Regardless of what you think

[jarnon]

Trump's comment about "the countries they came from" seems to focus on Somalia. (I don't know where he thinks the other ladies are from, but the families of two of them have lived in America longer than the Trumps.) So I'd call it racist. If Obama said that about a Somali-American, I'd have to call it prejudice based on national origin rather than race, but it's still bigoted.

When you have to use words like "seems" you are inserting your own biases. That's bias, but it's not fact.

Sorry, let me rephrase without using “seems” and sticking to facts.

The only corrupt backwards country Trump or his supporters have identified is Somalia. Pressley’s and Ocasio-Cortez’s ancestors have been Americans for more generations than Trump’s. Tlaib’s parents were born in Israel and the Palestinian territories, which nobody in the Trump administration has ever called a “country.” So except for Omar, it’s unclear what “countries” Trump urged the Congresswomen to go back to.

This point has been ignored by both the left and right. As they argue over whether the tweet is racist or just insulting, few have commented that it's logically flawed, and nobody has explained what it means.

[flockofseagulls104]

I have no idea who she is, but she has expressed very succinctly why I have decided to stop posting my political viewpoints here on the bored.

Spoiler

Before you argue with someone, ask yourself: Is that person even mentally mature enough to grasp the concept of different perspectives? Because, if not, there's absolutely no point.
--Amber Veal.

Obviously, several people here are not.

[Bob78164]

I refuse to not vote, and I wouldn't vote for any dem at all.
Hope springs eternal.

So what you're saying a boorish xenophobic troll is better than any Democrat.

Which shows how far this country has sunk into partisanship.

You know what he is and yet you'll vote for him anyway and "hope" he reins it in.

I think what she's saying is a flawed businessman who is accomplishing things that are important to her is a better bet than anything/everything the Dems are offering. Partisanship, my ass. I wish they'd take his Twitter away, but for now, he's got my vote. I'm sure many Democrats thought, well, yeah, good ol' Teddy killed a woman, but hey, he's still my guy for the senate! High horse much?

The correct analogy would be if a hypothetical President Kennedy had killed Ms. Kopechne deliberately and had continued to deliberately kill women on a daily or weekly basis throughout his term in office.

Democrats would not tolerate comparable behavior from one of their own. You don’t have to believe me. Ask Al Franken. —Bob

[jarnon]

I'm sure many Democrats thought, well, yeah, good ol' Teddy killed a woman, but hey, he's still my guy for the senate! High horse much?

The correct analogy would be if a hypothetical President Kennedy had killed Ms. Kopechne deliberately and had continued to deliberately kill women on a daily or weekly basis throughout his term in office.

Democrats would not tolerate comparable behavior from one of their own. You don’t have to believe me. Ask Al Franken. —Bob

RIP Mary Jo, who died 50 years ago.

Since most of us who remember Chappaquiddick think Kennedy was DUI, he wouldn’t keep driving (and killing passengers) as president. But he would have his trembling finger on the nuclear button. If he was the candidate, it would have been a major issue and maybe cost him the election.

[silverscreenselect]

The level of media 'bias' has reached never-before-seen proportions, and I believe it's disengenuous to claim otherwise.

And the level of lying that emanates from the Presidency has reached never-before-seen proportions, and I believe it's disengenuous to claim otherwise. If the media gives Trump a sounding board to spout off lies and at best xenophobic bigoted comments without putting them in perspective, then they do the public a disservice.

Even Fox News has called Trump on the carpet a few times for his lies, and they are the network that berated Obama for wearing a tan suit and eating Dijon mustard.

[Beebs52]

So what you're saying a boorish xenophobic troll is better than any Democrat.

Which shows how far this country has sunk into partisanship.

You know what he is and yet you'll vote for him anyway and "hope" he reins it in.

