Right, so having been told on here quite convincingly how reprehensible Trump is for wanting Liz Cheney put in front of a firing squad. I saw a meme on twitter that suggested this was, in actual fact fake news and he said no such thing. So I checked and guess what, Trump never said anything about a firing squad. The firing squad comments are what somebody else said his comments were, and thus they are now his comments. Derangement syndrome really is up there. Trump is bonkers, he says so many bonkers things, surely there are enough of the things he does say without inventing stuff.
He *did* talk about pointing 9 (gun) barrels at her and you can try to spin that away, but I don't see another reasonable interpretation.
Sensible Democrat talking heads have been debunking this. It was quite plain he was commenting that she was a chip off the old block and would be less hawkish if she was the one facing the barrels. Not so long ago of course, the people who today most fiercely hate Trump were saying similar things about her father.
Simon Rosenberg @SimonWDC · 45m Trump losing campaign vibes: - Travel to NM and VA. WTF???? - Escalation of red wave polls - only needed if election not going his way - Darker shades of burnt orange - lashing out, violent speech - Defending NC, map shrinking - Teenie weenie crowds 👇
If memory serves, weren’t some saying at this stage in 2016 that the trump campaign was erratic and desperate for making last min stops to the likes of Wisconsin? On the assumption that he takes NC and Georgia, a sweep of Az, Georgia and New Mexico gets him there. Or lose New Mexico and flip Virgina the same outcome. If nothing else it would be an irony if the rust belt abandoned him and he still got over the line. Something to bear in mind when the early results come in from Pa, Mi and Wi.
IMV it's impossible to read anything into this sort of thing; it's like trying to read tealeaves. Partly because the campaigns probably have little firm idea what's happening when it is this close and the polls so unreliable.
It's one of these cases where it's easy to be wise after the event. "Ah. they campaigned there, so they *knew* they were in with a chance!" or "They were stupid to campaign there; they never had any chance!"
Simon Rosenberg @SimonWDC · 45m Trump losing campaign vibes: - Travel to NM and VA. WTF???? - Escalation of red wave polls - only needed if election not going his way - Darker shades of burnt orange - lashing out, violent speech - Defending NC, map shrinking - Teenie weenie crowds 👇
If memory serves, weren’t some saying at this stage in 2016 that the trump campaign was erratic and desperate for making last min stops to the likes of Wisconsin? On the assumption that he takes NC and Georgia, a sweep of Az, Georgia and New Mexico gets him there. Or lose New Mexico and flip Virgina the same outcome. If nothing else it would be an irony if the rust belt abandoned him and he still got over the line. Something to bear in mind when the early results come in from Pa, Mi and Wi.
IMV it's impossible to read anything into this sort of thing; it's like trying to read tealeaves. Partly because the campaigns probably have little firm idea what's happening when it is this close and the polls so unreliable.
It's one of these cases where it's easy to be wise after the event. "Ah. they campaigned there, so they *knew* they were in with a chance!" or "They were stupid to campaign there; they never had any chance!"
Yes. The loser will end up looking silly and the winner a genius, when it’s mostly uncontrollable butterflies flapping their wings
Simon Rosenberg @SimonWDC · 45m Trump losing campaign vibes: - Travel to NM and VA. WTF???? - Escalation of red wave polls - only needed if election not going his way - Darker shades of burnt orange - lashing out, violent speech - Defending NC, map shrinking - Teenie weenie crowds 👇
If memory serves, weren’t some saying at this stage in 2016 that the trump campaign was erratic and desperate for making last min stops to the likes of Wisconsin? On the assumption that he takes NC and Georgia, a sweep of Az, Georgia and New Mexico gets him there. Or lose New Mexico and flip Virgina the same outcome. If nothing else it would be an irony if the rust belt abandoned him and he still got over the line. Something to bear in mind when the early results come in from Pa, Mi and Wi.
IMV it's impossible to read anything into this sort of thing; it's like trying to read tealeaves. Partly because the campaigns probably have little firm idea what's happening when it is this close and the polls so unreliable.
It's one of these cases where it's easy to be wise after the event. "Ah. they campaigned there, so they *knew* they were in with a chance!" or "They were stupid to campaign there; they never had any chance!"
