Orange Duce

The odds are excellent that you will leave this forum hating someone.
OCanada
Posts: 3457
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:36 pm

Re: Orange Duce

Post by OCanada »

old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:11 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:02 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:23 pm
OCanada wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:16 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:19 pm
jhu72 wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:06 pm Jessica Tarlov over on Fox pushed back against the usual liars claiming the divisiveness is all the Dem's fault -- the liars claim that Biden is lying about Trump's Charlottesville claim that the Tiki Torch marchers were fine people. Trump didn't say it according to the liars. :lol: Tarlov called bull*hit, she gave the obvious examples that lays the fault at the feet of Trump for all his divisive comments - like mocking Pelosi's husband after he was beaten with a hammer.

This was refreshing.
Read the entire transcript. He was referring to the peaceful protesters (with a permit) who were there to protest the removal of the statue of Robert E Lee & the renaming of the park.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/ ... ipt-241662
Seriously?? Trump lied 30,000x in office, has bern lying ever dince and was known for it back when? He said he wants to be accurate and not rush in yet he has a life time of not doing that. He was trying to play both sides. Why not tske one of his “rally” speeches and deconstruct it
This is specifically about who he was referring to in his "fine people on both sides " comment about Charlottesville.
At the very most generous, what you are saying is that Trump believes that people who were protesting taking down a memorial to Robert E. Lee in a public park, constructed specifically during Jim Crow as a symbol of continued white supremacy in that region, and being removed consistent with the wishes now of the community within which that public park exists, and which removal was publicly supported by the descendants of Lee, are "very fine people"?

That's the most generous interpretation.

Very fine people.

Yup, racists are very fine people.
That's the most generous interpretation.
That's your interpretation of history & your judgement that they are racists for wanting to preserve a symbol of their heritage.

What's next ? Remove the headstones from the graves of fallen CSA soldiers ?

Old Salt on the one hand wants to play the naive poster except when he wants to get into a topic which he will often use to misdirect attention.
OCanada
Posts: 3457
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:36 pm

Re: Orange Duce

Post by OCanada »

old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:11 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:02 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:23 pm
OCanada wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:16 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:19 pm
jhu72 wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:06 pm Jessica Tarlov over on Fox pushed back against the usual liars claiming the divisiveness is all the Dem's fault -- the liars claim that Biden is lying about Trump's Charlottesville claim that the Tiki Torch marchers were fine people. Trump didn't say it according to the liars. :lol: Tarlov called bull*hit, she gave the obvious examples that lays the fault at the feet of Trump for all his divisive comments - like mocking Pelosi's husband after he was beaten with a hammer.

This was refreshing.
Read the entire transcript. He was referring to the peaceful protesters (with a permit) who were there to protest the removal of the statue of Robert E Lee & the renaming of the park.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/ ... ipt-241662
Seriously?? Trump lied 30,000x in office, has bern lying ever dince and was known for it back when? He said he wants to be accurate and not rush in yet he has a life time of not doing that. He was trying to play both sides. Why not tske one of his “rally” speeches and deconstruct it
This is specifically about who he was referring to in his "fine people on both sides " comment about Charlottesville.
At the very most generous, what you are saying is that Trump believes that people who were protesting taking down a memorial to Robert E. Lee in a public park, constructed specifically during Jim Crow as a symbol of continued white supremacy in that region, and being removed consistent with the wishes now of the community within which that public park exists, and which removal was publicly supported by the descendants of Lee, are "very fine people"?

That's the most generous interpretation.

Very fine people.

Yup, racists are very fine people.
That's the most generous interpretation.
That's your interpretation of history & your judgement that they are racists for wanting to preserve a symbol of their heritage.

What's next ? Remove the headstones from the graves of fallen CSA soldiers ?
Not at all what is being said.
OCanada
Posts: 3457
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:36 pm

Re: Orange Duce

Post by OCanada »

I believe it was YA who commented on responsibikity and Trump in re the shooting.

Yrs the Republican party bears a great deal of responsibility and rightly so. For several millenia the hate begets hate has been known and used. The more precise term is “ emotional contagion “
PizzaSnake
Posts: 5194
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:36 pm

Re: Orange Duce

Post by PizzaSnake »

old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:11 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:02 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:23 pm
OCanada wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:16 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:19 pm
jhu72 wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:06 pm Jessica Tarlov over on Fox pushed back against the usual liars claiming the divisiveness is all the Dem's fault -- the liars claim that Biden is lying about Trump's Charlottesville claim that the Tiki Torch marchers were fine people. Trump didn't say it according to the liars. :lol: Tarlov called bull*hit, she gave the obvious examples that lays the fault at the feet of Trump for all his divisive comments - like mocking Pelosi's husband after he was beaten with a hammer.

This was refreshing.
Read the entire transcript. He was referring to the peaceful protesters (with a permit) who were there to protest the removal of the statue of Robert E Lee & the renaming of the park.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/ ... ipt-241662
Seriously?? Trump lied 30,000x in office, has bern lying ever dince and was known for it back when? He said he wants to be accurate and not rush in yet he has a life time of not doing that. He was trying to play both sides. Why not tske one of his “rally” speeches and deconstruct it
This is specifically about who he was referring to in his "fine people on both sides " comment about Charlottesville.
At the very most generous, what you are saying is that Trump believes that people who were protesting taking down a memorial to Robert E. Lee in a public park, constructed specifically during Jim Crow as a symbol of continued white supremacy in that region, and being removed consistent with the wishes now of the community within which that public park exists, and which removal was publicly supported by the descendants of Lee, are "very fine people"?

