risen to editor-in-chief at The Atlantic knew their content and thus that there was no connection between Palin and the Loughner shooting…
The [Palin complaint] also includes allegations suggesting that Bennet in particular was more likely than the average editor-in-chief to know the truth about the Loughner shooting because he had reason to be personally hostile toward Palin, her political party, and her pro-gun stance. Bennet’s brother, a Democrat, had served as a United States Senator for Colorado since 2009. In 2010, Senator Bennet was endorsed by two House members whose districts had been targeted by the SarahPAC map. Two days before the Loughner shooting, a man threatened to open fire on Senator Bennet’s offices, and thereafter both Bennet brothers became “outspoken advocate[s] for gun control.” Also, during the 2016 election, Palin endorsed Senator Bennet’s opponent and Representative Giffords endorsed Senator Bennet.
The appellate judges add: “Palin’s allegations are relevant to the credibility of Bennet’s testimony that he was unaware of facts published on his watch relating to the Loughner shooting and that he made a mistake when he connected Palin… Palin’s allegations present a plausible inference that Bennet’s claim of memory loss is untrue.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/another-headline-the-new-york-times-has-to-rewrite-11565127124
Estovir, people like Peter don’t realize how many suits are won by people on the right against the media on the left.
For Peter’s information James O’Keefe has won the last 5 suits and is now receiving money from those that libeled him. You may have discussed one or two of them.
For Peter’s information James O’Keefe has won the last 5 suits…
I had no idea. Good for him.
I dont follow O’Keefe but am somewhat familiar with his organization secretly recording abortion center owners. They admitted on camera to selling fetal body parts for revenue, then the FBI via Obama (?), Eric Holder (?) started to harass O’Keefe’s organization. Anytime abortion operatives are caught in nefarious activities they should be outted
i’m all for exposing these dark, evil forces.
O’Keefe is great. I started following him from the beginning. He has an efficient operation and is extremely accurate and on point. The left hates him because gradually he is exposing the left for what they are though he has gone after corruption on the other side as well. The left is scared of him because they never know when he will expose their corruption.
Peter likes to call him corrupt but the fact is virtually everything he has done was proven true and his arrest had to do with criminal political behavior on the part of former Senator Landrieu colluding with the local police. He didn’t have the funds to protect himself but he had a video of the event that somehow disappeared while he was in police custody. That type of criminal behavior is typcial on the left. Now he has sufficient legal back up to prevent him from being falsely arrested and legal back up to handle suits that he is winning over and over again. Even the FBI has used him to help in the arrest of Democratic operatives that behaved criminally though as usual they weren’t treated the way others would be treated and got off easy.
What do you think?
My thinking on liberals like Tribe has become more solidified since Trump was elected President.
Liberals like Tribe are neither ignorant nor concerned about people. They call homosexuals f8gg0ts when it suits them (Joy Reid), cause brain hemorrhages with gusto in a gay journalist (Anitfa) dress in KKK regalia and take photos therein to flaunt in their medical school yearbook (Ralph Northam), rape women and then issue press releases in how they are going to legally pursue these (Justin Fairfax), corrupt impressionable young women while manipulating them with the power of the Office of the White House ( Bill Clinton), mock other women when they are victims of rape by their husband (Hillary Clinton), use the suffering of raped women for political fodder (James Carville), use Adolph Hitler’s atrocities against Jews to align him with conservatives (MSM) while showing Anti-Semitism to Jews and Israelite who challenge their sophomoric thinking (Ilhan Omar, Alexandra Ocasio Cortez), all the while make excuses for the worst dictators in modern history who killed scores of millions and millions and millions of innocents under Leftist dictatorships (Joseph Stalin, Mao Tsedung, Pol Pot), ignore political refugees from communist countries and demonize them (Cubans) when they represent a strong work ethic and family values (Cubans) but champion Marxist leaders like Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Manuel Noriega and attack honorable men who try to topple them (all Democrats during the 1970s, 80s, 90s)
Liberals should be treated as diabolical (Stalin), manipulative (Ilhan Omar), lying (Bill & Hillary Clinton), opportunists (Kamala Harris) who use the suffering (Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders), pain (liberal news media) and downward trajectory of all people particularly Blacks (US House Dems Black Caucus) Latinos (AOC), immigrants (Nancy Pelosi) and the uneducated (Cory Booker), just to further their own power, control of others and corruption (Baltimore)
Perhaps I understate.
😇
The Dayton Murderer Is Proof We Need To Take Left-Wing Violence Seriously
The profile for the now-suspended Twitter account @iamthespookster, confirmed as belonging to Betts, identifies him as a “leftist” (and specifies his personal pronouns, a common left-wing calling card). The posts on the account show that Betts—a registered Democrat—was an Elizabeth Warren supporter and a fan of the progressive “Squad,” but also had far more radical political interests.
“I want socialism, and I’ll not wait for the idiots to finally come around to understanding,” said one of his tweets. His retweets included a graphic in which Smokey the Bear, sporting a red face mask with a hammer and sickle, holds up a sign that seems to encourage terrorism against the “capitalists” said to be responsible for killing the planet.
“Kill every fascist,” Betts tweeted a year ago, commenting on the anniversary of the Charlottesville far-right rally. He also retweeted “Punch a Nazi”-type tweets that celebrated street violence against white supremacists. And this past May, Betts shared a tweet by a prominent Antifa account, “Antifash Gordon,” identifying people “confirmed or likely to be at the KKK rally in Dayton,” with the comment, “Know your enemies.”
https://forward.com/opinion/428960/the-dayton-murderer-is-proof-we-need-to-take-left-wing-violence-seriously/
Estovir, is this what’s known as an ‘All Encompassing What About?’..??
It certainly reads like one. Just a broad, Hail Mary of a ‘What About?’ by the most desperate of Trump supporters.
Peter Shill, why are you doxxing people who have blocked you on Grindr?
SMH
I received a threat letter from ‘Anonymous’ in the mail about Grindr today. Please help
https://www.reddit.com/r/askgaybros/comments/cjrb48/i_received_a_threat_letter_from_anonymous_in_the/
This is the letter: https://imgur.com/a/ZGJvhvD
Blurred out parts are my name (registered name on Grindr, not actual name), phone number and address. It includes my neighbours address too so I’m guessing they have my IP address?
There are 3 following pages that contain screenshots of my Grindr profile and pictures I’ve sent on there, including my face. It includes a screenshot of my profile from about 1-2 months ago (different profile picture). One of the pictures is one I very rarely send so I do believe they have all my other pics too.
That’s a Hail Mary of a comeback, Estovir. A fat older guy who knows he’ll never see me in person. So he resorts to homophobic taunts from 3,000 miles away. Estovir is what’s known as a ‘cowardly deplorable’. They’re very common among Trump supporters.
That is why, Peter, every time we get into a debate and facts along with logic are needed you run away. You are a coward. Estovir is just miles ahead of you but you can’t recgonize that.
LOL! Apparently 3000 miles ahead of him.
Thankfully Peter Shill and the liberals in Lala Land are not the metric by which any of us dictate our lives. I hope
He must increase; I must decrease
Gospel of St John 3:30
http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/3
I confess I have fun along the way with these paid trolls but I do think the Blessed Virgin Mother is standing right behind me saying, “get em!”
😇
‘these paid trolls but I do think the Blessed Virgin Mother is standing right behind me saying, “get em!”’ -Estovir
Not only is Estovir an idiot — he’s delusional, too.