I think what she's saying is a flawed businessman who is accomplishing things that are important to her is a better bet than anything/everything the Dems are offering. Partisanship, my ass. I wish they'd take his Twitter away, but for now, he's got my vote. I'm sure many Democrats thought, well, yeah, good ol' Teddy killed a woman, but hey, he's still my guy for the senate! High horse much?

The correct analogy would be if a hypothetical President Kennedy had killed Ms. Kopechne deliberately and had continued to deliberately kill women on a daily or weekly basis throughout his term in office.

Democrats would not tolerate comparable behavior from one of their own. You don’t have to believe me. Ask Al Franken. —Bob

Talk about adorably naive. And silly analogy.

[Estonut]

The RCCA has a multi-stage, approval process for all social media posts on any of the RCCA’s social media properties.

So, several people at the RCCA approved this image before it was posted with their website and logo listed on it. Got it.

Got it? I think not. The site says they have a process, but does NOT say that this particular post went through that approval process. Did you ever look up the original Facebook posting, or did you just blindly post the meme here?

The original posting was made to Facebook around 11:00 PM on Friday, the 19th. I suspect the poster may have intentionally bypassed the normal approval channels.

[tlynn78]

So what you're saying a boorish xenophobic troll is better than any Democrat.

Which shows how far this country has sunk into partisanship.

You know what he is and yet you'll vote for him anyway and "hope" he reins it in.

I think what she's saying is a flawed businessman who is accomplishing things that are important to her is a better bet than anything/everything the Dems are offering. Partisanship, my ass. I wish they'd take his Twitter away, but for now, he's got my vote. I'm sure many Democrats thought, well, yeah, good ol' Teddy killed a woman, but hey, he's still my guy for the senate! High horse much?

The correct analogy would be if a hypothetical President Kennedy had killed Ms. Kopechne deliberately and had continued to deliberately kill women on a daily or weekly basis throughout his term in office.

Democrats would not tolerate comparable behavior from one of their own. You don’t have to believe me. Ask Al Franken. —Bob

How timely:
"Comedian and former U.S. Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., now regrets resigning from Congress in 2018 over groping allegations, and he spoke to The New Yorker about his experience for an upcoming piece.

The author of the article, Jane Mayer, said she asked Franken point-blank if he had any regrets about stepping down and he said he wished he'd taken his case to the ethics committee. “Oh, yeah. Absolutely," Franken said.


Mayer also interviewed seven of Franken's Senate colleague, who now regret their role in his resignation and have begun to second-guess their decision.

"Seven current and former U.S. senators who demanded Franken’s resignation in 2017 told me that they’d been wrong to do so," Mayer said.

Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., said Franken was "railroaded" and claimed he is now troubled by the lack of due process. “I made a mistake," Udall said. "I started having second thoughts shortly after he stepped down. He had the right to be heard by an independent investigative body. I’ve heard from people around my state, and around the country, saying that they think he got railroaded. It doesn’t seem fair. I’m a lawyer. I really believe in due process."

[Estonut]

It doesn’t seem fair. I’m a lawyer. I really believe in due process.

Unless it affects your polling numbers, right, Senator?

[silverscreenselect]

The RCCA has a multi-stage, approval process for all social media posts on any of the RCCA’s social media properties.

So, several people at the RCCA approved this image before it was posted with their website and logo listed on it. Got it.

Got it? I think not. The site says they have a process, but does NOT say that this particular post went through that approval process. Did you ever look up the original Facebook posting, or did you just blindly post the meme here?

The original posting was made to Facebook around 11:00 PM on Friday, the 19th. I suspect the poster may have intentionally bypassed the normal approval channels.

So, when they say "all" social media posts, they mean all except this one. By the way, going back a couple of weeks on the site, they have several posts at 10-11:00 at night, including a link to a Chicago Tribune article critical of Gov. Pritzker July 1 at 10:15 pm.

By the way, the apology was offensive in and of itself: " I am sorry if anyone who saw the image was offended by the contents." He's not apologizing for making the post or offending someone; he's just apologizing if anyone was offended, as if they are somehow thin skinned or sensitive.