That's the most generous interpretation.

Very fine people.

Yup, racists are very fine people.
That's the most generous interpretation.
That's your interpretation of history & your judgement that they are racists for wanting to preserve a symbol of their heritage.

What's next ? Remove the headstones from the graves of fallen CSA soldiers ?
Well, they did take up arms against their country.
"There is nothing more difficult and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes. One makes enemies of those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support from those who would prosper under the new."
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 26874
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: Orange Duce

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:11 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:02 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:23 pm
OCanada wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:16 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:19 pm
jhu72 wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:06 pm Jessica Tarlov over on Fox pushed back against the usual liars claiming the divisiveness is all the Dem's fault -- the liars claim that Biden is lying about Trump's Charlottesville claim that the Tiki Torch marchers were fine people. Trump didn't say it according to the liars. :lol: Tarlov called bull*hit, she gave the obvious examples that lays the fault at the feet of Trump for all his divisive comments - like mocking Pelosi's husband after he was beaten with a hammer.

This was refreshing.
Read the entire transcript. He was referring to the peaceful protesters (with a permit) who were there to protest the removal of the statue of Robert E Lee & the renaming of the park.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/ ... ipt-241662
Seriously?? Trump lied 30,000x in office, has bern lying ever dince and was known for it back when? He said he wants to be accurate and not rush in yet he has a life time of not doing that. He was trying to play both sides. Why not tske one of his “rally” speeches and deconstruct it
This is specifically about who he was referring to in his "fine people on both sides " comment about Charlottesville.
At the very most generous, what you are saying is that Trump believes that people who were protesting taking down a memorial to Robert E. Lee in a public park, constructed specifically during Jim Crow as a symbol of continued white supremacy in that region, and being removed consistent with the wishes now of the community within which that public park exists, and which removal was publicly supported by the descendants of Lee, are "very fine people"?

That's the most generous interpretation.

Very fine people.

Yup, racists are very fine people.
That's the most generous interpretation.
That's your interpretation of history & your judgement that they are racists for wanting to preserve a symbol of their heritage.

What's next ? Remove the headstones from the graves of fallen CSA soldiers ?
Yes, that's my interpretation and judgment.
It's obviously not Trump's.
As I said, that's the most generous interpretation, as offered up by you, of Trump's remarks.

So, as we've said so often, he's either really stupid or he's racist...or both.

Let's be clear, those who 'want to preserve a symbol of their heritage' are free to do so in a museum which makes clear what that symbol really means, but they aren't free, if a community decides otherwise, to force others to see that symbol in a public park maintained with public dollars. They aren't free to demand, over the majority of the public's will, that military bases continue to be named for traitors to this country, nor parks, nor roads or bridges.

Let's also be clear, finally, that "their heritage" is Jim Crow and slavery and the horrific loss of life in the Civil War fought to extend the practice of slavery in additional territories and ultimately to continue slavery in their own states. That's "their heritage". No sugar coating. My ancestors fought on both sides, likely more the South than the North. Slaveholders among them. KKK among them. But I certainly am not nostalgic for my "heritage" as such. Pretty simple choice.

A less generous interpretation is that Trump was refusing to wholeheartedly condemn the neo-Nazis because he wanted their support both electorally and as his brown shirts to come, Proud Boys et al. Blood and Soil. "Jews will not replace us"...couldn't flat out reject, had to say "very fine people" were "protesting peacefully".

But the generous interpretation is enough for me.

As to gravestones, in what cemetery?
Certainly they deserve no place of special public honor.

But I oppose disturbing graves in principle.
Last edited by MDlaxfan76 on Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18608
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: Orange Duce

Post by old salt »

MDlaxfan76 wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:39 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:11 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:02 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:23 pm
OCanada wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:16 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:19 pm
jhu72 wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:06 pm Jessica Tarlov over on Fox pushed back against the usual liars claiming the divisiveness is all the Dem's fault -- the liars claim that Biden is lying about Trump's Charlottesville claim that the Tiki Torch marchers were fine people. Trump didn't say it according to the liars. :lol: Tarlov called bull*hit, she gave the obvious examples that lays the fault at the feet of Trump for all his divisive comments - like mocking Pelosi's husband after he was beaten with a hammer.

This was refreshing.
Read the entire transcript. He was referring to the peaceful protesters (with a permit) who were there to protest the removal of the statue of Robert E Lee & the renaming of the park.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/ ... ipt-241662
Seriously?? Trump lied 30,000x in office, has bern lying ever dince and was known for it back when? He said he wants to be accurate and not rush in yet he has a life time of not doing that. He was trying to play both sides. Why not tske one of his “rally” speeches and deconstruct it
This is specifically about who he was referring to in his "fine people on both sides " comment about Charlottesville.
At the very most generous, what you are saying is that Trump believes that people who were protesting taking down a memorial to Robert E. Lee in a public park, constructed specifically during Jim Crow as a symbol of continued white supremacy in that region, and being removed consistent with the wishes now of the community within which that public park exists, and which removal was publicly supported by the descendants of Lee, are "very fine people"?