With a name like Tribe, is he related to Elizabeth Warren.
test
You failed.😀
Well, I guess something happened to my last post about what’s up with US intel withholding from the public the Security Camera videos from El Paso, Las Vegas, the Pent*gon, OKC & plus my other comments.
But here’s a link to what appears to expose more questions about what really happened in El Paso.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/08/owner-of-8chan-says-the-manifesto-was-not-uploaded-by-the-el-paso-walmart-shooter/
BTW: 2 different online news outlets both warned a week in advance of El Paso/Dayton to be on the look out for False Flag, real mass shootings because all the govt docs being released about govt corruption in leadership.
The communists may engage in free speech. Actual Americans may find them treasonous and impose the appropriate penalty. Until 1870, the penalty for high treason in the United Kingdom was to Draw and Quarter the traitor. Of course, high treason was a challenge of the authority of the King, having sexual intercourse with the Queen, etc. Tribe’s challenge of the authority of the duly elected president may constitute an egregious form of treason, in which case, Tribe may be deserving of a serious, profound and commensurate penalty, perhaps Drawing and Quartering.
Where, oh where do I buy my tickets?
Joe Biden’s on record as praising antifa. Maxine Waters called for Trump administration officials to be stalked, shamed and mobbed when seen in public – and they were. Nancy Pelosi has been recorded on vided as saying “if there’s some collateral damage to those who don’t share our views, well, so be it.”
For those unfamiliar with the term, “collateral damage” is defined in this way:
“n. Unintended damage, injuries, or deaths caused by an action, especially unintended civilian casualties caused by a military operation.
n. (euphemism) inadvertent casualties and destruction inflicted on civilians in the course of military operations”.
If the Speaker of the House, in this era of political violence, did not mean to endorse violence aganist those who don’t agree with her politics, I submit she is well-enough educated to have chosen another metaphor. She didn’t.
I wonder how Laurence Tribe feels about them.
“The buck stops here” — Harry Truman
It is the president who sets the tone.
The president has as much to do with the tone as a musician does at a concert. The media that report what the president says/does is as important to that tone as a sound engineer at a concert.
No one but Trump is responsible for his discordant, hateful, and divisive tweets. And then we have this sort of ‘leadership”‘:
Contest matters and opinions vary.
https://youtu.be/5UowNDaxRqU
Oh, and headlines apparently matter too. Go figure.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/nyt-editor-criticizes-papers-bad-headline-on-trump-racism-it-was-written-on-deadline
Olly – loved that clip. Reagan was the consummate public speaker. I read an article about how few Republicans incorporate humor into their speeches. Democrats can joke about literally everything, while Republicans are rather stiff. Reagan was always relaxed and a bit self deprecating.
I agree Karen. I believe too much stock is put into what people (politicians) say and not enough into what they do. I guarantee you that every one of us has said things that run contrary to our behaviors. If we focused less attention on the eloquence of a speaker and more on their fidelity to the oath they take, we wouldn’t be where we are today.
believe too much stock is put into what people (politicians) say and not enough into what they do.
In the case of Barack Obama he talked a lot of yada yada yada and showed supreme weakness as President to the world and Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility,”
Estovir,
That’s the low-hanging fruit I’m talking about. Yes, we need to pay attention to what these people say, Trump included. It’s all sales though. A skilled politician knows their words are the only thing that gullible people will pay attention to. So they use that skill to sell one thing and do another.
Trump is great at sales, but he’ll never be the skilled politician. And I don’t believe he cares to be. He doesn’t need to be. What he’s selling is what he’s doing. And what he’s doing is not what the Left wants done. So they are trying to discredit the salesman because they cannot discredit what he is doing.
So Olly, you bought Trump water?
Nope.
Yeah, I liked when Ronnie joked about shoeless “monkey” Irishmen. Too bad we didn’t stop their invasion.
The El Paso shooter was a racist anticapitalist eco terrorist, who believed in universal income. He believed that the government was going to have to take care of everyone, and therefore many people should be culled. He said he did not believe in returning non whites, but rather, that every race should have their own region of the country.
Dayton shooter’s social media was supportive of Antifa and their violent tactics, and gun control. He was anti police and anti ICE. His Twitter was far Left. He was extremely anti-Trump, open border, and urged people to cut fences to come to America. According to CNN, one of his last posts was reTweeting “Millenials have a message for the Joe Biden generation: hurry up and die.” Obviously, the original poster is not responsible for the Dayton shooter, who had struggled with compulsions towards mass murder for years.
“Betts also retweeted messages backing Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
One tweet read: “I want socialism, and i’ll not wait for the idiots to finally come round to understanding,” Newsweek reported.”
He was anti capitalist and said oil executives should be beheaded.
So, is this AOC’s fault, because she said everyone was going to die in 12 years? Or Oprah’s, when she said we have to wait for old men to die? Or Bernie and Warren’s intense anti-capitalist language? Did that fuel an eco terrorist and an antifa supporter? Both murderers were anticapitalist, and there has been a lot of hateful rhetoric by Democrats against capitalists, as well as couching global warming as an existential crisis, imminent destruction argument.
No. It is not their fault. These were unstable people who would latch on to whatever topic interested them, and do violence. It could just as easily have been to save the whales, or prevent deforestation, or combat the national debt. People cannot be too afraid to speak their minds, whether I agree with them or not, for fear that some crazy person is going to be inspired to violence.
The best remedy to the anti-capitalist, pro antifa violence, pro socialism, eco terrorism speech that these particular lunatics latched onto, is good, reasoned speech.
https://nypost.com/2019/08/06/dayton-shooter-connor-betts-may-have-supported-leftist-ideas-on-shadow-twitter-account/
Yeah, Karen, ‘X’ percent of the general population is composed of wackos. Therefore the last thing we need is a president inciting the wackos.
He’s not inciting anyone. Democrats cannot respond to his policy statements without looking like fools, so they pretend it’s an offense for him to make them.
Tabby, ‘not inciting anyone’..?? Then what are all those rallies about? You know, with swarms of angry Whites chanting “Lock her up” and “Go back to where you came from”..?
No president in the last 100 years has appealed so directly to the lunatic fringe. In fact, on one of his first days in office, Trump granted a White House Press Corps credential to Alex Jones, of all people. Jones thanked Trump but added that he didn’t care to leave Texas. But it shows that Trump values the lunatic fringe, Jones’ core audience.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/photo-of-obama-louis-farrakhan-to-be-released
Peter, that it upsets you that the opposition holds rallies and puts forth its positions is not what constitutes ‘incitement’. You need to deal with your own issues.
Look, Tabby, if the Republican party wants to tie itself to Trump’s base, that’s okay with me. Because Trump’s base is going to age-out fairly soon. Guys like Alan, for instance. They’ve only got a limited number of elections to go.
You’ve been trying for 100 years to age this country out of our founding principles and we’re still here going strong. You progressives just don’t get it. The principles in the DoI will never age out. The Republican base understands this. Trump supporters understand this. Conservatives not only understand this, we will always fight to preserve it.
BTW, you’re welcome.
Peter, hoping for people to die or be killed is what you think is a peaceful and normal. Whatever age I am I have longevity on my side. I will be around while you are decomposing. You are an angry person and a bigot.
“You know, with swarms of angry Whites …”
***************
They just look like Americans to me, Peter Hill. Bigot much?