Yes. The loser will end up looking silly and the winner a genius, when it’s mostly uncontrollable butterflies flapping their wings
Trump’s victory would have been assisted by the moths go?
Right, so having been told on here quite convincingly how reprehensible Trump is for wanting Liz Cheney put in front of a firing squad. I saw a meme on twitter that suggested this was, in actual fact fake news and he said no such thing. So I checked and guess what, Trump never said anything about a firing squad. The firing squad comments are what somebody else said his comments were, and thus they are now his comments. Derangement syndrome really is up there. Trump is bonkers, he says so many bonkers things, surely there are enough of the things he does say without inventing stuff.
He *did* talk about pointing 9 (gun) barrels at her and you can try to spin that away, but I don't see another reasonable interpretation.
Sensible Democrat talking heads have been debunking this. It was quite plain he was commenting that she was a chip off the old block and would be less hawkish if she was the one facing the barrels. Not so long ago of course, the people who today most fiercely hate Trump were saying similar things about her father.
Please do provide an example of similar things said about her father by Democrat candidates.
Right, so having been told on here quite convincingly how reprehensible Trump is for wanting Liz Cheney put in front of a firing squad. I saw a meme on twitter that suggested this was, in actual fact fake news and he said no such thing. So I checked and guess what, Trump never said anything about a firing squad. The firing squad comments are what somebody else said his comments were, and thus they are now his comments. Derangement syndrome really is up there. Trump is bonkers, he says so many bonkers things, surely there are enough of the things he does say without inventing stuff.
He *did* talk about pointing 9 (gun) barrels at her and you can try to spin that away, but I don't see another reasonable interpretation.
Sensible Democrat talking heads have been debunking this. It was quite plain he was commenting that she was a chip off the old block and would be less hawkish if she was the one facing the barrels. Not so long ago of course, the people who today most fiercely hate Trump were saying similar things about her father.
Please do provide an example of similar things said about her father by Democrat candidates.
Either you are too young to remember 2003 or you are being obtuse
Right, so having been told on here quite convincingly how reprehensible Trump is for wanting Liz Cheney put in front of a firing squad. I saw a meme on twitter that suggested this was, in actual fact fake news and he said no such thing. So I checked and guess what, Trump never said anything about a firing squad. The firing squad comments are what somebody else said his comments were, and thus they are now his comments. Derangement syndrome really is up there. Trump is bonkers, he says so many bonkers things, surely there are enough of the things he does say without inventing stuff.
He *did* talk about pointing 9 (gun) barrels at her and you can try to spin that away, but I don't see another reasonable interpretation.
Sensible Democrat talking heads have been debunking this. It was quite plain he was commenting that she was a chip off the old block and would be less hawkish if she was the one facing the barrels. Not so long ago of course, the people who today most fiercely hate Trump were saying similar things about her father.
Please do provide an example of similar things said about her father by Democrat candidates.
Either you are too young to remember 2003 or you are being obtuse
Please do provide an example of similar things said about her father by Democrat candidates.
Right, so having been told on here quite convincingly how reprehensible Trump is for wanting Liz Cheney put in front of a firing squad. I saw a meme on twitter that suggested this was, in actual fact fake news and he said no such thing. So I checked and guess what, Trump never said anything about a firing squad. The firing squad comments are what somebody else said his comments were, and thus they are now his comments. Derangement syndrome really is up there. Trump is bonkers, he says so many bonkers things, surely there are enough of the things he does say without inventing stuff.
He *did* talk about pointing 9 (gun) barrels at her and you can try to spin that away, but I don't see another reasonable interpretation.
Sensible Democrat talking heads have been debunking this. It was quite plain he was commenting that she was a chip off the old block and would be less hawkish if she was the one facing the barrels. Not so long ago of course, the people who today most fiercely hate Trump were saying similar things about her father.
Please do provide an example of similar things said about her father by Democrat candidates.
Either you are too young to remember 2003 or you are being obtuse
Please do provide an example of similar things said about her father by Democrat candidates.