That's the most generous interpretation.

Very fine people.

Yup, racists are very fine people.
That's the most generous interpretation.
That's your interpretation of history & your judgement that they are racists for wanting to preserve a symbol of their heritage.

What's next ? Remove the headstones from the graves of fallen CSA soldiers ?
Yes, that's my interpretation and judgment.
It's obviously not Trump's.
As I said, that's the most generous interpretation, as offered up by you, of Trump's remarks.

So, as we've said so often, he's either really stupid or he's racist...or both.

Let's be clear, those who 'want to preserve a symbol of their heritage' are free to do so in a museum which makes clear what that symbol really means, but they aren't free, if a community decides otherwise, to force others to see that symbol in a public park maintained with public dollars. They aren't free to demand, over the majority of the public's will, that military bases continue to be named for traitors to this country, nor parks, nor roads or bridges.

Let's also be clear, finally, that "their heritage" is Jim Crow and slavery and the horrific loss of life in the Civil War fought to extend the practice of slavery in additional territories and ultimately to continue slavery in their own states. That's "their heritage". No sugar coating.

A less generous interpretation is that Trump was refusing to wholeheartedly condemn the neo-Nazis because he wanted their support both electorally and as his brown shirts to come, Proud Boys et al. Blood and Soil. "Jews will not replace us"...couldn't flat out reject, had to say "very fine people" were "protesting peacefully".

But the generous interpretation is enough for me.
But they are permitted to peacefully demonstrate in support of retaining the symbols of their heritage, ...no matter how you judge it > 150 years later.
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 26874
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: Orange Duce

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:43 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:39 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:11 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:02 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:23 pm
OCanada wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:16 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:19 pm
jhu72 wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:06 pm Jessica Tarlov over on Fox pushed back against the usual liars claiming the divisiveness is all the Dem's fault -- the liars claim that Biden is lying about Trump's Charlottesville claim that the Tiki Torch marchers were fine people. Trump didn't say it according to the liars. :lol: Tarlov called bull*hit, she gave the obvious examples that lays the fault at the feet of Trump for all his divisive comments - like mocking Pelosi's husband after he was beaten with a hammer.

This was refreshing.
Read the entire transcript. He was referring to the peaceful protesters (with a permit) who were there to protest the removal of the statue of Robert E Lee & the renaming of the park.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/ ... ipt-241662
Seriously?? Trump lied 30,000x in office, has bern lying ever dince and was known for it back when? He said he wants to be accurate and not rush in yet he has a life time of not doing that. He was trying to play both sides. Why not tske one of his “rally” speeches and deconstruct it
This is specifically about who he was referring to in his "fine people on both sides " comment about Charlottesville.
At the very most generous, what you are saying is that Trump believes that people who were protesting taking down a memorial to Robert E. Lee in a public park, constructed specifically during Jim Crow as a symbol of continued white supremacy in that region, and being removed consistent with the wishes now of the community within which that public park exists, and which removal was publicly supported by the descendants of Lee, are "very fine people"?

That's the most generous interpretation.

Very fine people.

Yup, racists are very fine people.
That's the most generous interpretation.
That's your interpretation of history & your judgement that they are racists for wanting to preserve a symbol of their heritage.

What's next ? Remove the headstones from the graves of fallen CSA soldiers ?
Yes, that's my interpretation and judgment.
It's obviously not Trump's.
As I said, that's the most generous interpretation, as offered up by you, of Trump's remarks.

So, as we've said so often, he's either really stupid or he's racist...or both.

Let's be clear, those who 'want to preserve a symbol of their heritage' are free to do so in a museum which makes clear what that symbol really means, but they aren't free, if a community decides otherwise, to force others to see that symbol in a public park maintained with public dollars. They aren't free to demand, over the majority of the public's will, that military bases continue to be named for traitors to this country, nor parks, nor roads or bridges.

Let's also be clear, finally, that "their heritage" is Jim Crow and slavery and the horrific loss of life in the Civil War fought to extend the practice of slavery in additional territories and ultimately to continue slavery in their own states. That's "their heritage". No sugar coating.

A less generous interpretation is that Trump was refusing to wholeheartedly condemn the neo-Nazis because he wanted their support both electorally and as his brown shirts to come, Proud Boys et al. Blood and Soil. "Jews will not replace us"...couldn't flat out reject, had to say "very fine people" were "protesting peacefully".

But the generous interpretation is enough for me.
But they are permitted to peacefully demonstrate in support of retaining the symbols of their heritage, ...no matter how you judge it > 150 years later.
Permitted, sure.

Respected, no.
Very fine people, no.

BTW, I think people are complex, made up of more than one aspect of their characters and judgments. I know plenty of pretty deplorable racists who take care of their dogs with kindness and don't kick their wives or children either. But in this context of a violent protest leading to the death of an innocent, doesn't make them "very fine people".
Last edited by MDlaxfan76 on Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
PizzaSnake
Posts: 5194
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:36 pm

Re: Orange Duce

Post by PizzaSnake »

I hope no one here is reliant on any federal services. What do you suppose will occur in the event Trump and Vance are elected, given this:

"Vance has also obliquely expressed support for Trump’s plans to overhaul the federal civil service, which include reinstituting Schedule F, an abortive effort at the end of the former president’s first term that would have reclassified tens of thousands of federal employees in “policy-related” jobs into excepted service positions, effectively making them at-will employees.

