Fox News, Joining The Liberal Fake News...

[Mongo59]

"Man at his best is at best still a man."

No matter how many group hugs and choruses of Kumbaya we orchestrate, flawed human nature still abounds.
Recent demonstrations tell me (for what it is worth) that the best to be hoped for from the left is passive/aggressive, at best.
Like any extremest organization, everyone's desire for leadership status results in the "most" radical pitting themselves against the "less" radical and on and on.

The right, in comparison, does not claim or demand the indoctrination unto a different way of thinking from those who disagree. They desire to simply be removed from the worldly drama until the the left abandons it escalating, unsustainable self serving ignorant belief that each and every one of "them" can solve the worlds problems by intuition alone.

If the left demands interaction at the height of their self perpetuated frenzy, some will accommodate them, but nothing will be resolved.

Meanwhile, the world waits for them to grow up and return to logical behavior to the benefit of all.

Like they said in the movie "Hoosier", "There is two kinds of crazy: those who strip down naked and run in the woods barking at the moon, and those who do it in my front yard..."

 

[Ingomike]

I don't disagree with your assessment. However, I think the Trump "pushback," has largely backfired. It backfired to such a degree that those that are tolerant on the left, have joined forces with the intolerant left.... because they see Trump as the right's acceptance of intolerance.

Nowadays, people just buy into Trump, because he's a vocal anti-left voice. The things used to make GOP attractive, at least me, was an fairly solid commitment to sanity. That's gone now.
The president let rain stop him from visiting the WWI cemetery in France. He ******* skipped Veterans Day, because he was "busy"! He took Thanksgiving, to called troops and push political messages. The guys has been in office TWO years, and hasn't visited a war zone.... and people still cling to the belief that he's "pro-military." That's delusional.

But I digress, as long as Trump continues to enjoy the support he does, even in his bad actions, the longer the left will oppose him.

Is that all you've got? I did not realize we were electing the chief ceremonial officer, when did they put ceremonial obligations in the Constitutional duties? All that you cited is from the previously discussed 90% negative coverage. Where is the real constitutional crisis? What court order has been ignored? Even the orders he criticizes have been followed. It is hilarious that the resources of the entire world media, that hates this guy beyond reason, cannot find a real silver bullet to bring him down.

MM

 

[JettaKnight]

Oh, gee, another immigration thread.

I honestly chuckled when I read that.

IKR?

Most TV news will not have anyone that disagrees with their global warming narrative, Fox will, they 60/40 critics vs. supporters.

That's your proof of "Fair and balanced"? That's slightly better than being "fair and balanced" about the earth being flat.

 

[JettaKnight]

Yep. I listened to a bit of NPR today, and the interviewer asked his guest about "Trump disputing the CIA's assessment" of who was responsible for the Khashoggi murder

Really? An anonymous source giving what he claims is the CIA's assessment to WaPo just becomes 'the CIA's assessment' as if it was released by a vetted official source on the record?

And the beauty of this s**t for the resistance is anyone who might dispute it cannot do so on the record without it being declassified, and were they to try to dispute it off the record likely they would get no traction due to variance from the approved narrative

quite some time ago, it seemed like NPR actually had some standards

‘We Will Never Speak Of This Again,’ Says Trump To Mohammed Bin Salman As They Dump Khashoggi’s Body Into New Jersey River

Hi, Bug!

 

[Denny347]

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-2006/0-0-0-2364.html


It says 212(b) at the top of the page, but every reference I've found elsewhere, including executive orders and DOJ rule making, quotes it as 212(f).

The link posted by CampingJosh goes to page 1. Scroll down to where it has a link that says 212, click that. I think that's the page you copy/pasted. Wrong page. Scroll down to where it says "next document". Click that. Scroll down, it's near the bottom. Or search that third page for the word "president".

Or click my link above to go right to that page.

I copy/pasted this off that page just now...

(f) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

I don't know what else I can say. Though I would appreciate not being called a liar and being accused of making things up when I'm neither lying nor making things up.

Very confusing to say the least. My apologies for doubting you.

 

[jbombelli]

Very confusing to say the least. My apologies for doubting you.

No worries. That site is horrendous. It took me longer than I want to admit to find it myself. Who knew that "next document" means "page 2 of the same document"?


I only kept at it because, based on all the references I found online, between EOs, DOJ, DHS, arguments... it HAD to be there somewhere.

 

[Denny347]

No worries. That site is horrendous. It took me longer than I want to admit to find it myself. Who knew that "next document" means "page 2 of the same document"?