Real translation: "I'm sorry we got caught."

[wbtravis007]

I have no idea who she is, but she has expressed very succinctly why I have decided to stop posting my political viewpoints here on the bored.

Spoiler

Before you argue with someone, ask yourself: Is that person even mentally mature enough to grasp the concept of different perspectives? Because, if not, there's absolutely no point.
--Amber Veal.

Obviously, several people here are not.

ICM!

Knew it. This lasted about as long as your solemn pledge never to listen to Rush again if he hired a lawyer.

Talk about predictable!

SAD!!!

[flockofseagulls104]

I have no idea who she is, but she has expressed very succinctly why I have decided to stop posting my political viewpoints here on the bored.

Spoiler

Before you argue with someone, ask yourself: Is that person even mentally mature enough to grasp the concept of different perspectives? Because, if not, there's absolutely no point.
--Amber Veal.

Obviously, several people here are not.

ICM!

Knew it. This lasted about as long as your solemn pledge never to listen to Rush again if he hired a lawyer.

Talk about predictable!

SAD!!!

WTF does it have to do with you? I wrote you off as insane a long time ago. aSSShole is more recent, not only insane but incapable of any debate except informing me I don't hate trump enough and doing the old race baiting routine. And bobby is in the process of proving himself unwilling and/or unable to deal with a different perspective. Running out of people to debate with.
Go back under your rock.

[Bob78164]

I have no idea who she is, but she has expressed very succinctly why I have decided to stop posting my political viewpoints here on the bored.

Spoiler

Before you argue with someone, ask yourself: Is that person even mentally mature enough to grasp the concept of different perspectives? Because, if not, there's absolutely no point.
--Amber Veal.

Obviously, several people here are not.

ICM!

Knew it. This lasted about as long as your solemn pledge never to listen to Rush again if he hired a lawyer.

Talk about predictable!

SAD!!!

WTF does it have to do with you? I wrote you off as insane a long time ago. aSSShole is more recent, not only insane but incapable of any debate except informing me I don't hate trump enough and doing the old race baiting routine. And bobby is in the process of proving himself unwilling and/or unable to deal with a different perspective. Running out of people to debate with.
Go back under your rock.

Stop trying to tell people what to do. You post here, you expose yourself to any response anyone cares to post. You don't get to control who responds or how they respond. --Bob

[Beebs52]

ICM!

Knew it. This lasted about as long as your solemn pledge never to listen to Rush again if he hired a lawyer.

Talk about predictable!

SAD!!!

WTF does it have to do with you? I wrote you off as insane a long time ago. aSSShole is more recent, not only insane but incapable of any debate except informing me I don't hate trump enough and doing the old race baiting routine. And bobby is in the process of proving himself unwilling and/or unable to deal with a different perspective. Running out of people to debate with.
Go back under your rock.

Stop trying to tell people what to do. You post here, you expose yourself to any response anyone cares to post. You don't get to control who responds or how they respond. --Bob

Stop being so self righteous. He posted a response. End of story. Just because you fancy yourself post arbiter doesn't make it so.

[flockofseagulls104]

ICM!

Knew it. This lasted about as long as your solemn pledge never to listen to Rush again if he hired a lawyer.

Talk about predictable!

SAD!!!

WTF does it have to do with you? I wrote you off as insane a long time ago. aSSShole is more recent, not only insane but incapable of any debate except informing me I don't hate trump enough and doing the old race baiting routine. And bobby is in the process of proving himself unwilling and/or unable to deal with a different perspective. Running out of people to debate with.
Go back under your rock.

Stop trying to tell people what to do. You post here, you expose yourself to any response anyone cares to post. You don't get to control who responds or how they respond. --Bob

Says the ethical lawyer who threatened to sue me because he didn't like my opinion. Like I said. You are full of hypocrisy.

One more chance bobby-tel. Answer YES or NO with no smarmy bat-phone answers or justifications.