I think that what Trump should, like, if I was giving him one piece of advice, [is] fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state,” he said on a 2021 podcast appearance. “Replace them with our people. And when the courts—because you will get taken to court—and when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say, ‘The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.’”

I would be willing to bet a significant portion of federal workers who are retirement eligible (and there are a lot of those)

"The federal workforce is older on average. Almost 30 percent (635,397) of employees are older than 55, while 8.1 percent (176,805) of employees are younger than 30. By comparison, in the private sector, 23 percent of the workforce is younger than 30. Every single agency has fewer employees younger than 30 today than they had in 2010."

Current MRA is here:

https://www.opm.gov/retirement-center/f ... igibility/


will exit stage left. Some of you might think this is a good thing. I guess we'll see when things stop working: SS payments, Medicare, the Pentagon, procurement offices that administer government contracts, etc.

Oh, and if you think "their people" can fill all of those positions and be effective day one you are delusional, because it won't be just "mid-level" employees who pull the ripcord, it will be ALL eligible workers.

And that will be just a little cherry on top for the unrest and tumult said coronation would impart. Buckle up, OS and YA, 'cause you might well soon live "in interesting times."
"There is nothing more difficult and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes. One makes enemies of those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support from those who would prosper under the new."
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 26874
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: Orange Duce

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

Project 2025.
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18608
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: Orange Duce

Post by old salt »

MDlaxfan76 wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:45 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:43 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:39 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:11 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:02 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:23 pm
OCanada wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:16 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:19 pm
jhu72 wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:06 pm Jessica Tarlov over on Fox pushed back against the usual liars claiming the divisiveness is all the Dem's fault -- the liars claim that Biden is lying about Trump's Charlottesville claim that the Tiki Torch marchers were fine people. Trump didn't say it according to the liars. :lol: Tarlov called bull*hit, she gave the obvious examples that lays the fault at the feet of Trump for all his divisive comments - like mocking Pelosi's husband after he was beaten with a hammer.

This was refreshing.
Read the entire transcript. He was referring to the peaceful protesters (with a permit) who were there to protest the removal of the statue of Robert E Lee & the renaming of the park.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/ ... ipt-241662
Seriously?? Trump lied 30,000x in office, has bern lying ever dince and was known for it back when? He said he wants to be accurate and not rush in yet he has a life time of not doing that. He was trying to play both sides. Why not tske one of his “rally” speeches and deconstruct it
This is specifically about who he was referring to in his "fine people on both sides " comment about Charlottesville.
At the very most generous, what you are saying is that Trump believes that people who were protesting taking down a memorial to Robert E. Lee in a public park, constructed specifically during Jim Crow as a symbol of continued white supremacy in that region, and being removed consistent with the wishes now of the community within which that public park exists, and which removal was publicly supported by the descendants of Lee, are "very fine people"?

That's the most generous interpretation.

Very fine people.

Yup, racists are very fine people.
That's the most generous interpretation.
That's your interpretation of history & your judgement that they are racists for wanting to preserve a symbol of their heritage.

What's next ? Remove the headstones from the graves of fallen CSA soldiers ?
Yes, that's my interpretation and judgment.
It's obviously not Trump's.
As I said, that's the most generous interpretation, as offered up by you, of Trump's remarks.

So, as we've said so often, he's either really stupid or he's racist...or both.

Let's be clear, those who 'want to preserve a symbol of their heritage' are free to do so in a museum which makes clear what that symbol really means, but they aren't free, if a community decides otherwise, to force others to see that symbol in a public park maintained with public dollars. They aren't free to demand, over the majority of the public's will, that military bases continue to be named for traitors to this country, nor parks, nor roads or bridges.

Let's also be clear, finally, that "their heritage" is Jim Crow and slavery and the horrific loss of life in the Civil War fought to extend the practice of slavery in additional territories and ultimately to continue slavery in their own states. That's "their heritage". No sugar coating.

A less generous interpretation is that Trump was refusing to wholeheartedly condemn the neo-Nazis because he wanted their support both electorally and as his brown shirts to come, Proud Boys et al. Blood and Soil. "Jews will not replace us"...couldn't flat out reject, had to say "very fine people" were "protesting peacefully".

But the generous interpretation is enough for me.
But they are permitted to peacefully demonstrate in support of retaining the symbols of their heritage, ...no matter how you judge it > 150 years later.
Permitted, sure.

Respected, no.
Very fine people, no.

BTW, I think people are complex, made up of more than one aspect of their characters and judgments. I know plenty of pretty deplorable racists who take care of their dogs with kindness and don't kick their wives or children either. But in this context of a violent protest leading to the death of an innocent, doesn't make them "very fine people".
:lol: ...when did you stop beating your wife ...& dogs ?
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 26874
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: Orange Duce

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 6:01 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:45 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:43 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:39 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:11 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:02 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:23 pm
OCanada wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:16 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:19 pm
jhu72 wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:06 pm Jessica Tarlov over on Fox pushed back against the usual liars claiming the divisiveness is all the Dem's fault -- the liars claim that Biden is lying about Trump's Charlottesville claim that the Tiki Torch marchers were fine people. Trump didn't say it according to the liars. :lol: Tarlov called bull*hit, she gave the obvious examples that lays the fault at the feet of Trump for all his divisive comments - like mocking Pelosi's husband after he was beaten with a hammer.