That he might be less hawkish if it was him doing the fighting? I’m sure you can Google it. I’m watching the hobbit
Right, so having been told on here quite convincingly how reprehensible Trump is for wanting Liz Cheney put in front of a firing squad. I saw a meme on twitter that suggested this was, in actual fact fake news and he said no such thing. So I checked and guess what, Trump never said anything about a firing squad. The firing squad comments are what somebody else said his comments were, and thus they are now his comments. Derangement syndrome really is up there. Trump is bonkers, he says so many bonkers things, surely there are enough of the things he does say without inventing stuff.
He *did* talk about pointing 9 (gun) barrels at her and you can try to spin that away, but I don't see another reasonable interpretation.
This is how the derangement works. It obliges you to see the worst possible bad faith interpretation. For the rest of PB who can’t be bothered to look. It seems him and Liz Cheney have a bit of history. He says she doesn’t like him because he pulled troops out of all the places her daddy (dick Cheney)put them, this is using his phrasing. He goes on to talk about how he brought troops home, but she would rather troops were still out there in the different areas he quotes. He then goes on to say how would she like it with a rifle and nine guns pointed at her? Here is the quote:
"I don’t blame (Dick Cheney) for sticking with his daughter, but his daughter is a very dumb individual, very dumb. She is a radical war hawk. Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let's see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face."
It is a classic well worn argument (though not put quite as vividly) about politicians keen to put soldiers in the firing line, how would they like it, etc.
It is not even remotely what it is claimed to be. It is unpleasant, he is rude and offensive about her, but he did not refer to a firing squad, or even imply a firing squad. Unless this is a brand new type of firing squad in which you also get a rifle.
Rachel Reeves was given a rapturous reception by Labour MPs after her first budget on Wednesday. But already some of her cabinet colleagues are privately concerned at what they see as a “massive gamble”. “The reality remains that if we don’t get growth, we go bust,” our political team was told.
“More money for NHS” is always going to rally the troops. I’m surprised it appears the budget has gone down badly, if it has and not just lots of media snipping. It was a cunning wheeze to put the tax hike apparently out of site onto the employer national insurance. But it is such a big amount of tax, it’s hard to see how so much could be taken without having some kind of downstream impact. I know of lots of very small employers going a bit bonkers, along with nmw increases adding quite a bit to their wage bill. Tax always comes from somewhere. It’s not free money that comes from profits. That first poll with a conservative lead will be quite a psychological slap for them. It might be a one off with a reassuring yougov round the corner. But straight movement from lab to con is what is needed.
People don’t like paying more tax, people want better services, people hate being lied to that they could get better services and not have taxes increase.
Right, so having been told on here quite convincingly how reprehensible Trump is for wanting Liz Cheney put in front of a firing squad. I saw a meme on twitter that suggested this was, in actual fact fake news and he said no such thing. So I checked and guess what, Trump never said anything about a firing squad. The firing squad comments are what somebody else said his comments were, and thus they are now his comments. Derangement syndrome really is up there. Trump is bonkers, he says so many bonkers things, surely there are enough of the things he does say without inventing stuff.
He *did* talk about pointing 9 (gun) barrels at her and you can try to spin that away, but I don't see another reasonable interpretation.
Sensible Democrat talking heads have been debunking this. It was quite plain he was commenting that she was a chip off the old block and would be less hawkish if she was the one facing the barrels. Not so long ago of course, the people who today most fiercely hate Trump were saying similar things about her father.
Please do provide an example of similar things said about her father by Democrat candidates.
Either you are too young to remember 2003 or you are being obtuse
Please do provide an example of similar things said about her father by Democrat candidates.
That he might be less hawkish if it was him doing the fighting? I’m sure you can Google it. I’m watching the hobbit
Never heard him called that before, and I'm sure Bilbo and Frodo would be most offended at being compared to Trump.
Right, so having been told on here quite convincingly how reprehensible Trump is for wanting Liz Cheney put in front of a firing squad. I saw a meme on twitter that suggested this was, in actual fact fake news and he said no such thing. So I checked and guess what, Trump never said anything about a firing squad. The firing squad comments are what somebody else said his comments were, and thus they are now his comments. Derangement syndrome really is up there. Trump is bonkers, he says so many bonkers things, surely there are enough of the things he does say without inventing stuff.
He *did* talk about pointing 9 (gun) barrels at her and you can try to spin that away, but I don't see another reasonable interpretation.
