[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

There you go loving victims yet again. What a sympathetic chap you are.

If you saw a child hit by a car, would you rush over to lecture the kid about how great cars are, how the driver was probably forced to hit him by rioting liberals and about how he's a precious little snowflake and shouldn't cry just because he can see both his broken shins sticking out through his calves?

Was this you having an aneurysm?

[Waragainstsleep]

You wish. Then I'd be the victim of an aneurysm.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

The amount of effort it must have taken to be that wrong.

It's black gangs who are at war.

That's not funny. That's ignorance by someone who perceives minorities as criminals and is trying to fearmong illegals as killers.

[subego]

I have a dark sense of humor.

[The Final Dakar]

So do I. Shit is too real.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So do I. Shit is too real.

Would you accept "laughable"?

You can't get a more home-grown problem than black people getting the shit end of the stick.

I find the idea of shifting this blame to another country to be laughable.

[The Final Dakar]

I absolutely accept laughable.

[subego]

That's mighty white of you.

[The Final Dakar]

Well we need to stick together in the face of white genocide.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

You wish.

Nah, I wish you no ill will at all.

[The Final Dakar]

Since I know nothing about diplomatic norms and presidential transitions, is this as big of a deal as its being made out to be?
Flynn Is Said to Have Talked to Russians About Sanctions Before Trump Took Office

Federal officials who have read the transcript of the call were surprised by Mr. Flynn’s comments, since he would have known that American eavesdroppers closely monitor such calls.

This strikes me as too stupid to be true.

[subego]

The realpolitik in me says if an outgoing administration takes a whack at a country, and the incoming administration plans to do a 180° flip, protocol is a poor reason to hide the plan.

[subego]

What a ****in weirdo.

[The Final Dakar]

You're not person I expected to post the handshake thing.

[subego]

Go on...

[subego]

Okay... WTF? Was he doing this six months ago?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Go on...

Liberals: "I can't believe he's doing X"
subego: "Stop overreacting."
subego: "Yo check out this Trump handshake. LOL WTF"

[subego]

Pretend you're me* and give my apologist response to this.


*Drool bib included.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Pretend you're me* and give my apologist response to this.


*Drool bib included.

"At least I picked something original to this president "

[subego]

I have a sudden appreciation of what discussions with must be like.

I don't understand me.

[The Final Dakar]

Finally bipartisan agreement

[subego]

The reason I'm telling liberals to calm down is how often Trump is accused of X but isn't actually guilty of X.

Example from this weekend:

"Our opponents, the media and the whole world will soon see, as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned"


Liberals: OMG! OMG! He's admitting he thinks he's a dictator!

What was actually meant: His directives won't be questioned because they're going to be that good.


With the handshake, he's pretty unequivocally doing X.

[The Final Dakar]

Yeah, that interpretation seems, uh generous. In context with substantial powers, I have to disagree.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Yeah, that interpretation seems, uh generous. In context with substantial powers, I have to disagree.

Okay, let's work with that interpretation. I'm flexible.

Is young Gene Siskel guy saying:

"The system, courts included, give the president substantial powers over immigration, and he intends to use them."

Or

"Whateva, whateva, Trump do what he want!"


I'm seeing it universally reported as the latter.

[The Final Dakar]

He intends to use them is redundant as he already has.

Listen, let's assume you're right. I think your next comment would be that a good spokesman wouldn't have phrased it so poorly.

I'll be interested to see if this comes up during the press hearing today and how it's spun.

[The Final Dakar]

It looks like Trudeau actually had a strategy to counter Trumps handshake. And it worked.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

"Our opponents, the media and the whole world will soon see, as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned"

Even if you take a more measured view, painting the media as the enemy is just fuelling the conspiracy theorist segment among his base. Your system is supposed to be proud of checks and balances. The part about not being questioned goes against that and stinks of authoritarianism.

[subego]

The media pretty much is his enemy.

The not being questioned part reeks of being tone deaf. When the administration actually does something authoritarian to usurp the judiciary, then I'll pull out the knives.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

The media pretty much is his enemy.

The not being questioned part reeks of being tone deaf. When the administration actually does something authoritarian to usurp the judiciary, then I'll pull out the knives.

How do you feel about Trump putting the blame on the judge of a terror attack happens during the stay? Is that not a troubling thing?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

He might use harsh language?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Is that not a troubling thing?

Maybe?

I'm more worried it shows he's inclined to carelessly play some real hardball rather than he has coherent plans to defang the judiciary.