This was refreshing.
Read the entire transcript. He was referring to the peaceful protesters (with a permit) who were there to protest the removal of the statue of Robert E Lee & the renaming of the park.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/ ... ipt-241662
Seriously?? Trump lied 30,000x in office, has bern lying ever dince and was known for it back when? He said he wants to be accurate and not rush in yet he has a life time of not doing that. He was trying to play both sides. Why not tske one of his “rally” speeches and deconstruct it
This is specifically about who he was referring to in his "fine people on both sides " comment about Charlottesville.
At the very most generous, what you are saying is that Trump believes that people who were protesting taking down a memorial to Robert E. Lee in a public park, constructed specifically during Jim Crow as a symbol of continued white supremacy in that region, and being removed consistent with the wishes now of the community within which that public park exists, and which removal was publicly supported by the descendants of Lee, are "very fine people"?

That's the most generous interpretation.

Very fine people.

Yup, racists are very fine people.
That's the most generous interpretation.
That's your interpretation of history & your judgement that they are racists for wanting to preserve a symbol of their heritage.

What's next ? Remove the headstones from the graves of fallen CSA soldiers ?
Yes, that's my interpretation and judgment.
It's obviously not Trump's.
As I said, that's the most generous interpretation, as offered up by you, of Trump's remarks.

So, as we've said so often, he's either really stupid or he's racist...or both.

Let's be clear, those who 'want to preserve a symbol of their heritage' are free to do so in a museum which makes clear what that symbol really means, but they aren't free, if a community decides otherwise, to force others to see that symbol in a public park maintained with public dollars. They aren't free to demand, over the majority of the public's will, that military bases continue to be named for traitors to this country, nor parks, nor roads or bridges.

Let's also be clear, finally, that "their heritage" is Jim Crow and slavery and the horrific loss of life in the Civil War fought to extend the practice of slavery in additional territories and ultimately to continue slavery in their own states. That's "their heritage". No sugar coating.

A less generous interpretation is that Trump was refusing to wholeheartedly condemn the neo-Nazis because he wanted their support both electorally and as his brown shirts to come, Proud Boys et al. Blood and Soil. "Jews will not replace us"...couldn't flat out reject, had to say "very fine people" were "protesting peacefully".

But the generous interpretation is enough for me.
But they are permitted to peacefully demonstrate in support of retaining the symbols of their heritage, ...no matter how you judge it > 150 years later.
Permitted, sure.

Respected, no.
Very fine people, no.

BTW, I think people are complex, made up of more than one aspect of their characters and judgments. I know plenty of pretty deplorable racists who take care of their dogs with kindness and don't kick their wives or children either. But in this context of a violent protest leading to the death of an innocent, doesn't make them "very fine people".
:lol: ...when did you stop beating your wife ...& dogs ?
:D I'm assuming you don't do so either... ;)
DMac
Posts: 9267
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:02 am

Re: Orange Duce

Post by DMac »

Only the chihuahuas but that's an understandable exception.
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 33521
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: Orange Duce

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:43 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:39 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:11 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:02 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:23 pm
OCanada wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:16 pm
old salt wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:19 pm
jhu72 wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:06 pm Jessica Tarlov over on Fox pushed back against the usual liars claiming the divisiveness is all the Dem's fault -- the liars claim that Biden is lying about Trump's Charlottesville claim that the Tiki Torch marchers were fine people. Trump didn't say it according to the liars. :lol: Tarlov called bull*hit, she gave the obvious examples that lays the fault at the feet of Trump for all his divisive comments - like mocking Pelosi's husband after he was beaten with a hammer.

This was refreshing.
Read the entire transcript. He was referring to the peaceful protesters (with a permit) who were there to protest the removal of the statue of Robert E Lee & the renaming of the park.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/ ... ipt-241662
Seriously?? Trump lied 30,000x in office, has bern lying ever dince and was known for it back when? He said he wants to be accurate and not rush in yet he has a life time of not doing that. He was trying to play both sides. Why not tske one of his “rally” speeches and deconstruct it
This is specifically about who he was referring to in his "fine people on both sides " comment about Charlottesville.
At the very most generous, what you are saying is that Trump believes that people who were protesting taking down a memorial to Robert E. Lee in a public park, constructed specifically during Jim Crow as a symbol of continued white supremacy in that region, and being removed consistent with the wishes now of the community within which that public park exists, and which removal was publicly supported by the descendants of Lee, are "very fine people"?

That's the most generous interpretation.

Very fine people.

Yup, racists are very fine people.
That's the most generous interpretation.
That's your interpretation of history & your judgement that they are racists for wanting to preserve a symbol of their heritage.

What's next ? Remove the headstones from the graves of fallen CSA soldiers ?
Yes, that's my interpretation and judgment.
It's obviously not Trump's.
As I said, that's the most generous interpretation, as offered up by you, of Trump's remarks.