Sensible Democrat talking heads have been debunking this. It was quite plain he was commenting that she was a chip off the old block and would be less hawkish if she was the one facing the barrels. Not so long ago of course, the people who today most fiercely hate Trump were saying similar things about her father.
Please do provide an example of similar things said about her father by Democrat candidates.
Either you are too young to remember 2003 or you are being obtuse
Please do provide an example of similar things said about her father by Democrat candidates.
That he might be less hawkish if it was him doing the fighting? I’m sure you can Google it. I’m watching the hobbit
Never heard him called that before, and I'm sure Bilbo and Frodo would be most offended at being compared to Trump.
Right, so having been told on here quite convincingly how reprehensible Trump is for wanting Liz Cheney put in front of a firing squad. I saw a meme on twitter that suggested this was, in actual fact fake news and he said no such thing. So I checked and guess what, Trump never said anything about a firing squad. The firing squad comments are what somebody else said his comments were, and thus they are now his comments. Derangement syndrome really is up there. Trump is bonkers, he says so many bonkers things, surely there are enough of the things he does say without inventing stuff.
He *did* talk about pointing 9 (gun) barrels at her and you can try to spin that away, but I don't see another reasonable interpretation.
Sensible Democrat talking heads have been debunking this. It was quite plain he was commenting that she was a chip off the old block and would be less hawkish if she was the one facing the barrels. Not so long ago of course, the people who today most fiercely hate Trump were saying similar things about her father.
Please do provide an example of similar things said about her father by Democrat candidates.
Either you are too young to remember 2003 or you are being obtuse
Please do provide an example of similar things said about her father by Democrat candidates.
That he might be less hawkish if it was him doing the fighting? I’m sure you can Google it. I’m watching the hobbit
The use of "to grow" as a transitive verb with the economy as the object begs quite a few questions, first of which is how? It is sounder in this context to stay with the intransitive sense and accept that the only way to nurture sustainable growth is by creating the conditions for business to flourish - i.e. a stable economic environment, low and predictable taxes and well maintained public infrastructure in a predictable economic environment and legal framework. That is the best any "policies" for economic growth can do. Anything else is pie in the sky.
Right, so having been told on here quite convincingly how reprehensible Trump is for wanting Liz Cheney put in front of a firing squad. I saw a meme on twitter that suggested this was, in actual fact fake news and he said no such thing. So I checked and guess what, Trump never said anything about a firing squad. The firing squad comments are what somebody else said his comments were, and thus they are now his comments. Derangement syndrome really is up there. Trump is bonkers, he says so many bonkers things, surely there are enough of the things he does say without inventing stuff.
He *did* talk about pointing 9 (gun) barrels at her and you can try to spin that away, but I don't see another reasonable interpretation.
This is how the derangement works. It obliges you to see the worst possible bad faith interpretation. For the rest of PB who can’t be bothered to look. It seems him and Liz Cheney have a bit of history. He says she doesn’t like him because he pulled troops out of all the places her daddy (dick Cheney)put them, this is using his phrasing. He goes on to talk about how he brought troops home, but she would rather troops were still out there in the different areas he quotes. He then goes on to say how would she like it with a rifle and nine guns pointed at her? Here is the quote:
"I don’t blame (Dick Cheney) for sticking with his daughter, but his daughter is a very dumb individual, very dumb. She is a radical war hawk. Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let's see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face."
It is a classic well worn argument (though not put quite as vividly) about politicians keen to put soldiers in the firing line, how would they like it, etc.
It is not even remotely what it is claimed to be. It is unpleasant, he is rude and offensive about her, but he did not refer to a firing squad, or even imply a firing squad. Unless this is a brand new type of firing squad in which you also get a rifle.
It’s not as if Trump doesn’t say silly things all the time which his opponents can use against him if they wish.
Yet instead they’re totally making stuff up, taking comments way out of context, and making headline news of a bad joke made by the warm-up comedian at a rally. The derangement is very real, and even some of the pro-Democrat media are realising how stupid it’s getting and are calling out this one.