I only kept at it because, based on all the references I found online, between EOs, DOJ, DHS, arguments... it HAD to be there somewhere.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Is that all you've got? I did not realize we were electing the chief ceremonial officer, when did they put ceremonial obligations in the Constitutional duties? All that you cited is from the previously discussed 90% negative coverage. Where is the real constitutional crisis? What court order has been ignored? Even the orders he criticizes have been followed. It is hilarious that the resources of the entire world media, that hates this guy beyond reason, cannot find a real silver bullet to bring him down.

MM

It's about respect and decorum, extended to those who have traditionally sacrificed the most for our nation. I am not one to so easily dismiss the president's role, in leading the nation in the observation of those sacrifices; especially when one has made such a big deal about how he supports previously stated institutions....but that's just me. Maybe I'm alone in that belief.

There need not be a "silver bullet," figuratively speaking to take down his administration. The wheels are coming off already, and more and more people are recognizing it (right GM workers?). At this point, only the most committed of his believers, can stomach his constant lying, double speak, vulgarity, dictator worship, nepotism, cabinet carousel, cronyism, and utter incompetence.

 

[bwframe]

...There need not be a "silver bullet," figuratively speaking to take down his administration. The wheels are coming off already, and more and more people are recognizing it (right GM workers?). At this point, only the most committed of his believers, can stomach his constant lying, double speak, vulgarity, dictator worship, nepotism, cabinet carousel, cronyism, and utter incompetence.

Wow, sure is gonna sting when we "Keep America Great" again in a couple years eh?

 

[jamil]

I disagree the most dangerous party is the democrats? Well, I guess in the technical sense since the GOP doesn't really exist anymore, you're right. However, whatever that conglomerate of sycophants that follow the president are, I'd call them the most dangerous.... mainly because they're getting more and more desperate? Evidenced by what they are will to turn a blind eye to, and shrug their shoulders. It's a clock that's ticking, and with each tick the numbers fall more in line with liberal policies.... even the loony ones, than conservative. Ultimately, if the conservatives continue on this path, liberals with continue to maintain their inflexibility, and eventually, when they win out, and they WILL "win out," we will all suffer for it.

Trump is mostly harmless. The sycophants are at most annoying, but hardly dangerous. If it's sycophants that make a president dangerous, Obama was likely the most dangerous in modern history. The entire mainstream media were his sycophants. Granted, it would be nice if his most ardent supporters could admit when Trump is full of ****. Perhaps that could hold Trump accountable for his crassness. But is crassness isn't really dangerous. It's just crude and unbecoming of a president.

Policy wise, few of Trump's policies deviate much from past presidents over the past 40 years, other than he's reversed some pretty far overreaching policies from the previous president. But if you live in the world fabricated by Vox/CNN/Slate, I can see why you might think Holocaust 2.0 is neigh. However, that's delusional hyperbole spread by a hyper-partisan, dying media, desperate for views and clicks.

And that's one of the reasons Trump isn't dangerous and the Democrats are. Trump has an opposition. The media is against him and is therefore not only willing to dig for information to expose all his secret plans, they're willing even to fabricate stuff to keep the views and clicks coming.

A media having an extreme left bias and incapable of that scrutinizing a Democrat, makes a bat **** crazy Democrat extremely dangerous. They sucked Obama's **** for the first 4 years of his presidency and only got honest when Obama went after some journalists. Which brings up another point. Trump's administration leaks like a sieve. Not much he can get past anyone in secret. A democrat's administration is locked up tight. Keeps people blind, thinking there's not even a smidge of corruption in their administrations.

So about blindness. You think it's that people on the right are blind to the overreaches of Trump. To a small extent, that's true. But it looks to me more like, with a few exceptions, most people see exactly what's happening at least the reality viewed through their own lens, and they either approve of it, or they put up with it. The people who approve of are satisfied seeing him say to the media and the left what they would like to say, but don't have the platform. It's much like the satisfaction people get when they see someone in the proud boys pummel an Antifa thug. The truth of that is that Antifa are indeed the aggressors, the thugs, but the Proud Boys are eager, reactive thugs, hoping it'll end up in a brawl. And they don't care if the Proud Boys are thugs, because they're doing against Antifa what many people would like to do to them.

Seeing bullies get their asses beat, even by other bullies is satisfying. They see Democrats as having bullied feckless republicans who acted as if they were operating under this faux chivalry code of conduct, meanwhile the Democrats were throwing **** balls and fake justice at them, as republicans stood fast in their delusions of conduct. People are tired of being mob-shamed, ridiculed, called nazis and whatever else, being the butt of late night talk show jokes. The Trump fanbois are just satisfied to see someone willing to stand up to all that and just say **** you! You have no power over me. It's not blindness. If you think it is, you're out of touch with the way they see the world, so you seem to interpret their actions as if they had your moral sense. As if your moral sense is the standard.