1. Is it currently a federal law that crossing our borders and entering our country without authorization and/or documentation is a crime?
2. Are people who have crossed into our country and stay here without official authorization and/or documentation in violation of the law?
3. Is the President of the United States responsible for 'faithfully executing' the laws of this country?
4. If the answer to question 1 is 'Yes', can the United States Congress change that law?

Let's see how you do with these.

[Bob78164]

WTF does it have to do with you? I wrote you off as insane a long time ago. aSSShole is more recent, not only insane but incapable of any debate except informing me I don't hate trump enough and doing the old race baiting routine. And bobby is in the process of proving himself unwilling and/or unable to deal with a different perspective. Running out of people to debate with.
Go back under your rock.

Stop trying to tell people what to do. You post here, you expose yourself to any response anyone cares to post. You don't get to control who responds or how they respond. --Bob

Stop being so self righteous. He posted a response. End of story. Just because you fancy yourself post arbiter doesn't make it so.

I'm tired of flock trying to tell people what to do. So I posted my own response saying so. End of story. --Bob

[Bob78164]

1. Is it currently a federal law that crossing our borders and entering our country without authorization and/or documentation is a crime?
2. Are people who have crossed into our country and stay here without official authorization and/or documentation in violation of the law?
3. Is the President of the United States responsible for 'faithfully executing' the laws of this country?
4. If the answer to question 1 is 'Yes', can the United States Congress change that law?

Let's see how you do with these.

1. Only in certain circumstances. In particular, it is not a crime to enter this country anywhere you can in order to claim refugee status.
2. In certain circumstances they may be in violation of federal law. Their presence here is not a violation of any state law that I'm aware of. Therefore the states have no responsibility to take action to enforce those laws, nor do they have any obligation to use their own resources to help the federal government enforce those laws. We see the same phenomenon with possession of marijuana, which is now legal under the laws of a number of states but is still strictly illegal under federal law. I don't see you pissing and moaning about the states that have decided to take a position contrary to federal law on this issue.
3. "Faithfully executing" is not a well-defined phrase. What, precisely, do you mean by it? Does "faithfully executing" the laws of this country include issuing a pardon to someone who has been convicted of defying a lawful federal court order?
4. See 3.

Now it's your turn. Is it your position that the people of California should be forced to spend their state tax dollars enforcing federal policies that they disagree with? That California state officials can be conscripted to enforce federal policies that the people of California don't agree with? --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

1. Is it currently a federal law that crossing our borders and entering our country without authorization and/or documentation is a crime?
2. Are people who have crossed into our country and stay here without official authorization and/or documentation in violation of the law?
3. Is the President of the United States responsible for 'faithfully executing' the laws of this country?
4. If the answer to question 1 is 'Yes', can the United States Congress change that law?

Let's see how you do with these.

1. Only in certain circumstances. In particular, it is not a crime to enter this country anywhere you can in order to claim refugee status.
2. In certain circumstances they may be in violation of federal law. Their presence here is not a violation of any state law that I'm aware of. Therefore the states have no responsibility to take action to enforce those laws, nor do they have any obligation to use their own resources to help the federal government enforce those laws. We see the same phenomenon with possession of marijuana, which is now legal under the laws of a number of states but is still strictly illegal under federal law. I don't see you pissing and moaning about the states that have decided to take a position contrary to federal law on this issue.
3. "Faithfully executing" is not a well-defined phrase. What, precisely, do you mean by it? Does "faithfully executing" the laws of this country include issuing a pardon to someone who has been convicted of defying a lawful federal court order?
4. See 3.

Now it's your turn. Is it your position that the people of California should be forced to spend their state tax dollars enforcing federal policies that they disagree with? That California state officials can be conscripted to enforce federal policies that the people of California don't agree with? --Bob

Nope. Yes or No. Follow directions. Is it too simple for you?