Right, so having been told on here quite convincingly how reprehensible Trump is for wanting Liz Cheney put in front of a firing squad. I saw a meme on twitter that suggested this was, in actual fact fake news and he said no such thing. So I checked and guess what, Trump never said anything about a firing squad. The firing squad comments are what somebody else said his comments were, and thus they are now his comments. Derangement syndrome really is up there. Trump is bonkers, he says so many bonkers things, surely there are enough of the things he does say without inventing stuff.
He *did* talk about pointing 9 (gun) barrels at her and you can try to spin that away, but I don't see another reasonable interpretation.
Sensible Democrat talking heads have been debunking this. It was quite plain he was commenting that she was a chip off the old block and would be less hawkish if she was the one facing the barrels. Not so long ago of course, the people who today most fiercely hate Trump were saying similar things about her father.
Please do provide an example of similar things said about her father by Democrat candidates.
Either you are too young to remember 2003 or you are being obtuse
Please do provide an example of similar things said about her father by Democrat candidates.
That he might be less hawkish if it was him doing the fighting? I’m sure you can Google it. I’m watching the hobbit
Never heard him called that before, and I'm sure Bilbo and Frodo would be most offended at being compared to Trump.
It's like they deliberately want to tank the economy. Same with tariffs.
Utter pillocks.
In Pennsylvania, at least, Harris now ranks higher on the economy than Trump. Looked at objectively it is astonishing that it is close. His tariffs policy threatens the economy of not just the USA but the economy of the whole world. His tax cuts for billionaires does almost nothing for consumption or demand. His plans to expel millions who are contributing to the US economy and its tax base threaten both economic disruption and skills shortages. His record does not stand scrutiny to that of Biden in terms of jobs, growth, investment or infrastructure. Only on inflation does he have the advantage.
But when you have the likes of Fox distorting reality and criticising everything day after day, year after year, you end up with an electorate that have alternative facts.
A once great national newspaper reduced to this shite.
Neil Henderson @hendopolis · 31m TELEGRAPH: Musk: PM is wrong on farm tax raid #TomorrowsPapersToday
Elon is absolutely right, Starmer and Reeves have betrayed our farmers, their families and our food security and a 100 Labour MPs in rural seats will be out of a job after the next GE as a result
I note your anger. I also note the anger of our farming and fishing communities who can detail - with reams of evidence - how YOUR party had ALREADY betrayed them.
So what is the point in you?
They got trade deals with Australia etc for exports, they also got a leaving of the CFP which fishing communities wanted.
This awful government has just taken most farm owners farms and most of their assets built up over generations and destroyed the agricultural industry in this country. There is no comparison
I don't think putting IHT on larger farms (100% Agricultural relief only dates back to the Major government) is quite the same as forced collectivisation of the kulaks. Any land sold as a result of IHT will go to other farmers, or be used for building.
I expect that a tighter set of rules around Planning Gain will cause a lot more squealing, even though it is most definitely something we need desperately.
From a neutral's point of view I want whichever candidate is less likely to allow the conservatives to go full british trump with the conspiracy theories and glib easy answers to any problem and of course the lying.
Right, so having been told on here quite convincingly how reprehensible Trump is for wanting Liz Cheney put in front of a firing squad. I saw a meme on twitter that suggested this was, in actual fact fake news and he said no such thing. So I checked and guess what, Trump never said anything about a firing squad. The firing squad comments are what somebody else said his comments were, and thus they are now his comments. Derangement syndrome really is up there. Trump is bonkers, he says so many bonkers things, surely there are enough of the things he does say without inventing stuff.
He *did* talk about pointing 9 (gun) barrels at her and you can try to spin that away, but I don't see another reasonable interpretation.
Sensible Democrat talking heads have been debunking this. It was quite plain he was commenting that she was a chip off the old block and would be less hawkish if she was the one facing the barrels. Not so long ago of course, the people who today most fiercely hate Trump were saying similar things about her father.
Obviously Trump never mentioned a firing squad so that is an exaggeration. But an exaggeration that has made you come out in defence of this statement
"Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let’s see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face.”
by a man who might soon be president, regards himself as absolutely above the law and has openly talked about using the military against his internal political enemies.
Should I be surprised that you want to defend this?