[The Final Dakar]

What do you mean by real hardball?

[subego]

Bully pulpiting a judge's decision.

[The Final Dakar]

You mean LOUD NOISES? He's undermining the function of one of three branches of government. Not the first by far, but his manner abdicates his responsibility in crafting the order as well.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

The media pretty much is his enemy.

Shouldn't that make it "My opponent" rather than "Ours"?

Originally Posted by subego 

The not being questioned part reeks of being tone deaf. When the administration actually does something authoritarian to usurp the judiciary, then I'll pull out the knives.

Would a second order getting around the court decision count as usurping the judiciary?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You mean LOUD NOISES? He's undermining the function of one of three branches of government. Not the first by far, but his manner abdicates his responsibility in crafting the order as well.

I agree he's abdicating responsibility, but that's a low bar for authoritarianism.

Whether his accusation undermines the judiciary is complicated. If I (or the judiciary) stand up for a principle, I am (or the judiciary is) responsible for the consequences. This is what makes being principled difficult in the first place.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Would a second order getting around the court decision count as usurping the judiciary?

If the second order was legal? No.

That's how the system is supposed to work.


Edit: in fact the judiciary will often in their decisions say precisely how to do it.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I agree he's abdicating responsibility, but that's a low bar for authoritarianism.

True

Whether his accusation undermines the judiciary is complicated. If I (or the judiciary) stand up for a principle, I am (or the judiciary is) responsible for the consequences. This is what makes being principled difficult in the first place.

That's somewhat misguided. You're not responsible if you follow the rules.

[The Final Dakar]

Two more bits of Russia in the news: the spy ship and the missiles. I can't tell if they're running interference or taking advantage of the situation.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's somewhat misguided. You're not responsible if you follow the rules.

Following the rules is a principle.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Following the rules is a principle.

Right, but you can't fault someone for doing that unless there's extreme circumstances. I realize that's the argument with the Muslim ban but the problem is there's no proof.

Arguably if there were some evidence it might not have been put on hold.

[Chongo]

The law in question being used.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Right, but you can't fault someone for doing that unless there's extreme circumstances. I realize that's the argument with the Muslim ban but the problem is there's no proof.

Arguably if there were some evidence it might not have been put on hold.

I think it's complicated, and it's more complicated by me not being too familiar with the specific case, and it's even more complicated because the SCOTUS could flip the decision.

Let me try it this way. From what I do know, the problem with the EO is it was poorly crafted and poorly defended in court. Trump probably could have gotten what he wanted if he had followed the proper procedure. Since Trump didn't, the judicial blowback is his fault.

Is him trying to pass the consequences of his own ****up onto the judiciary part of a concerted effort to destabilize them, or is Trump someone who never takes responsibility for his own ****ups, and points fingers like he's a toddler?

I think it's the latter. I'm troubled by that, but not by the ideology, because there isn't any.

[The Final Dakar]

The problem is there's more to this than just Trump. Trump is lashing out but his rhetoric undermining the judiciary also fits with Bannon his, you know, senior advisor and worm-tongue.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The problem is there's more to this than just Trump. Trump is lashing out but his rhetoric undermining the judiciary also fits with Bannon his, you know, senior advisor and worm-tongue.

I think it would be wise to keep an eye on Bannon, and of course if there is an attack, what was an infantile tantrum changes character. Especially if Trump doubles-down, which I imagine he would.

However, I can't preemptively jump him for that.

[The Final Dakar]

Rand Paul on Flynn: 'Makes no sense' to investigate fellow Republicans - CNNPolitics.com

"I just don't think it's useful to be doing investigation after investigation, particularly of your own party. We'll never even get started with doing the things we need to do, like repealing Obamacare, if we're spending our whole time having Republicans investigate Republicans. I think it makes no sense."

Uhhhhhhhhhh

[andi*pandi]

That would be HORRIBLE. I mean, it's just POINTLESS.

[The Final Dakar]

I guess I shouldn't be the surprised the libertarian doesn't care for oversight, but this is the definition of party over country. While I think it's extremely unlikely, the worst case scenario of Flynn investigation is that he was turned by the Russians. That has some serious security repercussions. At least it does compared to Benghazi.

[subego]

I don't necessarily agree with Paul, but I can see the argument it's not worth wasting time on a piece which is no longer on the board.

[subego]

I saw a mix tape of Siskel guy.

He was very belligerent, so I'll walk back my statements about him getting a raw deal.