Hill, people chanted “Lock her up” regarding Hillary Clinton’s utter lawlessness and lack of consequences. The FBI outlined how she broke the law, and then claimed that she should not be indicted. People get arrested for posting a selfie of a sub, and she uploaded Top Secret information to the Cloud. She should be in prison, but there were no consequences, again, for the well-connected Clinton.
Most people in America believe there is too much illegal immigration. Politicians in the UK ignored their constituents, and got Brexit. American politicians will ignore this problem to their peril, perhaps. It’s descended to lawlessness. Most conservatives take a very dim view of someone escaping a socialist country, being saved by the United States, and then promptly trying to usher Socialism into the capitalist country that rescued her. While I think she needs to take a good, hard look at what caused the hardships in her original country, she’s an American, and we’re stuck with her. All we can do is complain about it, and wish she’d take a vacation in Somalia with open eyes, or watch some documentaries, really looking at the problems, and then re-evaluate her own political agenda. There could be some improvement there.
Karen, positive presidents give speeches with positive messages. And you can see it in faces when cameras pan the audience. Folks are smiling, tearing-up and embracing those around them.
Think of that Norman Rockwell picture celebrating free speech. It’s that tall, lanky man addressing the town council while neighbors gaze with admiration.
That’s how supporters look when heroic leaders speak. They’re glowing with admiration. In a normal America supporters look that way when great presidents speak.
But when supporters keep jumping up to shake their fists in rage..
while chanting bellicose taunts regarding perceived enemies..
as their leader grins mischievously..
These are all bad signs! A person born deaf can figure something’s wrong.
These are clues said leader is really a mischief maker. Trump’s yellow hair tells us that up front. Normal leaders aren’t wearing preposterous comb-overs.
Trump looks like The Joker of Batman comic strips. Trump functions as The Joker. Like ripping the country apart will make us ‘great again’..??
That very slogan is the most cynical of lies.
“Karen, positive presidents give speeches with positive messages.”
Trump has been very positive. It is your Democratic candidates like Biden, Booker and Harris who want him beat up or dead. Wonderful examples for our children. They have almost all acted like slime buckets. Then again look at the left as a whole. The NYTimes writes a headline “Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism” and the left goes crazy so the NYTImes changes the headline to “Assailing Hate But Not Guns” You haven’t critically listened to Trump for he has done all the things you want and would applaud if what he said was said by a Democrat. Take note, Democrats talk big but do very little. Trump does a lot even with the hate filled Democrats and never Trumpers that surround him.
It’s funny how Trump rallies are almost all smiles while Democratic rallies frequently have hate attached and when they leave the place is a mess.
Trump in 2020.
What law did Hillary break?
Anon1 – which law has Hillary not broken?
you apparently don’t get how big Jones’ audience is.
or was, until facebook/google/etc oligarchs did a number on him
its still huge but he used to get like 1.4 million hits a day
do 1.4 million tune into our little chat here? i dont think so
if they’re lunatics wow there sure are a lot of them
that’s prolly not across all platforms either
now it’s down, because Silicon valley fiddles with their algos if they dont like you
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/04/technology/alex-jones-infowars-bans-traffic.html
TIA wrote — about Trump: “He’s not inciting anyone.”
Of course, he is.
Anonymous:
I guess Warren is too by your standard. Lie-a-watha is a racissss!
https://www.kusi.com/twitter-feed-shows-dayton-shooter-was-leftist-and-supported-elizabeth-warren/
What policy statements? You mean the ones on Alec Baldwin?
Hill, actually, these shooters were inspired by people like AOC, who preached that if we don’t do something, we’re all going to die in 12 years, and Bernie and Warren’s anti-capitalist and pro-socialist platforms.
Neither of the shooters were pro-Trump. Actually, they were both anti-Trump, and one was an Antifa supporter who applauded their use of violence.
So…get your inspirational sources correct.
That said, this is not AOC’s, Bernie’s, or Warren’s fault, either. While I disagree with them, they are all free to say whatever they want, without worrying that if they say a word, another eco terrorist will act on it.
The shooters saw the news coverage of a mass shooting, and decided to act on their grievances, too.
Do you notice how if these guys were wearing MAGA hats, the media would blame Trump? These shooters were far Leftists who were inspired by AOC, Bernie, Warren, et al, and the media still blames Trump. It’s biased and no longer journalism.
Karen is lying again Crusius was a Trumpster, like her and killed 22 people because he agreed with Karen and Trump that we are being invaded by bad people.
https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/patrick-crusius-social-media-trump-twitter/
Anon is a very divisive person. Though the Dayton killer mentions his support for Warren, few blame Warren for the actions of that stupid and crazy person. The El Paso killer was not just against immigration (Obama sent a lot of people packing), but he also had some leftist ideas. No one should blame any candidate for his actions.
Your interest is not in the suffering of the families and the fear created by these killers rather it is to gain political advantage. You believe in never letting a crisis go to waste. You are a savage.
You said that I was lying when I called the El Paso shooter an eco terrorist plus a racist. He was inspired by people like AOC, who said that we were going to die in 12 years due to environmental catastrophe.
What were his motivations for killing people? 1. To save the environment (eco terrorist). 2. To make Latinos leave (racist.)
My assessment was correct. The rest of his rambling manifesto was a mix of Republican and Democrat ideologies. In the end, he was a racist eco terrorist. His political meanderings made him neither Republican nor Democrat, which is why I used neither label. It is absolutely true that there were Republican inspiration, also, in his manifesto, although he murdered people for environmental and racist reasons.
Everything that I wrote was supported in his manifesto. My comment was,
“The El Paso shooter was a racist anticapitalist eco terrorist, who believed in universal income. He believed that the government was going to have to take care of everyone, and therefore many people should be culled. He said he did not believe in returning non whites, but rather, that every race should have their own region of the country.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/04/whats-inside-hate-filled-manifesto-linked-el-paso-shooter/
After a brief introduction, the 2,300-word manifesto is divided into five sections: political reasons for the attack, economic reasons, equipment that will be used to carry out the shooting, the expected reaction to the attack, and “personal reasons and thoughts.” Titled “The Inconvenient Truth,” the document is a jumble of positions and ideologies. In it, the writer warns of the dangers of environmental degradation, rails against corporate influence in the government and cautions against interracial marriage.
Under “political reasons,” the manifesto lambastes both Democrats and Republicans, suggesting the United States will soon become a one-party state run by Democrats because of the growing Hispanic population, the death of the baby-boom generation and the “anti-immigrant rhetoric of the right.” The author postulates that the growing Hispanic population in Texas will soon make it a solidly Democratic state, which he argues would all but assure repeated Democratic presidential victories.
“The Democrat party will own America and they know it. They have already begun the transition by pandering heavily to the Hispanic voting bloc in the 1st Democratic Debate,” the manifesto says.
The author also expresses fear over the impact automation will have on job opportunities and argues that immigrants should not be allowed to continue coming into the country as long as job opportunities are scarce. He argues that while immigrants often take menial jobs that Americans are unwilling to perform, their children seek better opportunities and often receive college degrees that allow them to obtain high-skill positions. The document again blames corporations for advocating for work visas for skilled workers and says they rely on immigrants to fill low-skilled positions.
In a jumbled rant, the document rails against corporations for destroying the environment by over-harvesting resources. The manifesto chastises the government for being unwilling to confront environmental issues and most Americans for being unwilling to change their lifestyles to be more environmentally friendly. It argues that the United States therefore needs fewer people consuming resources.”