Right, so having been told on here quite convincingly how reprehensible Trump is for wanting Liz Cheney put in front of a firing squad. I saw a meme on twitter that suggested this was, in actual fact fake news and he said no such thing. So I checked and guess what, Trump never said anything about a firing squad. The firing squad comments are what somebody else said his comments were, and thus they are now his comments. Derangement syndrome really is up there. Trump is bonkers, he says so many bonkers things, surely there are enough of the things he does say without inventing stuff.
He *did* talk about pointing 9 (gun) barrels at her and you can try to spin that away, but I don't see another reasonable interpretation.
Sensible Democrat talking heads have been debunking this. It was quite plain he was commenting that she was a chip off the old block and would be less hawkish if she was the one facing the barrels. Not so long ago of course, the people who today most fiercely hate Trump were saying similar things about her father.
Obviously Trump never mentioned a firing squad so that is an exaggeration. But an exaggeration that has made you come out in defence of this statement
"Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let’s see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face.”
by a man who might soon be president, regards himself as absolutely above the law and has openly talked about using the military against his internal political enemies.
Should I be surprised that you want to defend this?
One bizarre thing here is that Trump himself dodged the draft.
Once again, don't assume the Supreme Court will come to Trump's rescue.
"Supreme court rejects Republican argument on Pennsylvania ballot counting: AP
The supreme court on Friday rejected an emergency appeal from Republicans that could have led to thousands of provisional ballots not being counted in Pennsylvania, the Associated Press reports.
The justices left in place a state supreme court ruling that elections officials must count provisional ballots cast by voters whose mail-in ballots were rejected."
I think people misunderstand who the "conservative" judges on the Supreme Court are. Several are idealogical about the constitution laid down by the forefathers above all else, rather than simply being a Trump / GOP stooge. That means your "progressive" causes are always going to run into difficulties, but not a slam dunk every whinge from the right gets waved through.
IMO that's not quite right.
The loyalty of the "originalist" (ie Federalist Society) judges, which is different from "conservative" (who would be eg the commentator Judge Luttig) is not to "the Constitution laid down", but to one particular approach to the Constitution laid down, which involves imposing their own set of dogmas on it, to give the answers that they want.
They are willing to ignore bits of the Constitution, tweak other bits, import unjustified assumptions, ignore the context of when it was written (eg debates at the time it was written), do violence to decades or centuries of jurisprudence and legal scholarship, and so on - in pursuit of a pretence that they are the only respectable interpreters. If they need to tweak their situational ethics to give a different answer later because it is now convenient, they do so.
For example, in the case of giving Trump Presidential Immunity so he is above the law, they ignored that the Constitution has a basic principle of no one being above the law, and the debates around that particular point at the time it was written, which provides elucidation.
At a village idiot level, Aileen Cannon is a Junior hick-from-the-sticks Judge who declared 70 years of legal precedent around Special Prosecutors invalid, when she ruled in her Courthouse that there was no basis for special prosecutors, based on one of the Supreme Court Justices (Roberts?) included an off-the-wall statement in a one-judge opinion hinting at the possibility.
A good analogy is to the values that various Evangelical groups impose on the text of the Bible so that it says what they want it to say eg at the extreme Young Earth Creationists, who start with the imposed assumption "Genesis is Literal History", rather than starting off with a more respectful question "What is Genesis?".
The so-called Originalists are like this - rather than approaching the text of the Constitution with respect for the document itself, and the Jurisprudence around it, they sit over it rather than under it and treat it as grist for their mill.
I suspect that both the Constitution and the Bible, and the traditions around them, are resilient to these attempts, and in the end both groups of "Originalists" will be blown up by the documents they are trying to manipulate.
Right, so having been told on here quite convincingly how reprehensible Trump is for wanting Liz Cheney put in front of a firing squad. I saw a meme on twitter that suggested this was, in actual fact fake news and he said no such thing. So I checked and guess what, Trump never said anything about a firing squad. The firing squad comments are what somebody else said his comments were, and thus they are now his comments. Derangement syndrome really is up there. Trump is bonkers, he says so many bonkers things, surely there are enough of the things he does say without inventing stuff.
He *did* talk about pointing 9 (gun) barrels at her and you can try to spin that away, but I don't see another reasonable interpretation.
He did say he would give her a rifle as well, which isn’t usual for somebody facing a firing squad.