So, as we've said so often, he's either really stupid or he's racist...or both.

Let's be clear, those who 'want to preserve a symbol of their heritage' are free to do so in a museum which makes clear what that symbol really means, but they aren't free, if a community decides otherwise, to force others to see that symbol in a public park maintained with public dollars. They aren't free to demand, over the majority of the public's will, that military bases continue to be named for traitors to this country, nor parks, nor roads or bridges.

Let's also be clear, finally, that "their heritage" is Jim Crow and slavery and the horrific loss of life in the Civil War fought to extend the practice of slavery in additional territories and ultimately to continue slavery in their own states. That's "their heritage". No sugar coating.

A less generous interpretation is that Trump was refusing to wholeheartedly condemn the neo-Nazis because he wanted their support both electorally and as his brown shirts to come, Proud Boys et al. Blood and Soil. "Jews will not replace us"...couldn't flat out reject, had to say "very fine people" were "protesting peacefully".

But the generous interpretation is enough for me.
But they are permitted to peacefully demonstrate in support of retaining the symbols of their heritage, ...no matter how you judge it > 150 years later.


The type of heritage an Old Soldier can be proud of….who are we to judge how America celebrates this heritage….
“I wish you would!”
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 26874
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: Orange Duce

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 33521
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: Orange Duce

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

https://www.threads.net/@sweet_leaf718/ ... ZoG-6nbBHQ

Just some more good folks proud of their heritage. Who are we to judge?
“I wish you would!”
jhu72
Posts: 14409
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: Orange Duce

Post by jhu72 »

DMac wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 6:22 pm Only the chihuahuas but that's an understandable exception.
... they are not dogs, they are closely related to rats. Nasty ones at that. ;)
Image STAND AGAINST FASCISM
jhu72
Posts: 14409
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: Orange Duce

Post by jhu72 »

MDlaxfan76 wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 9:40 pm JD Vance on Trump: https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/15/politics ... index.html
... the right's spin on this will be a classic. :lol: :lol:
Image STAND AGAINST FASCISM
Seacoaster(1)
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am

Re: Orange Duce

Post by Seacoaster(1) »

Neal Katyal in the Times today, canvassing some of the stuff, well, overlooked or misapprehended by Judge Cannon:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/15/opin ... ments.html

"Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to throw out serious national-security criminal charges in the classified documents case against Donald Trump is legally unsupported, ignores decades of precedent and is deeply dangerous.

At a time when Americans need to trust their institutions, her decision to declare that the appointment of the special counsel overseeing the case, Jack Smith, “violates the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution” will undermine that trust and the legitimacy of high-level investigations in the eyes of many Americans.

Her decision is quite unlikely to survive the tests of time, or even the appeal Mr. Smith’s office said he intends to make. But it will further delay a case that has moved so slowly under her direction that it was already virtually certain it would never go to a jury before Election Day.

Judge Cannon asserts that no law of Congress authorizes the special counsel. That is palpably false. The special counsel regulations were drafted under specific congressional laws authorizing them.

Since 1966, Congress has had a specific law, Section 515, giving the attorney general the power to commission attorneys “specially retained under authority of the Department of Justice” as “special assistant[s] to the attorney general or special attorney[s].” Another provision in that law said that a lawyer appointed by the attorney general under the law may “conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal,” that other U.S. attorneys are “authorized by law to conduct.”

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
Yet another part of that law, Section 533, says the attorney general can appoint officials “to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States.” These sections were specifically cited when Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Mr. Smith as a special counsel. If Congress doesn’t like these laws, it can repeal them. But until then, the law is the law.

I drafted the special counsel regulations for the Justice Department to replace the Independent Counsel Act in 1999 when I worked at the department. Janet Reno, the attorney general at the time, and I then went to Capitol Hill to brief Congress on the proposed rules over a period of weeks. We met with House and Senate leaders, along with their legal staffs, as well as the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. We walked them extensively through each provision. Not one person raised a legal concern in those meetings. Indeed, Ken Starr, who was then serving as an independent counsel, told Congress that the special counsel regulations were exactly the way to go.

Eight separate judges had already rejected the claim that Judge Cannon has now endorsed (including, by the way, the judge presiding over Hunter Biden’s criminal case). It is true that one Supreme Court justice, Clarence Thomas, recently wrote a concurring opinion in the Trump immunity case questioning the legality of the position of special counsel. No other justice joined that opinion, and even Justice Thomas did not come to the conclusions that Judge Cannon did — he simply raised “essential questions” about the office. And his questions ignored a well-trod tradition in America as well as the statutory landscape.

We’ve had special counsels and special prosecutors since at least the time of President Ulysses Grant after the Civil War. That is for a simple reason: We need a system to police high-level executive branch wrongdoing, and the system can’t be run by the president and his appointees alone.

Consider the real-world implication of what Judge Cannon is saying: Under her opinion, Attorney General Garland, not a nonpartisan prosecutor like Mr. Smith, would himself be required to investigate and prosecute the case against Mr. Trump. But Mr. Garland was appointed by President Biden, Mr. Trump’s political rival. Doing so would open himself up to all sorts of accusations.