Karen continues to lie. The El Paso shooter was a Trumpster, like her, and to stem he perceived invasion she and Trump also oppose, and as she herself quotes, because
““The Democrat party will own America and they know it. They have already begun the transition by pandering heavily to the Hispanic voting bloc in the 1st Democratic Debate,”
For his pro-Trump views see: https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/patrick-crusius-social-media-trump-twitter/
for my part, I don’t call the invading people from central america bad, they’re prolly fine decent hungry people.
but they’re still violating our criminal statutes, and with a few million more, they’ll be coming for your breadbasket, as well as mine. but you don’t worry! you must be very well off. good for you! shining faces, ready to share! emma lazarus and all that.
As long as they apply for asylum, as opposed to snaking across our borders, they are not breaking the law.
see that’s the rub. they get the loophole now. show up at border, turn yourself in, apply for bogus asylum claim, get released into the genpop, never cooperate, disappear.
it’s a lot easier than sneaking cross the border, yeah. i can just see a line about ten thousand people long standing at the bride. this is ridiculous!
the problem was never a big deal when people came through airports. now walking in, that’s a problem, the system MUST adjust. asylum is a good institution, don’t let the abusers ruin it.
and a few million more central maericans are gonna give it a try if we don’t fix this.
While I don’t blame Democrats the the shooters being inspired by their rhetoric, I don’t blame Trump, either. Politicians on either side of the aisle need to be free to discuss problems and solutions without worrying it will inspire a murderer.
Here is an article that discusses the evolution of his racism, in which he blamed Democrats for open borders. It does not deal with any of the environmental portions of the manifesto, which was a mix of ideologies, nor does it refer to the increase in government services he foresaw.
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/el-paso-manifesto/
The shooter stated: his ideology has not changed for several years. He went on to indicate his opinions on automation, immigration, and the rest predated Trump and his campaign for President. The shooter also indicated he foresaw the media will probably call him a white supremacist and blame Trump’s rhetoric.
But did Trump actually influence the shooter? After examining the manifesto, it seems unlikely. The shooter wanted to carry out and complete eradication of the “Hispanic Invasion.” Trump, contrary to the shooter, wants legal immigration to continue and for the good of the country, he wants to secure the border and offset illegal immigration.
The greatest influence on the perspective of the shooter was due to reportedly reading The Great Replacement. This is the manifesto of Brenton Tarrant, the New Zealand Mosque Shooter. Tarrant – no different than the El Paso shooter – was a white extremist who viewed people of color as a threat because they are supposedly overtaking the world.
The like minds of Tarrant and the El Paso shooter resulted in the men considering themselves victims of people of color and both responded to offset the ongoing victimization. In reality, neither of them was victimized by the ever-changing world, yet both believe they were justified in the taking of innocent lives and for this reason, they would not be stopped.
Another source of blame that the Leftist media is trying to employ is conservative media discussing at length the negative consequences of illegal immigration.
It’s absurd logic, and it completely ignores the part of the manifesto that states that large segments of the population will need to be removed to save the environment. One will notice that they are not applying the same twisted logic to those media sources and politicians who describe complete catastrophe in 12 years. It is amazing that so many of their viewers actually nod along, pillorying one side of the aisle for discussing problems with illegal immigration, while ignoring the other side of the aisle for discussing the problems with the environment, when both were the inspiration for a mass murderer.
The reason for the latter is that it’s absurd to claim that if you discuss critical environmental problems, you are guilty of inciting an eco terrorist. The same holds true for those who discuss the myriad problems of illegal immigration. When I was in college, over population was considered an existential crisis, but obviously those professors would not be culpable if a mass murder decided he had the solution.
Great leadership by Trump. We don’t see Trump’s people tearing down statues, beating people up and leaving a mess. You might be used to the leftist violence and slobbery, but then again that is what we supporters of Trump call family values.
I wonder whether these Neanderthals still think this is funny.
you may live to see the day when it’s not a joke
and you like other Americans want the border protected with the full sovereign power of government.
No, Anonymous. The President does not control what anyone says. Everyone is responsible for what comes out of their own mouths. Democrats have labeled Republicans evil for decades. This is just the ramping up of the trend. Trump is nice to those who are nice to him, and he is extremely rude to those who are rude to him. Those who bemoan Trump’s rudeness are usually also expressing extremely hostile and bigoted comments about Republicans in the same breath. Granted, I do not like the rudeness, at all, from either side. It is rather hard to hold a reasonable conversation with anyone who thinks half the country is evil. I hope moderates reclaim the Democrat party, because one of the reasons why there are those who support Trump’s quarrels is because they are tired of being called spurious names, while politicians won’t fight back. I do not find the quarreling to be particularly successful.
Trump did not force an academic to make bigoted statements. Trump did not force an eco terrorist and an antifa supporter to go on murder sprees. Nor did AOC, Bernie, or Warren, with their platforms that the shooters found inspiring. This is the shooters’ fault, and societies’ for failing to respond to the warning signs. Both these young men should have been under treatment, before they hurt anyone.
I don’t know anything about the Gilroy Garlic Festival shooter, yet. So terrible. It’s a family event, and very popular.
Deep systemic problems in the U.S. What we’re seeing is akin to an extremely dysfunctional family, with angry family members acting out in deadly ways.
Deep rot.
Both these young men should have been under treatment, before they hurt anyone.
Might have done Jared Loughner and those who crossed paths with him some good. He had a discrete clinical problem. No indication as yet that such a course of action in the case of these other two would have done more than provide some fee income for a member of the social-work-and-mental-health trade.
In an alternate time line, concealed carry holders would have put bullets into their brain before the body count got anywhere near 29.
“The buck stops here” — Harry Truman
Good news for Barack Obama: Guns and religion are making a comeback. Yea Barry!!!!
Inquiries Into License To Carry Classes Up After Mass Shootings
he number of mass shootings in the last week has prompted many to purchase guns and sign up for classes to earn their license to carry concealed weapons, according to the people who are doing training.
https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2019/08/05/inquiries-into-license-to-carry-classes-up-after-mass-shootings/
Deep systemic problems in the U.S. What we’re seeing is akin to an extremely dysfunctional family, with angry family members acting out in deadly ways.
Deep rot.
The media chooses to stay vague about possible motivations for Dayton. Another sick angry young man but his social media trail is *very* different from El Paso shooter. Who of course helpfully left us his manifesto. Gilroy, I think little is known. Media sure wants to hide his Iranian maternal grandfather. Can’t think why, it hardly matters.
San Fran says: “Media sure wants to hide his Iranian maternal grandfather.”
No. There have been references to it in any number of mainstream articles.
Be sure to “watch the birdie” while our country is dismantled around us….conventional thinking will continue to protect you from the obvious.
This must be on the list of Reasons not to donate money to the school that mistakenly hired the individual but there is always Evergreen.
SMH:
“Trump tweet: Nobody blamed Obama for Sandy Hook”
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/08/06/trump-tweet-nobody-blamed-obama-for-sandy-hook/23789239/
#NotPresidential
#Clueless
#JustDoesn’tGetIt
Although he is not legitimate, Trump occupies the office of POTUS. That position carries certain responsibilities, one of which is to not engage in racist screeds or to incite violence. He has called migrants”murderers, rapists and invaders”, and he smiled and laughed when his supporters shouted “shoot. them.”
Until the El Paso massacre, his campaign sent out Facebook ads touting the dangers of the brown people invasion. Then, not surprisingly, some person decided to go ahead and start shooting people, mainly Hispanics, repeating the same “invasion” screed espoused by Trump.