Then there's people like me. Not much more that I hate in politics than people trying to tell other people how they oughtta live. Authoritarians. Trump is one. That's one thing I can't stand about him. I only put up with Trump because the alternative is hell bent on transforming America into an Orwellian **********'s wet dream: Bat****opia. It's not my blindness. I'd love to vote against Trump. There is no sane alternative who has a shot. There are no ideals in the wild. I vote for the most likely least worst outcome. Show me a democrat who wouldn't be a defacto vote for Bat****opia, and I'd vote for zim. There ain't one because the sane ones have to pretend they're bat**** crazy too, to keep their jobs.

THAT's dangerous.

 

[jamil]

I think it's more because they (conservatives) are/were tired of having a blind eye turned toward them, or worse, being accused of being racists, mysogynists, nazis or worse simply because they want to see the constitution followed as written, they don't believe in 53 different "genders", and are tired of being portrayed as ignorant hicks by the coastal elites. You can only kick a dog for so long before he turns around and bites you. THAT is how we wound up with Trump in office.

I think it's 87 genders now. Dude. Keep the **** up.

 

[jamil]

I don't disagree with your assessment. However, I think the Trump "pushback," has largely backfired. It backfired to such a degree that those that are tolerant on the left, have joined forces with the intolerant left.... because they see Trump as the right's acceptance of intolerance.

Nowadays, people just buy into Trump, because he's a vocal anti-left voice. The things used to make GOP attractive, at least me, was an fairly solid commitment to sanity. That's gone now.
The president let rain stop him from visiting the WWI cemetery in France. He ******* skipped Veterans Day, because he was "busy"! He took Thanksgiving, to called troops and push political messages. The guys has been in office TWO years, and hasn't visited a war zone.... and people still cling to the belief that he's "pro-military." That's delusional.

But I digress, as long as Trump continues to enjoy the support he does, even in his bad actions, the longer the left will oppose him.

That's a perception that is exaggerated by a dishonest media. Trump ignored would be a much weaker Trump. They can't.

About the other stuff. I've always disliked that we expect the president to do things we know are fake. Seeing Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or Bush, or Carter...pretend to be more patriotic than they are is bull****. I mean, if they really want to do it, and they really mean it, okay. But to do it just because it's what you're supposed to do, maybe it's the non-conformist in me, but that's nonsense. I don't need it. Maybe some people do. Maybe people think faking one's patriotism shows a sort of moral character. I don't.

Just say what you're going to do, and do what you say. And try not to be too much of a dick about it, unless someone's being a dick to you. That's character. And I ain't saying Trump has that much going for him either. I'm just commenting on how we expect the presidents to jump through hoops so that we can pretend they're the moral characters we would like our presidents to be.

Since you admit that the push towards the fringe on the left is a reaction to the right, couldn't the opposite also be true? Don't you think Obama's pushing the nation beyond Overton's Window has at least a little to do with the election of Trump as president? And I'm not blaming Obama for all of that. There's a very vocal, connected, powerful group of bat **** crazy leftists who pushed the window more than Obama did. I'm saying Obama was the enabler of that.

Want things to go back to normal? How about the people on the left telling the bat **** crazy ones to shut the **** up and get back in the asylum. They can't because I don't see a lot of evidence that the leadership in the left can admit they have a problem. I see plenty of evidence on the left that the rank and file can tell. But then they watch CNN and think Trump is literally Hitler. So they think it's a choice between Bat****opia and Literal Hitler. It's not. Or it doesn't have to be. Just admit you have some bat**** crazy people. And stop voting for bat**** crazy people. Trump is crass, and unconventional, doesn't have great moral character, and all of that. Yes. But he's not bat**** crazy. And we wouldn't have to put up with crass, unconventional, low character, if the other side can give up theirs.

So. You put down your weapon, I'll put down mine. On the count of three...

That's how this is looking to me.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I think it's 87 genders now. Dude. Keep the **** up.

Can we just round up to a nice even 100? That'll allow for a little more expansion too. Although I think we may soon run out of letters to append to LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ...

 

[jamil]

It's about respect and decorum, extended to those who have traditionally sacrificed the most for our nation. I am not one to so easily dismiss the president's role, in leading the nation in the observation of those sacrifices; especially when one has made such a big deal about how he supports previously stated institutions....but that's just me. Maybe I'm alone in that belief.

There need not be a "silver bullet," figuratively speaking to take down his administration. The wheels are coming off already, and more and more people are recognizing it (right GM workers?). At this point, only the most committed of his believers, can stomach his constant lying, double speak, vulgarity, dictator worship, nepotism, cabinet carousel, cronyism, and utter incompetence.