The converse is even scarier: Imagine a future president suspected of serious wrongdoing. Do we really want his appointee to be the one investigating the wrongdoing? The potential for a coverup, or at least the perception of one, is immense, which would do enormous damage to the fabric of our law.

We had exactly that situation in Watergate. A special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, sought President Richard Nixon’s Oval Office tapes. Nixon claimed that the prosecutor could not force the release of the tapes because it was an “intra-branch dispute” where the president’s decision was “final.” The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, United States v. Nixon, pointedly rejected the claim, saying “Congress has vested in the attorney general” the power to conduct criminal investigations of the government and “vested in him the power to appoint subordinate officers to assist him in the discharge of his duties.” And what laws did the court cite? The very same statutes, Sections 515 and 533, that Mr. Garland cited when appointing Mr. Smith.

“Acting pursuant to those statutes,” the Supreme Court continued, the attorney general “has delegated the authority to represent the United States in these particular matters to a special prosecutor with unique authority and tenure.”

Judge Cannon tried to dismiss those words as “dicta,” meaning that they were not part of the holding of the case, and thus did not constitute a precedent. In fact, they were critical to the court’s holding (and a lot more critical than Justice Thomas’s one-justice concurrence in the Trump immunity case, which she cited several times). Decades have elapsed since the Nixon decision and yet Congress never once altered these laws.

That was so, even though the Justice Department put Congress on clear notice some 25 years ago that it was reading these statutes to authorize the job of special counsel. Congress remained silent even after it saw presidents of both political parties rely on these statutes to do exactly that. And Congress’s silence remained even after court after court in the wake of the Nixon decision read these statutes to authorize the special counsel. None of those were dicta, or even close. That congressional ratification of what the Supreme Court and lower courts found is more than enough to dispose of Judge Cannon’s entire argument.

The Nixon case is not the only Supreme Court decision Judge Cannon blew past. This year, the Supreme Court examined a challenge to the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, where the challengers said that the board had to be specifically authorized and funded by Congress. In a 7-to-2 originalist decision written by, yes, Justice Thomas, the court said that the Constitution requires no “more than a law that authorizes the disbursement of specified funds for identified purposes.”

That’s exactly what we have here — a statute of Congress that authorizes the Justice Department to spend money on investigations as it deems necessary. Again, if Congress doesn’t like that statute, it can repeal it anytime. Or it can vote to defund Jack Smith’s office. That’s the way our constitutional structure works, not by having a federal judge repeal a statute through judicial fiat. She is a federal judge, not a legislator.

The Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which will hear the promised appeal by Mr. Smith, has already swiftly rebuked Judge Cannon on two different matters for her decisions in the Trump case that were well out of mainstream thinking about the law. This decision is on the way to a third rebuke for her.

Mr. Smith’s brief to the Court of Appeals will write itself. He will presumably cite the Nixon case, the several federal laws enacted by Congress, and point to the fact that Congress has never altered the statutes that the Supreme Court more than half a century ago said authorize special counsels. The fact that court after court has read them to authorize special counsels, and that Congress has never once questioned what the courts have done, will settle the legal question in Mr. Smith’s favor.

In his planned appeal, the only question left for him is whether to take the further step of saying a third rebuke means that Judge Cannon should be removed from the case, based on her highly erratic decisions. Her conclusion that the special counsel is illegal is, after all, not one that is a matter of interpretation. Rather, it’s one where there is a clear legal answer, given by the Supreme Court decades ago and ratified by Congress."
User avatar
Kismet
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: Orange Duce

Post by Kismet »

wait until Orange Fatso nominates her to SCOTUS after he gets a second term. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
cradleandshoot
Posts: 15126
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: Orange Duce

Post by cradleandshoot »

Seacoaster(1) wrote: Tue Jul 16, 2024 6:34 am Neal Katyal in the Times today, canvassing some of the stuff, well, overlooked or misapprehended by Judge Cannon:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/15/opin ... ments.html

"Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to throw out serious national-security criminal charges in the classified documents case against Donald Trump is legally unsupported, ignores decades of precedent and is deeply dangerous.

At a time when Americans need to trust their institutions, her decision to declare that the appointment of the special counsel overseeing the case, Jack Smith, “violates the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution” will undermine that trust and the legitimacy of high-level investigations in the eyes of many Americans.

Her decision is quite unlikely to survive the tests of time, or even the appeal Mr. Smith’s office said he intends to make. But it will further delay a case that has moved so slowly under her direction that it was already virtually certain it would never go to a jury before Election Day.

Judge Cannon asserts that no law of Congress authorizes the special counsel. That is palpably false. The special counsel regulations were drafted under specific congressional laws authorizing them.

Since 1966, Congress has had a specific law, Section 515, giving the attorney general the power to commission attorneys “specially retained under authority of the Department of Justice” as “special assistant[s] to the attorney general or special attorney[s].” Another provision in that law said that a lawyer appointed by the attorney general under the law may “conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal,” that other U.S. attorneys are “authorized by law to conduct.”

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
Yet another part of that law, Section 533, says the attorney general can appoint officials “to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States.” These sections were specifically cited when Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Mr. Smith as a special counsel. If Congress doesn’t like these laws, it can repeal them. But until then, the law is the law.