Even before the El Paso massacre, Trump was demonstrably unfit for office. He still hasn’t apologized for his inciting of violence. He completely ignored the request to stay away from El Paso. He needs to go away — sooner rather than later. He should be impeached.
Natacha, Trump is literally legitimate, because he was elected using the Electoral College in the Constitution.
If they had ignored the Electoral College, that would have been illegitimate. If you want things done a different way, then there is a process in place to amend the Constitution.
It appears that you want quite badly for 48 states in the Union to have no representation or say in the White House. Just a handful of king/queen maker counties, and the rest would be disenfranchised. This would also make election fraud quite easy, as all the bad actors would know exactly where to focus their efforts.
That way lies tyranny.
I find it curious that the Democrat politicians and activists accuse Republicans of everything they do themselves. They accuse Republicans of being racist, while employing identity politics, open racism against whites and black conservatives, and Asians are discriminated against in Leftist leaning university admissions. They accuse Republicans of gender bias, while being openly misandristic. They claim to be pro woman, but they attack any woman who disagrees with them and use sexist slurs, and they work hard to enable biological males to compete in women’s sports, ensuring women get shut out of their own division. They claim they hate Trump’s rude rhetoric, but they employ truly vicious rhetoric themselves, including standing with a severed head in effigy and fantasizing about feeding children MAGA hats first into the wood chipper. They claim Trump’s a fascist, but Antifa acts like Fascists when they assault people they target. Activists targeting bakers and photographers who don’t want to participate in a gay wedding are acting like fascists. They create the Green New Deal which would ban air travel. Their class warfare and racism against white males are some of the most hateful rhetoric today. They work hard to either abolish, or go around the Electoral College in order to disenfranchise most of America.
I have noticed that moderate Democrats have slowly started leaning towards extremism over the years. I wish the moderates would regain control of the party, so all we argued about what how much to tax and how much to spend, instead of whether we should abolish capitalism and become a Socialist country like Venezuela.
As for “dangers of the brown people invasion,” don’t be absurd. If you cannot come up with a single detrimental consequence of illegal immigration that’s not racist, that is your own character flaw. He specifically called MS-13 animals, not all migrants. He did not say that all migrants were rapists, as he said there were good people, too. Huffpo ran an article in 2014, I believe, about the 85% rape rate of women and girls migrating to America, so Huffpo and I’d say the assessment that there were rapists involved was true.
Karen : this will be the last time I’ll explain Trumo’s illegitimacy to you. First: read the Mueller Report. Trump’s campaign provided insider polling information that was used in a social media disinformation blitz in certain key districts in certain key states for the specific purpose of helping Trump cheat to win. Russians also hacked into computers of the DNC and HRC’s campaign, and sensitive information was strategically released to do the most damage to HRC’s campaign. Trump engaged in at least 10 acts constituting criminal obstruction of justice, so says Mueller plus about 1,000 former federal prosecutors who signed a letter so stating. Trump and members of his campaign staff lied to investigators, and Trump fired Comey to try to derail the investigation. Notice that I didn’t mention the fact that he lost the popular vote?
You are merely repeating the Kellyanne pivot preached by Faux News that Democrats do the same things they accuse Trump of doing,. Yeah, we know you believe this garbage, but it’s all lies.
In addition to the number of times Trump has written and verbalized that migrants are “invaders”, a word used by the El Paso alleged killer, his campaign has used this word more than 2,000 times in Facebook ads, which were taken down after the El Paso massacre. Just last May, when he went on a rant at a rally in the Fl Panhandle, decrying the migrant invasion, he rhetorically asked his disciples what could be done. Someone shouted: “shoot them”. Did Trump say this was wrong, or in any manner speak any words of discouragement? No! He smiled that arrogant a-hole smile of his, laughed for a few seconds and replied that someone could only get away with saying that in the Panhandle.
Trump has blood on his tiny hands, and as if inciting violence and racist screeds weren’t enough, he’s forcing himself on both El Paso and Dayton, despite being told not to come. His campaign still owes El Paso over $569,000 for providing security for previous visits. He lacks the basic decency to honor the right of families of these victims to mourne in peace without the disruption his presence would bring.
Oh, and when he called Mexicans “rapists, murderers and drug dealers “, he was not talking about gangs. That’s another Kellyanne/Faux News fiction.
Natacha – are you completely unfamiliar with the US Constitution? If you were familiar with it, you would know that Trump is completely legitimate.
I’m sorry…I did take Con Law and got a very good grade, but I don’t recall any part that endorses the notion that a candidate for POTUS can feed to a hostile foreign government sensitive insider polling information regarding essential votes needed in key precincts in key states that is used to spread lies about their opponent. Also, I missed the part about lying under oath when this conduct is being investigated and also firing the Director of the FBI to try to scuttle the investigation. Maybe you can direct me to these passages.
I’m sorry…I did take Con Law and got a very good grade,
LOL
Natacha – 1) You didn’t read the Mueller report. That is clear from your answer. 2) You said Trump was unqualified to be President and I asked you to find it in the Constitution. Use that very good grade you got in Con Law and tell us how he is unqualified.
You want illegitimate??? You want immutably ineligible??? Try Obama!
Obama, like Kamala Harris, will NEVER be eligible for the office of president.
Obama’s father was a foreign citizen at the time of his birth making Obama merely a “citizen.” Kamala Harris’ parents were foreign citizens at the time of her birth.
– A “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – not after.
– The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”
– Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”
– The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.
– Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.
– The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define words like “natural born citizen” as a dictionary, while the Law of Nations,1758, did.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758
Book 1, Ch. 19
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:
“…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787
From John Jay
New York 25 July 1787
Dear Sir
I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d
Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore
Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,
which sailed Yesterday.
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to
provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the
administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief
of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect
Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere
I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt
John Jay
George, you have issues, but I’m not going to get into you and your problems, I want to talk about the legitimacy of our Presidents! We have not elected a President legitimately For about 200 years, because we have not followed the Electoral Processes outlines in Article 2 Section 1 or the 12th Amendment, which are designed to require the person selected to have a majority of the People, through their Representatives, to qualify as legitimate.
Article 2 Section 1 is a double blind election, and the 12th Amendment is double blind with ranked choice, both are indirect processes by an intermediate body of electors to act on behalf of the People specifically for the choice, they also are primaries, where they signify a formal poll of the people to determine the most qualified, and suitable, candidates by the number of Electors who have cast a ballot that contains their name. It was not expected that any person would get a majority of the Electors on this initial ballot, and the top 5 continue on in a runoff election where each State is an elector to form the qualifying electorate with a quorum of the States in the House, and each State having 1 vote, to determine the selection by a Majority of the States that voted, under Article 2 Section 1 where the second person receiving the most votes would become the Vice President. Under the 12th Amendment the top 3 persons receiving Electors Votes, for both offices, go on to the runoff election, again by State, 1 vote per State, in the House to determine the President, and in the Senate to determine the Vice President.
In both cases the Electors form the qualifying electorate, and the Electors Vote by Ballot by Choosing qualified Candidates with the following restrictions: each person must have reached the age of 35, be a natural born citizen, which has nothing to do with their parents, been 14 years an inhabitant in the United States, and at least 1 must not be of the same State as Themselves.