But he talked about pointing ‘nine rifles at her face’ which isn’t exactly a normal thing to say and suggests he has some distinctly disturbing thoughts about her.
Mind you, the more amusing thing was he called her ‘revolting’ and ‘dumb.’ No irony there…
Remember, narcissists' accusations are confessions...
Comments
Edit - why didn’t I say ‘thanks to Shubman Gill who is closing in on a century’ so I could take credit for that wicket?
It's one of these cases where it's easy to be wise after the event. "Ah. they campaigned there, so they *knew* they were in with a chance!" or "They were stupid to campaign there; they never had any chance!"
Donald Trump suffers bizarre onstage meltdown as rally plagued by tech problems
https://x.com/mikeysmith/status/1852602235538092405
Here is the quote:
"I don’t blame (Dick Cheney) for sticking with his daughter, but his daughter is a very dumb individual, very dumb. She is a radical war hawk. Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let's see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face."
It is a classic well worn argument (though not put quite as vividly) about politicians keen to put soldiers in the firing line, how would they like it, etc.
It is not even remotely what it is claimed to be. It is unpleasant, he is rude and offensive about her, but he did not refer to a firing squad, or even imply a firing squad. Unless this is a brand new type of firing squad in which you also get a rifle.
Tax always comes from somewhere. It’s not free money that comes from profits. That first poll with a conservative lead will be quite a psychological slap for them. It might be a one off with a reassuring yougov round the corner. But straight movement from lab to con is what is needed.
People don’t like paying more tax, people want better services, people hate being lied to that they could get better services and not have taxes increase.
https://x.com/acyn/status/1852474586564354424
Yet instead they’re totally making stuff up, taking comments way out of context, and making headline news of a bad joke made by the warm-up comedian at a rally. The derangement is very real, and even some of the pro-Democrat media are realising how stupid it’s getting and are calling out this one.
Last nights Bund rally on the road was dreadful , ended by the horror of seeing Trump perform fellatio on the microphone!
NEW THREAD
But when you have the likes of Fox distorting reality and criticising everything day after day, year after year, you end up with an electorate that have alternative facts.
Is Mr Jenrick drunk and teetering?
I would say that is Kemi.
"Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let’s see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face.”
by a man who might soon be president, regards himself as absolutely above the law and has openly talked about using the military against his internal political enemies.
Should I be surprised that you want to defend this?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/trumps-military-draft-deferment-isnt-unusual/579265/
The loyalty of the "originalist" (ie Federalist Society) judges, which is different from "conservative" (who would be eg the commentator Judge Luttig) is not to "the Constitution laid down", but to one particular approach to the Constitution laid down, which involves imposing their own set of dogmas on it, to give the answers that they want.
They are willing to ignore bits of the Constitution, tweak other bits, import unjustified assumptions, ignore the context of when it was written (eg debates at the time it was written), do violence to decades or centuries of jurisprudence and legal scholarship, and so on - in pursuit of a pretence that they are the only respectable interpreters. If they need to tweak their situational ethics to give a different answer later because it is now convenient, they do so.
For example, in the case of giving Trump Presidential Immunity so he is above the law, they ignored that the Constitution has a basic principle of no one being above the law, and the debates around that particular point at the time it was written, which provides elucidation.
At a village idiot level, Aileen Cannon is a Junior hick-from-the-sticks Judge who declared 70 years of legal precedent around Special Prosecutors invalid, when she ruled in her Courthouse that there was no basis for special prosecutors, based on one of the Supreme Court Justices (Roberts?) included an off-the-wall statement in a one-judge opinion hinting at the possibility.
A good analogy is to the values that various Evangelical groups impose on the text of the Bible so that it says what they want it to say eg at the extreme Young Earth Creationists, who start with the imposed assumption "Genesis is Literal History", rather than starting off with a more respectful question "What is Genesis?".
The so-called Originalists are like this - rather than approaching the text of the Constitution with respect for the document itself, and the Jurisprudence around it, they sit over it rather than under it and treat it as grist for their mill.
I suspect that both the Constitution and the Bible, and the traditions around them, are resilient to these attempts, and in the end both groups of "Originalists" will be blown up by the documents they are trying to manipulate.