I drafted the special counsel regulations for the Justice Department to replace the Independent Counsel Act in 1999 when I worked at the department. Janet Reno, the attorney general at the time, and I then went to Capitol Hill to brief Congress on the proposed rules over a period of weeks. We met with House and Senate leaders, along with their legal staffs, as well as the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. We walked them extensively through each provision. Not one person raised a legal concern in those meetings. Indeed, Ken Starr, who was then serving as an independent counsel, told Congress that the special counsel regulations were exactly the way to go.

Eight separate judges had already rejected the claim that Judge Cannon has now endorsed (including, by the way, the judge presiding over Hunter Biden’s criminal case). It is true that one Supreme Court justice, Clarence Thomas, recently wrote a concurring opinion in the Trump immunity case questioning the legality of the position of special counsel. No other justice joined that opinion, and even Justice Thomas did not come to the conclusions that Judge Cannon did — he simply raised “essential questions” about the office. And his questions ignored a well-trod tradition in America as well as the statutory landscape.

We’ve had special counsels and special prosecutors since at least the time of President Ulysses Grant after the Civil War. That is for a simple reason: We need a system to police high-level executive branch wrongdoing, and the system can’t be run by the president and his appointees alone.

Consider the real-world implication of what Judge Cannon is saying: Under her opinion, Attorney General Garland, not a nonpartisan prosecutor like Mr. Smith, would himself be required to investigate and prosecute the case against Mr. Trump. But Mr. Garland was appointed by President Biden, Mr. Trump’s political rival. Doing so would open himself up to all sorts of accusations.

The converse is even scarier: Imagine a future president suspected of serious wrongdoing. Do we really want his appointee to be the one investigating the wrongdoing? The potential for a coverup, or at least the perception of one, is immense, which would do enormous damage to the fabric of our law.

We had exactly that situation in Watergate. A special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, sought President Richard Nixon’s Oval Office tapes. Nixon claimed that the prosecutor could not force the release of the tapes because it was an “intra-branch dispute” where the president’s decision was “final.” The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, United States v. Nixon, pointedly rejected the claim, saying “Congress has vested in the attorney general” the power to conduct criminal investigations of the government and “vested in him the power to appoint subordinate officers to assist him in the discharge of his duties.” And what laws did the court cite? The very same statutes, Sections 515 and 533, that Mr. Garland cited when appointing Mr. Smith.

“Acting pursuant to those statutes,” the Supreme Court continued, the attorney general “has delegated the authority to represent the United States in these particular matters to a special prosecutor with unique authority and tenure.”

Judge Cannon tried to dismiss those words as “dicta,” meaning that they were not part of the holding of the case, and thus did not constitute a precedent. In fact, they were critical to the court’s holding (and a lot more critical than Justice Thomas’s one-justice concurrence in the Trump immunity case, which she cited several times). Decades have elapsed since the Nixon decision and yet Congress never once altered these laws.

That was so, even though the Justice Department put Congress on clear notice some 25 years ago that it was reading these statutes to authorize the job of special counsel. Congress remained silent even after it saw presidents of both political parties rely on these statutes to do exactly that. And Congress’s silence remained even after court after court in the wake of the Nixon decision read these statutes to authorize the special counsel. None of those were dicta, or even close. That congressional ratification of what the Supreme Court and lower courts found is more than enough to dispose of Judge Cannon’s entire argument.

The Nixon case is not the only Supreme Court decision Judge Cannon blew past. This year, the Supreme Court examined a challenge to the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, where the challengers said that the board had to be specifically authorized and funded by Congress. In a 7-to-2 originalist decision written by, yes, Justice Thomas, the court said that the Constitution requires no “more than a law that authorizes the disbursement of specified funds for identified purposes.”

That’s exactly what we have here — a statute of Congress that authorizes the Justice Department to spend money on investigations as it deems necessary. Again, if Congress doesn’t like that statute, it can repeal it anytime. Or it can vote to defund Jack Smith’s office. That’s the way our constitutional structure works, not by having a federal judge repeal a statute through judicial fiat. She is a federal judge, not a legislator.

The Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which will hear the promised appeal by Mr. Smith, has already swiftly rebuked Judge Cannon on two different matters for her decisions in the Trump case that were well out of mainstream thinking about the law. This decision is on the way to a third rebuke for her.

Mr. Smith’s brief to the Court of Appeals will write itself. He will presumably cite the Nixon case, the several federal laws enacted by Congress, and point to the fact that Congress has never altered the statutes that the Supreme Court more than half a century ago said authorize special counsels. The fact that court after court has read them to authorize special counsels, and that Congress has never once questioned what the courts have done, will settle the legal question in Mr. Smith’s favor.

In his planned appeal, the only question left for him is whether to take the further step of saying a third rebuke means that Judge Cannon should be removed from the case, based on her highly erratic decisions. Her conclusion that the special counsel is illegal is, after all, not one that is a matter of interpretation. Rather, it’s one where there is a clear legal answer, given by the Supreme Court decades ago and ratified by Congress."
FTR what is the clear legal answer you speak of? If your correct the appeal should be a slam dunk. I have heard several legal eagles saying that the appointment was unconstitutional for several months. The end game will probably be this gets thrown in the lap of the SCOTUS for another look see. Wouldn't stare decisis apply?
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
Post Reply

Return to “POLITICS”