I don’t see any declared candidates, no Party nominations, no winner takes all by State, the Electors are appointed, then the Electors Gather in their Respective States to Vote by Ballot, the ballots are tabulated, by person and office for which they received votes, the tabulated results are certified, sealed, and transmitted to the Seat of Government Directed to the President of the Senate, to be opened by the President of the Senate in the presence of Congress, the votes are counted and if a person receives a majority of the Electors, that person is immediately declared the President!
Those are the only legitimate processes for choosing the President and Vice President, anything else is Unconstitutional and therefore illegitimate. Also, no part of either process can be changed by Congressional Statute, by the State or Federal Legislature, and no State can Angie their own Constitution to change any of these processes, these processes can only be changed by Constitutional Amendment utilizing a properly constituted Federal Congress where each State has Equal Suffrage in the Senate, that means each State has independent and Equal Suffrage, Not By Party, or at a Constitutional Convention called by the State Legislature’s of 2/3 of the States, again retaining their State Sovereignty and independent Suffrage to reach Majority Consensus.
Yes, I wrote a lot, but you people seem to have a Comprehension problem when it comes to indirect Democracy and conditional statements!
federalisteitherknowseverythingornothingatall:
“We have not elected a President legitimately For about 200 years …”
*******************
Do these notions come to you in a trance or do voices tell you this stuff while you are nominally conscious? I’ve read lots of SCOTUS cases, American histories and even a stroll or two through The National Enquirer and Modern Drunkard Magazine but no where do I find such refined constitutional thought as this. Are you from another planet seeking “intelligent life”? Inquiring minds want to know.
Project Mars: Beware of the Elon
DMT maybe?
The US has the most mass murders in the world IS A MYTH.
How did that come about? Confirmation bias. A study that confirmed what the media wished to believe was produced. No one questioned it and the author wouldn’t divulge all the important things of the study. Using the same criteria another study was done proving that first study FALSE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXGgI2E5JUw
This is why so many stupid people on this blog say so much cr-p.
I think that brain tumor in 2010 made Larry batshoot crazy. He said it was benign but I wonder.
Americans know is that, though he is using his rhetoric against President Trump (bc for some reason that has become legitimate with the Press), Tribe,the other Dem candidates and liberals actually detest the 50% of Americans who are family-focused, law-abiding, community-centered, faith-centered and vote conservative. Tribe represents only a minute percentage of the liberals who have absolutely gone insane since 2016. Their screeches are vile and their behavior as well. Let’s call it what it is – vile hatred.
I think it’s just a very small majority of liberals who have gone “absolutely insane since 2016”, SBG.
The rest of the majority of them have gone sort of insane.
“a very small majority”???
OK….. If what’s posted here is representative, then it’s a vast majority.
Only 51% apparently, Karen, as a very small majority. So, that’s easily 1 out of every 2 liberals have gone absolutely insane. 😉
Thanks, Prairie Rose! I was wondering, how can you have a small majority? A small minority, yes, but a small majority? Thanks – sometimes I need a flow chart or interpretive dance. Especially today when I have been struggling to unhitch a blasted trailer from the blasted truck because the blasted lever won’t release the blasted ball, in this blasted heat, even though the blasted pin is out and the blasted foot is down and I jumped on the blasted bumper. It’s still blasted (partially) hitched. I have hitched and unhitched this blasted thing enough times over the years that, frankly, the only explanation is gremlins. All the horses lined up at the fence are finding this entertaining.
I hate trailers. They are detrimental to my good disposition. I’m going back out there to explain to the stupid inanimate object that I have a Sawzall and am not afraid to use it, so behave.
YES! Trailer unhitched…although the shank is now removed from the receiver, leaving the ball assembly still hitched to the trailer. Ball Locking Mechanism appears broken. Had to remove the entire thing and just leave it attached until the shop can repair it.
Whew. Bad mood averted. It would have been frustrating to have to run my errands towing a trailer.
Hurray! 🙂 Well, if you had to run errands with the trailer, there’d be plenty of room for groceries, a tad messy, I betcha, but there’d be room!
Prairie Rose – it gets better. My husband came home, and I informed him it was broken with the tone of self righteousness that comes from wrestling with it on a hot afternoon. He went out and pulled on the dangling ball hitch and said, “Yep, it’s stuck alright.” Then he walked to his work truck, and came back with a can of WD40. As soon as I saw that blue can, I thought, oh, no, that had better not work. I had better not have gotten drenched in this baking heat struggling with that thing for nothing. A few sprays later, and he got it right off. I am deflated.
You know how the crown and scepter are symbols of royalty? WD40 and duct tape are symbols of manliness. If the WD40 hadn’t worked, he probably would have MacGyvered some solution with duct tape.
It’s OK. When he heard how frustrated I was on the phone, he came home with wine and my favorite chocolate.
Karen,
What an awesome husband!
I agree, WD40 and duct tape are very manly.
Karen S – I have found threatening inanimate objects with more terroristic inanimate objects is oddly satisfying. 😉
Very. It must be a human trait, as we cajole inanimate objects, too. People all over the world plead with their car to start.
Remember that scene in the movie, The Office where they took the printer out into the field? People loved that scene.
Karen S – I had considered the WD40 solution, but I was so far down the list I figured you had solved the issue by the time I posted. 😉
You love to emulate dialogue you heard in movies, don’t you? Today, you are mimicking Raymond Massey’s comments about the dangers associated with starting a crank-type car in “East of Eden”. You are so un-original and phony. First it was Tia Carrerre’s “Pity” line from “True Lies”, and now you are repeating Raymond Massey’s dialogue.
Natacha – I think you confused Raymond Massey with James Dean, who played Cal Trask in East of Eden. He has a line that goes “It’s gonna work because it’s got to work and it’s got to work because I said so.” Raymond Massey plays Adam Trask and he does not have a line even similar. Are you sure you have the right movie?
?
Natacha — we all know you have one of those tee shirts that says in big letters on the front: NASTY WOMAN. And I bet you actually wear it out in public. But you don’t realize that it doesn’t symbolize/mean what you think it does. For you? It’s truth in advertising.
SBG said, “Tribe,the other Dem candidates and liberals actually detest the 50% of Americans who are family-focused, law-abiding, community-centered, faith-centered and vote conservative.”
What utter bs, SBG.
Little doubt Tribe does, though he has a different surface than Brian Leiter. Tribe’s entire intellectual project consists of an apologia for the judiciary treating elected conciliar bodies and their works much as the school administration treats the student council. I don’t think he has much respect for the social matrix from which your municipal councilor is drawn.
Yes, let me correct what I posted:
SBG said, “…liberals actually detest the 50% of Americans who are family-focused, law-abiding, community-centered, faith-centered and vote conservative.”
What utter bs, SBG.
What utter bs, SBG.
Is that supposed to pass for a thoughtful response? What do you disagree with, the percentage?
Yes, to answer your first question. And “it should be obvious” is the answer to your second.
Yes, to answer your first question.
You’re right, it should be obvious by now that that is the extent of your thinking.
Yeah, what should be obvious is that most people aren’t willing to waste much time and energy on the ‘deep thinkers’ like yourself, OLLY. So conclude whatever you’d like…
There’s a Republican in the White House. The last thing Democrats want is for President Trump to unite America on anything leading up to the 2020 election. The opposite would be true if a Democrat was currently president. This is the state of politics in our country today and if everyone understood that truth, then we would be able to negate the political rhetoric.
The problem for Democrats is the President hasn’t given them much to work with. The MAGA flag is firmly planted in our historical roots (no, not racism or slavery), which means the Democrats have to either remove the President, or stake out territory somewhere else. Of course the former option hasn’t worked, so they are doing the latter. Who knows where they will end up planting their flag, but at this point it doesn’t appear to be anywhere in this country.
