Trump Caves

[rogue06]

Although there are ways to expedite it (at least to some degree) - yes, it will take time



Yes - it should be "the POTUS." I am SO glad you agree!







Oh I am SO going to love this...

I think you mean "by SCOTUS," or more accurately, "by the SCOTUS."

And he has two years, last I checked the calendar...


ETA: I am amazed how much fun that was!

You're kinda bored today aren't you?

[Cow Poke]

You're kinda bored today aren't you?

It's a slow day, so....

[carpedm9587]

You're kinda bored today aren't you?

Actually - my TWeb output is down a bit!


Seriously, a good chunk of what I do is develop course materials, which has me researching online and has me on my computer for many hours per day (lately 7 days per week). After I've created a page or two of content, the various fora I frequent are my "break."

And CP is a marvelous foil. Despite his amazingly wrong political views...and his penchant for questioning my honesty and/or integrity, he's a pretty decent human being. Someday, I hope to hoist a sasperallae... umm... sarperala... umm... saperelia...umm... oh heck... root beer with him.


(and yes, I know I switched to a different beverage...)

[carpedm9587]

It's a slow day, so....

He was talking to ME!

[Cow Poke]

Actually - my TWeb output is down a bit!


Seriously, a good chunk of what I do is develop course materials, which has me researching online and has me on my computer for many hours per day (lately 7 days per week). After I've created a page or two of content, the various fora I frequent are my "break."

And CP is a marvelous foil. Despite his amazingly wrong political views...and his penchant for questioning my honesty and/or integrity, he's a pretty decent human being. Someday, I hope to hoist a sasperallae... umm... sarperala... umm... saperelia...umm... oh heck... root beer with him.

So, let's be clear - I don't think I so much question your honesty and/or integrity as I do your judgment or objectivity... like the way you seem to endlessly defend Nathan Phillips when it's clear that he's just a political hack who has made a career of being this poor downtrodden victimized Vietnam Vet Native American. He's a fraud.

I have to wonder if you're just playing, because I know you're not that stupid.

[carpedm9587]

So, let's be clear - I don't think I so much question your honesty and/or integrity as I do your judgment or objectivity... like the way you seem to endlessly defend Nathan Phillips when it's clear that he's just a political hack who has made a career of being this poor downtrodden victimized Vietnam Vet Native American. He's a fraud.

Yeah - that continual perspective is why I disconnected from the discussion. It got to be pointless. For some reason I do not understand, "I'm not going to make a statement about a person not supported by evidence" gets translated into "defending the person." It's not a line of logic I understand, but it became clear that anything I said was going to be translated into "defending Phillips," and I got tired of repeating myself. And when it became a multi-person pile-on, with everyone else reinforcing one-another's misconceptions and misinterpretations - it became evident that further discussion was pointless. It's somewhat like trying to reason with a mob. I need to get better at spotting that dynamic earlier and getting out earlier. I end up wasting a great deal of time.

I have to wonder if you're just playing, because I know you're not that stupid.

Gee - you're generosity is just amazing. It's certainly not possible, at all, that you (and others) are reading things into my posts that I have not put there...

And I'm sure comments suggesting that Pelosi and Schummer "hate their country" are the epitome of good judgment and objectivity without one ounce of partisanship...

[Cow Poke]

Gee - you're generosity is just amazing.

your

It's certainly not possible, at all, that you (and others) are reading things into my posts that I have not put there...

I find that, generally, when numerous people perceive a speaker's intent as one way, the fault may well be in the speaker's communication, or lack thereof.

And I'm sure comments suggesting that Pelosi and Schummer "hate their country" are the epitome of good judgment and objectivity without one ounce of partisanship...

Can you please show where I ever implied that P&S hate their country?

[carpedm9587]

your

DAMN!

I find that, generally, when numerous people perceive a speaker's intent as one way, the fault may well be in the speaker's communication, or lack thereof.

Yeah - most of the time, I do too. This site seems to be an exception. I communicate for a living, CP. I communicate by written and spoken word, and I am pretty successful at it - given that it has paid the bills for almost three decades now. And my clients keep coming back and asking for more. I am certainly capable of a verbal gaff - no question about it. However, when I have tried multiple different ways to articulate a concept, I have to begin to wonder about the intent of the listeners. And when I explicitly say, "no - you did not understand what I said" and "no, that is not what I am saying" and continually get told "yes it is" - well... at that point it's time to stop. when someone else is telling me what I meant, the discussion has become pointless.

I just don't stop soon enough. I need to work on that.

Can you please show where I ever implied that P&S hate their country?

So this appears to be my misreading of your post (see what I did there? you might want to consider trying it...)

You actually wrote: "Because they (specifically Pelosi and Schumer) hate Trump more than they love our country. They are consumed with hate and winning politically at all costs."

I misread the first part and mangled it into "they hate our country." That is clearly not what you said, so my apologies.

However, just shift the comment to the latter part. Certainly "They are consumed with hate and winning politically at all costs" is the opinion of a nonpartisan person of sound judgment. Really, CP, I have to wonder why there is so much apparent vitriol. Schummer and Pelosi are no different than McConnell and Ryan: they are party leaders looking to advance their agenda. Of course they want to win - all politicians do. But "consumed with hate?" Much as I disagree with McConnell's choices and find many of the things he has done to be underhanded - I am under no illusion he is "consumed with hate." He's twisting the levers of power any way he can.