"You're a ****ing white male!" "All white men should just die." "You ****ing Nazis." "Did you just misgender me?" "Doxx him!" "If you see them at the restaurant, or in public..." "Admit your white privilege" "Punch the Nazis" "Capitalism must end"

Dude, we're way past honorable behavior. It's in the trenches. It doesn't have to be. At this point, I'm stuck with dishonorable behavior because the alternative is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the new face of the Democratic Party. You could admit and condemn the crazies on your side, if you wanted to. As I said, the real dangerous people on the right are not supported by the right. The left can't say the same. Fix your own house.

 

[KG1]

Trump supporters weren’t looking to hire a statesman in the 2016 election cycle this time and they didn’t let the media pick their candidate.

They went and got themselves a crude non PC bare knuckle NY brawler to take it to the leftist media and represent them in the fight to stave off a hard left policy turn.

 

[KG1]

I get the feeling that there a a few who think the country would’ve been better off if HRC had won the election.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I get the feeling that there a a few who think the country would’ve been better off if HRC had won the election.

At this point, I certainly do.... but that's not really saying much, because I think anybody would have been better. I don't think anybody comes near this president's incessant lying and hypocrisy.... not within a few million light years.
I was reminded just today how the president said in August of 2016, "If I win I may never see my property again. I may never see these places again. But because I'm going to be working for you, I'm not going to have time to go golfing, believe me. Believe me. Believe me folks."
Well last week, he golfed at Mar-A-Lago.... Wednesday, Thursday, Friday...Saturday, and Sunday. Of course, ya know, he gave the previous guy plenty of grief about golfing, and that sentiment was echoed, here on this very forum? Where are those complaints now? Why does he get a pass? The Russians are stirring up crap, the Saudi's murdering people, the Norks playing games, the market is taking a hit, and businesses that supported the corporate tax cuts are laying off workers. What am I missing here?

 

[Ingomike]

It's about respect and decorum, extended to those who have traditionally sacrificed the most for our nation. I am not one to so easily dismiss the president's role, in leading the nation in the observation of those sacrifices; especially when one has made such a big deal about how he supports previously stated institutions....but that's just me. Maybe I'm alone in that belief.

There need not be a "silver bullet," figuratively speaking to take down his administration. The wheels are coming off already, and more and more people are recognizing it (right GM workers?). At this point, only the most committed of his believers, can stomach his constant lying, double speak, vulgarity, dictator worship, nepotism, cabinet carousel, cronyism, and utter incompetence.

Republicans had respect and decorum 3 times, GWB, the funny, likable, humble guy, then McCain, the honorable Vet and POW, and then Romney, successful in business while being one of the nicest guys. All three were called Hilter, racist, and all the other names the left likes to throw around. All three were not even true conservatives, they were more Democrat lite, but that did not stop the left and their media allies from treating them without respect and decorum.

If if the left wants respect and decorum going forward they are going to have to earn it...

MM

 

[KG1]

At this point, I certainly do.... but that's not really saying much, because I think anybody would have been better. I don't think anybody comes near this president's incessant lying and hypocrisy.... not within a few million light years.
I was reminded just today how the president said in August of 2016, "If I win I may never see my property again. I may never see these places again. But because I'm going to be working for you, I'm not going to have time to go golfing, believe me. Believe me. Believe me folks."
Well last week, he golfed at Mar-A-Lago.... Wednesday, Thursday, Friday...Saturday, and Sunday. Of course, ya know, he gave the previous guy plenty of grief about golfing, and that sentiment was echoed, here on this very forum? Where are those complaints now? Why does he get a pass? The Russians are stirring up crap, the Saudi's murdering people, the Norks playing games, the market is taking a hit, and businesses that supported the corporate tax cuts are laying off workers. What am I missing here?

I respect the fact that you stepped forward and stated your opinion and for the record I wasn’t calling anyone out in particular. Just voicing the vibe I was getting.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Republicans had respect and decorum 3 times, GWB, the funny, likable, humble guy, then McCain, the honorable Vet and POW, and then Romney, successful in business while being one of the nicest guys. All three were called Hilter, racist, and all the other names the left likes to throw around. All three were not even true conservatives, they were more Democrat lite, but that did not stop the left and their media allies from treating them without respect and decorum.

If if the left wants respect and decorum going forward they are going to have to earn it...

MM

I mentioned "respect and decorum," in reference to the president's observation of events that recognize veterans, both living and dead. They have already earned that acknowledgement.... and neither the left nor the right should "want," it.... they should demand it. It's silly, to expect much from a guy who got deferments for bone spurs, called not catching an STD his "private Vietnam," questioned the honor of a POW, didn't want to get wet in France, was too busy on Veteran's Day to visit the "Unknowns," and STILL hasn't visited troops in a war zone.

Now if the last guy had done the same....
(and we all know how that sentence ends)