PS What do I think? I think I don’t care what Jonathan Turley thinks about what Laurence Tribe thinks about Trump. We all have our opinions on that and those visiting this site would presumably be more interested in what Jonathan Turley thinks about Trump. Maybe if we got Laurence Tribe’s site he’ll be discussing JT’s opinion and we can get it there.
If you don’t care, why pipe up? (Or does David Brock insist on a minimum daily word count?)
TIA is wee bit obsessed with David Brock…, and someone named Diane.
TIA asks, “If you don’t care, why pipe up?”
To get your goat, perhaps.
Tabby, will there ever come a point where references to Brock get old? I mean, couldn’t ‘any’ bogus intellectual cobble phrases about Dave Brock and word counts?
Take ‘you’, for instance, a bogus intellectual and member of the Libertarian cult. You seem perfectly capable of jerry-rigging these references on a daily basis. Do you imagine fellow Trumpers doubling over with laughter upon reading these little snips?
If you do that illustrates my point; ‘only pretentious squares in the outer suburbs fancy Brock references as the height of humor’. To everyone else you’re a bore.
And what happened to that handle you used encompassing the word ‘insufferable’?
Take ‘you’, for instance, a bogus intellectual and member of the Libertarian cult.
I’ve been skewering libertarians in fora like this for a dozen years, FWIW. Divining my actual thoughts on public policy is not that difficult, but it keeps escaping you.
The references to Brock “get old”, but Hill’s frequent, favored use of words like Fox News or right wing media bubble stay fresh as a daisy in his little mind.
When a favored, frequent tactic of someone like Hill is to be dismissive of the views of others by constantly relying on his stock phrases, he can eventually expect that he’ll get the same kind of treatment from others.
Here brave Anonymous, a sock puppet for someone we know, resents that Trump and Trumpers are always linked to Fox News.
But we know that Trump watches Fox all day. At least half of Trump’s tweets are motivated by something he saw on Fox.
And just last week, Trump attempted to appoint, as National Intelligence Chief, a Republican congressman with no experience. But Trump wanted the man based on a Fox news performance.
Yet we’re supposed to believe that associating Trump with Fox is somehow out of bounds.
I forgot to mention Brock Boy Hill’s other favorite, “Trumpers”.
I think he covered his other major talking point, Fox News.
He can’t seem to help himself.
Estovir, use your own name. You don’t need that ‘Anonymous’ charade.
Brock Boy Hill and his favored anonymous…..the Hill toadie….have taken 3 or 4 stabs at trying to figure out who I am.
Maybe I am one of the 3 or 4. Then again, maybe I’m not.
Brock Boy Hill likes to use trash talking in his comments, in attempts to discredit views not meeting with his approval.When that finally gets turned around on him an thrown right back in his snotty face, he gets upset.
The active anonymous who is Brick Boy Hill’s sycophant somehow escaped Hill’s objection to anonymous sock puppets.Maybe he can provide a list of his approved anonymous sock puppets and the ones he disapproves of, then turn it over to Darren or Professor Turley.
He can include the list if he contacts Turley’s school, GWU.
you clearly don’t get how busy he is. he does not watch it or any tv all day. seriously you just makin stuff up now pete
The odds on most righties here watching Fox is approaching 100%. The odds on any lefty posters here being paid by Brock is roughly equal to the odds that righties here are paid for posting n rubles.
Repeating a truism is not the same as repeating an absurdity, or didn’t they teach you that at the bot farm?
“The odds on most righties here watching Fox is approaching 100%. ”
You might forget that Shepard Smith is a lefty and promotes that ideology on his show which is on Fox. The non editorial news on Fox is quite good and doesn’t mix op-ed with the news. Chris Wallace is a Democrat. Sean Hannity who is probably the one in your mind when you think of Fox isn’t promoting the Republican Party. He refers to himself as a conservative and seems to disdain most of the Republican Party. He is not news. He is opinion. The fact is that his opinions and his predictions have been remarkably accurate, far more accurate than what has reported as news in the MSM.
The odds on most righties here watching Fox is approaching 100%.
CNN used to be my primary source and FoxNews was secondary. That switched when fact-checking reports showed CNN to omit certain facts that gave a report the full context. They’d fill the void with opinion that belied the actual context. The last 3 years has been an excellent opportunity to compare/contrast networks for accuracy and FoxNews has in my opinion proven to be far more accurate than any other network. Once Horowitz and Durham release their reports, we’ll all find out what network(s) have had it right all along. At this point, I like the odds for FoxNews.
When someone declares that odds of something are “approaching 100%”, I become interested in the methodology of the one making that kind of a claim.
E.G., if I claimed that the odds of anon1 being an out-an-out bull****ER are about 100%, there’d be a reasonable expectation that ai could be called upon to produce my reasons for making that claim.
Since the odds are actually more like 90-95% of the latter ” hypothetical” example, I am not, if course, claiming that it’s approaching 100% in that “hypothetical” case.
Thanks, Anon1. (See comment at 2:11 p.m.)
I won’t say what I think because my comment would be deleted. (Never say anything negative about JT.
It would appear to be one of the unstated “civility” rules.”
You must not read the comments very carefully. JT and those monitoring this site have been generous to a fault in allowing any damn fool to spout off about how they, not JT, are the “real” experts in Con Law.
There are plenty of examples you would have seen if you had read, or understood, these comments. It’s one thing to disagree with something that he says in a column; it’s another thing for some of the bozos who don’t know their *** from a hole in the ground to claim their expertise.
People generally condemn racist and antisemitic comments, as they should. That means that people discuss what another person thinks about yet another person.
The same holds true for the constant false rhetoric that has been used for decades against Republicans. People will discuss how misinformed and frankly unstable Tribe is to make such a statement about Trump. Academics are becoming rather infamous for bad judgement, poor critical reasoning skills, and intolerance. This general close-mindedness is detrimental to intellectualism.
Free speech and all that. Anon also has the freedom to find an article he finds more enjoyable to read. It always puzzles me why someone would bother to write that he doesn’t care for an article’s topic, when there are billions of articles at our fingertips on the web.
Karen,
Speaking of articles, this one is very good:
People often fail to accurately interpret other positions because they evaluate them based on criteria stemming from their own paradigm or worldview. These criteria may or may not be at work in the opposing paradigm. If they aren’t, then it’s hard to have a clear, honest dialogue.
When conversations begin with everyone indefatigably presuming their own frame—and its underlying conceptions— each side automatically believes their arguments to be true and other side’s to be false. This is ground zero for why American public discourse has become so corrosive.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/06/philosophers-conversion-christianity-can-teach-partisans-talk/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=9fdea2288f-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-9fdea2288f-79248369
Thanks for the link.
I was taught long ago that before you argue with someone, first understand their position. Understand all the arguments in favor of a position before you argue against it. I remembered that when Ivanka mentioned in an interview that Trump asks her for all the arguments against her proposals, in addition to those for it, and that it’s always been that way.
Reminds me of this quote:
It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so. Ronald Reagan
“The Most Dangerous American Idea”
“No belief in the history of the United States has been more threatening to democracy than the certainty that only white people are fit for self-government.”
