The Trump Presidency 13: The (James) Baker's Dozen

[Norman Alexander]

Betting Stephen Miller had her letter of resignation already printed out for her to sign when she arrived at the WH. And given the shabby treatment dealt to her, even as a loyal Trumpite, in her heart of hearts she is probably going to be relieved that the torture is over.

 

[Norman Alexander]

What Trump REALLY wants on the border.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...px-Foxhole_-_Lebanon_-_Beirut_-_July_1958.jpg

 

[Belz...]

Words mean things.

Yes words mean things. Some people, however, are trying to play with them to avoid dealing with uncomfortable truths, in this case that Trump said he would do something, and never did.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Words mean things.

Not when they devolve into semantic squabbling. You're not fooling anyone.

But don't stop! I love it when someone thinks they can win an argument by denying the plain meaning and intent of a statement.

 

[Minoosh]

Over sell, under deliver, get called on it and blame the messenger.

Yes, this is what Trump does.

 

[The Big Dog]

Not when they devolve into semantic squabbling. You're not fooling anyone.

But don't stop! I love it when someone thinks they can win an argument by denying the plain meaning and intent of a statement.

You mean like the plain meaning of the word "promised"? You know, the word he did not use, despite the filthy leftists using it in their lying headline?

Yes, this is what Trump does.

Ohhhhh! The "i now you are but what am i" rejoinder!

 

[Belz...]

You mean like the plain meaning of the word "promised"?

Yes, exactly like that.

You're playing to an audience that doesn't exist.

Ohhhhh! The "i now you are but what am i" rejoinder!

It's only acceptable when you do it, right?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Perhaps so. With that said, though, accepting unpleasant truths and going from there is not the same as making insults. Not by a long shot. Nor, for that matter, have you given me any reason to believe that you were paying any attention to what was actually being said, just that you were outraged by... something that you assumed, incorrectly, in the only specific criticism you made.

You're making an assumption that crap was true. And once again here's another post that claims if someone doesn't see things your way, they must not have spent enough time on it, must not have looked at it. Is it really that hard to understand people can disagree with you?

No! We don't see the world the same. And I don't care care what you believe.

This thread is getting weird.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

ETA: Knowing this administration, which seems more likely - resigned or forced to resign?

I say she failed to have a magical answer for the immigration problem. Trump wants magic, writing's on the wall for everyone that can't produce his magical solutions.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I say she failed to have a magical answer for the immigration problem. Trump wants magic, writing's on the wall for everyone that can't produce his magical solutions.

Which is why the majority of the senior Trump Administration and Cabinet positions are now filled by "acting" appointees. Trump apparently likes it that way - he can then pistol-point his finger and fire and replace them much more easily. Just like he did on that TV show that disappeared into the void.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

You're making an assumption that crap was true. And once again here's another post that claims if someone doesn't see things your way, they must not have spent enough time on it, must not have looked at it. Is it really that hard to understand people can disagree with you?



No! We don't see the world the same. And I don't care care what you believe.



This thread is getting weird.

Because your criticisms didn't actually address the position you spoke of. In some cases, you outright misrepresented (I make no claim of intent) the position through framing and phrasing.

Now you're doing a meta version of the same thing. It's not you having a different point of view that leads people to accuse you of being novice on the point. It's your demonstrable lack of factual efficacy in your statements.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Trump actually did the firing of Nielsen? There’s no way he could do that.

Fake dos!

 

[quadraginta]

What anybody from this WH says I take with a YUGE grain of salt. Resigned due to having had enough of Trump's insanity or being forced to resign is a toss up.

Give it time. There are alternatives left. Bribery is still an option, too. Or at least a soft landing

Wait and see if she gets a spot with the re-election campaign.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because your criticisms didn't actually address the position you spoke of. In some cases, you outright misrepresented (I make no claim of intent) the position through framing and phrasing.

Now you're doing a meta version of the same thing. It's not you having a different point of view that leads people to accuse you of being novice on the point. It's your demonstrable lack of factual efficacy in your statements.

WTF?

Novice? In the politics forum?

How about this explanation: I don't have the time to address all the idealism in some posts. I don't choose to read everything people insist I read on subjects like the UBI because I already have read enough.

 

[quadraginta]

You mean like the plain meaning of the word "promised"? You know, the word he did not use, despite the filthy leftists using it in their lying headline?

<snip>

Did they say they promised?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

WTF?

Novice? In the politics forum?

You did it again.

You are "novice" on the topic of a specific form of UBI recently presented. Not a novice of the politics forum.

How about this explanation: I don't have the time to address all the idealism in some posts. I don't choose to read everything people insist I read on subjects like the UBI because I already have read enough.

Then don't act surprised when your boilerplate critique rails against non-existent features of what you refuse to inform yourself about. People pointing out such an error are not doing so to "diss" you as uninformed out of partisan spite. They're pointing out the error(s) because they are error(s).

 

[Foolmewunz]

Did they say they promised?

Clearly not. They're "filthy leftists", after all. Headline Grifters!

 

[Trebuchet]

Clearly not. They're "filthy leftists", after all. Headline Grifters!

If I was on the computer instead of tapatalk right now I'd nominate that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You did it again.

You are "novice" on the topic of a specific form of UBI recently presented. ...

No, that's your ******* imagination, not based on anything other than I dismissed an assertion about the UBI because I've already looked at the issue in depth.

Which, BTW, I don't need to prove to any of you. You are welcome to your false beliefs. Not my job to correct that. I have more important things occupying my time right now.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

No, that's your ******* imagination, not based on anything other than I dismissed an assertion about the UBI because I've already looked at the issue in depth.

No, I again maintain it is based on several of your objections not even being true of the proposal you objected to.

You are not Dr. Xavier.

Since being called out on this, your entire defense rests on slandering others for having impure motives for pointing out these errors while ignoring their existence.

Which, BTW, I don't need to prove to any of you. You are welcome to your false beliefs. Not my job to correct that. I have more important things occupying my time right now.

Precious.