And then you question my judgment and objectivity?

[Cow Poke]

Yeah - most of the time, I do too. This site seems to be an exception. I communicate for a living, CP. I communicate by written and spoken word, and I am pretty successful at it - given that it has paid the bills for almost three decades now.

The fact that you earn money doing it for a living is not proof that you're effective at it here in this medium.

I am capable of a verbal gaff - no question about it. When I have tried multiple different ways to articulate a concept, I have to begin to wonder about the intent of the listeners. And when I explicitly say, "no - you did not understand what I said" and "no, that is not what I am saying" and continually get told it is - well... at that point it's time to stop. I just don't stop soon enough. I need to work on that.

You know how I feel about that -- I think that, often times, your message gets lost in your verbosity. And your "teaching" is in an environment where you're 'god'.

So this appears to be my misreading of your post (see what I did there? you might want to consider trying it...)

Well, look at what I actually SAID, as opposed to your presumed inverse of it.

You actually wrote: "Because they (specifically Pelosi and Schumer) hate Trump more than they love our country. They are consumed with hate and winning politically at all costs."

Yes, that's what I said.

I misread the first part and mangled it into "they hate our country."

I noticed.

That is clearly not what you said.

Obviously.

So I'll just shift to the latter part. Certainly "They are consumed with hate and winning politically at all costs" is the opinion of a nonpartisan person of sound judgment.

I have never claimed to be nonpartisan, Carpe. Not even hinted at it.

Really, CP, I have to wonder why there is so much apparent vitriol.

Vitriol? Pelosi and Schumer are the very definition of "career politicians".

Schummer and Pelosi are no different than McConnell and Ryan:

WHATABOUTISM!!!! (And, at LEAST pay Schumer the respect of spelling his name correctly! )

they are party leaders looking to advance their agenda. Of course they want to win - all politicians do. But "consumed with hate?"

Context, my friend - context! It was about their hatred of TRUMP.... Here's the CONTEXT you skipped over, rushing to the "consumed with hate" part -- "Because they (specifically Pelosi and Schumer) hate Trump more than they love our country".

Much as I disagree with McConnell choices and find many of the things he has done to be underhanded - I am under no illusion he is "consumed with hate."

He's not opposing Trump - Trump has a special way of getting under the skin of his opposition.

And then you question my judgment and objectivity?

I do.

[carpedm9587]

The fact that you earn money doing it for a living is not proof that you're effective at it here in this medium.

Why do you think "this medium" is any different than the media I normally communicate in? Perhaps you are not aware that I do a significant amount of my communicating online? Or does "this medium" refer to "a conservative Christian forum?"

You know how I feel about that -- I think that, often times, your message gets lost in your verbosity. And your "teaching" is in an environment where you're 'god'.

Verbosity I am indeed guilty of. And I am hardly "god," CP. I think you perhaps do not understand the venues in which I teach.

Well, look at what I actually SAID, as opposed to your presumed inverse of it.

Yes, that's what I said.

I noticed.

Obviously.

I have never claimed to be nonpartisan, Carpe. Not even hinted at it.

Vitriol? Pelosi and Schumer are the very definition of "career politicians".

WHATABOUTISM!!!! (And, at LEAST pay Schumer the respect of spelling his name correctly! )

Context, my friend - context! It was about their hatred of TRUMP.... Here's the CONTEXT you skipped over, rushing to the "consumed with hate" part -- "Because they (specifically Pelosi and Schumer) hate Trump more than they love our country".

He's not opposing Trump - Trump has a special way of getting under the skin of his opposition.

I do.

Then have at it. I'll pay serious attention when you've removed the log from your own eye...

[Cow Poke]

Why do you think "this medium" is any different than the media I normally communicate in? Perhaps you are not aware that I do a significant amount of my communicating online? Or does "this medium" refer to "a conservative Christian forum?"

You, for the most part, are in hostile territory here.

Verbosity I am indeed guilty of.

I know.

And I am hardly "god," CP.

Oh, you wouldn't fool me in the least!

I think you perhaps do not understand the venues in which I teach.

Feel free to enlighten me? It's not a classroom setting where you have the fate of the students in your little grade book?

Then have at it. I'll pay serious attention when you've removed the log from your own eye...

Aw, come on...... you're seriously taking this personally?

[Tassman]

Not really.

Most likely Democrats are going to continue to dig their heels in and refuse to sit down at the bargaining table despite Trump's numerous concessions. At the end of three-weeks, if Democrats still don't have a deal, and they most likely won't, it will give Trump the opportunity to say, "I did everything I could to reach a comprise, but the Democrat leadership has left me with no choice but to declare a state of emergency."

The Dems will have a deal. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not rule out funding for additional physical barriers along the US-Mexico border.

https://www.businessinsider.com/nanc...wn-deal-2019-1

The Dems have never been against border security as such. Their position has merely been that a wall is not the panacea for border security that Trump and his followers seem to think. The Dems have long agreed that strategic fencing is necessary in some areas. Indeed, 700 miles of the existing fencing was erected during the Obama era.

One of the easiest ways to defeat your opponents is to let them think they're winning.

[firstfloor]

[firstfloor]

The MAGA hats are a fascist uniform but it is important to realise that they do not know or they deny the history they have been taught and therefore they have no conception of the path they are on or where it leads. This is why history repeats itself.

[firstfloor]