AUG 5, 2019
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/reagan-nixon-trump-white-nationalism/595465/
“Last week, the historian Timothy Naftali revealed a 1971 conversation between Richard Nixon, then the president of the United States, and Ronald Reagan, then the governor of California, in which Reagan referred to African United Nations delegates as “monkeys” who are “still uncomfortable wearing shoes.” Reagan was expressing anger over those African nations that voted to recognize the People’s Republic of China as the legitimate government of China, rather than Taiwan, which had held the seat since the UN was founded, in 1945.”
No belief in the history of the United States has been more threatening to democracy than the certainty that only white people are fit for self-government.
I disagree. The most threatening belief is that self-government is possible with government in control of the education system.
in which Reagan referred to African United Nations delegates as “monkeys” who are “still uncomfortable wearing shoes.”
Reagan was indubitably broadly familiar with how the political class in Tropical Africa was performing ca. 1971. He was also indubitably familiar with how the culture of the United Nations as an institution decayed as more an more non-occidental countries joined the organization and put their perfectly repellent public diplomacy on display. Africa’s bifurcated since then, with most of the continent (while dirt poor) developing a passably pluralistic sort of politics while a block of countries in the Equatorial zone and the Horn of Africa have decayed into failed states. The UN still stinks, alas.
Sure, why would anyone get offended if someone of a different race referred to those of his race as primitive monkeys?
i finally heard the clip. it was funny, man Ronnie was great. hilarious. am i supposed to be wringing my hands and crying over it? nope, sorry,. you go cry me a river
how does it feel to walk through life so afraid of..,… words?
Context is everything but we don’t expect you to understand context or much of anything else.
—-
Why Reagan Railed To Nixon On African Envoys
By IRA STOLL, Special to the Sun | August 5, 2019
Ronald Reagan phoned President Nixon in 1971 and described African ambassadors at the United Nations as “monkeys” who were “still uncomfortable wearing shoes,” the Atlantic magazine reported recently, calling it evidence of “Reagan’s racism.”
Anyone who refers to humans as animals is a turkey. But so long as the topic of racism by a Republican president is in the news, let’s give this one a closer look.
About what was Reagan so upset? It was a United Nations vote to recognize Communist China instead of the nationalist Chinese government on Taiwan. The consequence was to consolidate Communist rule over hundreds of millions of Asian people.
That Reagan was so furious about how the Africans had voted on the issue suggests something that is confirmed by lots of other evidence — that Reagan cared passionately about freedom and prosperity and the rule of law not only for white people in America or Europe, but also for people of color in China and elsewhere.
It’s certainly possible to be racist against blacks or Africans and be passionate about freedom for Asians. But neither does it quite fit the stereotypical white supremacist image.
Also complicating the caricature of a racist Reagan is the story of Jonas Savimbi. Reagan spoke about him in 1986 to a dinner of the Conservative Political Action Conference.
“Last September, at the Lomba River in southern Angola, when a force of…rebels met an overwhelmingly superior force of government troops directly supported by the Soviet bloc, the UNITA forces defeated the government troops and drove them and their Communist allies from the field,” Reagan said.
“In the history of revolutionary struggles or movements for true national liberation,” Reagan added, “there is often a victory like this that electrifies the world and brings great sympathy and assistance from other nations to those struggling for freedom. Past American Presidents, past American Congresses, and always, of course, the American people have offered help to others fighting in the freedom cause that we began. So, tonight, each of us joins in saluting the heroes of the Lomba River and their leader, the hope of Angola, Jonas Savimbi.”
Reagan spoke about Savimbi again to a Heritage Foundation lunch in 1987. “In Angola in the past few weeks, Jonas Savimbi’s freedom fighters inflicted another crushing defeat on the Soviet-backed MPLA forces,” Reagan said. “This fall’s Communist offensive, the biggest ever in Angola, ended in a rout for the Soviets and their protégés. The heroes of the Lomba River did it again, pushing back the massive Soviet assault, capturing hundreds of operational trucks and tanks, and shooting down a substantial number of helicopters and Cuban-piloted planes. The Soviets truly are beginning to feel the sting of free people fighting back.”
In 1988, in Rose Garden remarks signing the Captive Nations Week declaration, Reagan said, “I recently met in the White House with Jonas Savimbi, the leader of the UNITA forces that control much of Angola against a Communist regime propped up by over 40,000 Cuban troops. I am proud to say that the brave UNITA fighters have our support.”
The contempt Reagan felt for the African U.N. ambassadors in 1971, and the respect he had for Savimbi, seems to me to have had less to do with the color of their skin or the continent they came from, and more to do with where they stood on what Reagan, in those 1988 remarks, called “the fundamental moral difference between freedom and communism.”
In that same Rose Garden speech, Reagan went on to speak of the struggle against communism in Nicaragua. Reagan invested huge amounts of political capital in aiding the Contras fighting against the Communist Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. He did so over opposition from Joseph Biden, then a senator, Bill de Blasio, and Bernie Sanders.
Reagan pursued this so ardently because communism in Nicaragua would serve as a forward base for the Soviet Union and would, he argued, threaten the American mainland. He also spoke of how the Nicaraguan communists oppressed “an entire culture, the Miskito Indians, thousands of whom have been slaughtered or herded into detention camps, where they have been starved and abused.”
What does this Reagan episode tell us about our current Republican president and the racism allegations against him? It is a reminder that the racism charge is easily and often flung in politics, and that the reality is often more complicated. That’s not a blanket defense of or excuse for either Reagan or for our current president. It is, though, a reminder that racism isn’t always so black-and-white.
the ancient Greeks who invented Democracy thought it only fitting for free adult male citizens. needless to say, that excluded women, children, foreigners, and slaves.
democracy had its day in Rome too, for election of certain offices, and the rules were pretty much the same.
democracy was then pretty well lost until the Swiss rediscovered it. Yes, it was the Swiss before the Americans or French, who had a democratic experiment well underway
the idea of limiting the franchise is not radical. it is in fact, fundamental.
to call this basic notion racist is polemical and insulting and false. but we here it all the time now.
How shallow and morally bankrupt do you have to be to learn life lessons from Trump?
How shallow and morally bankrupt do you have to be to learn life lessons from Trump?
Yet Trump beat Hillary by spending 1/3 of which she did and in spite of the main screed media hiding her dead bodies
How’s that TDS and moral relativism working for ya?
👍🏽
Lawrence Tribe was always a Liberal but was he always this imprudent and dopey?
See Bork’s brief critique of Tribe in The Tempting of America, or Stanley Brubaker’s dissection of his abortion jurisprudence published in Commentary. Their conclusion was that his entire research program was not to be taken seriously. I suspect Tribe’s problem right along is that his inclination was to apply intellectual virtuosity to justify getting what he wanted, rather than pursuit of truth. Per Bork, this highly result-oriented disposition on faculties and on appellate courts had by 1999 wrecked constitutional law as an intellectual subdiscipline. Of course, everybody fails to some degree, but his failures were pretty comprehensive, and they are the legal academy’s failures, not just those of one man.
Jonathan Turley wastes his time and ours writing about someone else writing about Trump. I’ve never seen somebody so regularly avoid large, obvious, and important issues while searching for the smallest nit attached to the..
Partisan Democrats have no interest in ‘large, obvious, important issues’. You’ve spewed gobs of verbiage on the Russian collusion hoax, all to put down distracting red herrings so we won’t discuss a large, obvious, and important issue: how the previous administration weaponized contra the political opposition federal tax collectors, intelligence agencies, and police.
Batting 1.000. Everything posted by TIA above at 2:23 is true believer false,, and ridiculously so.