[Bob78164]

1. Is it currently a federal law that crossing our borders and entering our country without authorization and/or documentation is a crime?
2. Are people who have crossed into our country and stay here without official authorization and/or documentation in violation of the law?
3. Is the President of the United States responsible for 'faithfully executing' the laws of this country?
4. If the answer to question 1 is 'Yes', can the United States Congress change that law?

Let's see how you do with these.

1. Only in certain circumstances. In particular, it is not a crime to enter this country anywhere you can in order to claim refugee status.
2. In certain circumstances they may be in violation of federal law. Their presence here is not a violation of any state law that I'm aware of. Therefore the states have no responsibility to take action to enforce those laws, nor do they have any obligation to use their own resources to help the federal government enforce those laws. We see the same phenomenon with possession of marijuana, which is now legal under the laws of a number of states but is still strictly illegal under federal law. I don't see you pissing and moaning about the states that have decided to take a position contrary to federal law on this issue.
3. "Faithfully executing" is not a well-defined phrase. What, precisely, do you mean by it? Does "faithfully executing" the laws of this country include issuing a pardon to someone who has been convicted of defying a lawful federal court order?
4. See 3.

Now it's your turn. Is it your position that the people of California should be forced to spend their state tax dollars enforcing federal policies that they disagree with? That California state officials can be conscripted to enforce federal policies that the people of California don't agree with? --Bob

Nope. Yes or No. Follow directions. Is it too simple for you?

Does 2+ x= 5?

Answer: It depends on what x is.

Flock: I want a yes or no answer.

That's what you've done here. Or is asking a coherent question too difficult for you? --Bob

[Beebs52]

Stop trying to tell people what to do. You post here, you expose yourself to any response anyone cares to post. You don't get to control who responds or how they respond. --Bob

Stop being so self righteous. He posted a response. End of story. Just because you fancy yourself post arbiter doesn't make it so.

I'm tired of flock trying to tell people what to do. So I posted my own response saying so. End of story. --Bob

Snowflake a bit? We all do "talk to the hand" here at times.

[Bob78164]

Stop being so self righteous. He posted a response. End of story. Just because you fancy yourself post arbiter doesn't make it so.

I'm tired of flock trying to tell people what to do. So I posted my own response saying so. End of story. --Bob

Snowflake a bit? We all do "talk to the hand" here at times.

Flock does it more than a bit. Enough so that I'm tired of seeing it so I spoke up. I'll continue to do so.

And I don't think it's true that "we all" do it. --Bob

[Beebs52]

I'm tired of flock trying to tell people what to do. So I posted my own response saying so. End of story. --Bob

Snowflake a bit? We all do "talk to the hand" here at times.

Flock does it more than a bit. Enough so that I'm tired of seeing it so I spoke up. I'll continue to do so.

And I don't think it's true that "we all" do it. --Bob

Don't forget to stomp your feet, too.

[Bob78164]

Snowflake a bit? We all do "talk to the hand" here at times.

Flock does it more than a bit. Enough so that I'm tired of seeing it so I spoke up. I'll continue to do so.

And I don't think it's true that "we all" do it. --Bob

Don't forget to stomp your feet, too.

Ignoring bad conduct is not a solution. If you don't like my commentary, you're free to ignore it. Or me. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

I'm tired of flock trying to tell people what to do. So I posted my own response saying so. End of story. --Bob

Snowflake a bit? We all do "talk to the hand" here at times.

Flock does it more than a bit. Enough so that I'm tired of seeing it so I spoke up. I'll continue to do so.

And I don't think it's true that "we all" do it. --Bob

So sue me, bobby.
And answer the questions. If I had you on the stand in a courtroom you would either answer yes or no i dont know or take the 5th. Simple.
And you can go back under travis's rock too.

[Bob78164]

Snowflake a bit? We all do "talk to the hand" here at times.

Flock does it more than a bit. Enough so that I'm tired of seeing it so I spoke up. I'll continue to do so.

And I don't think it's true that "we all" do it. --Bob

So sue me, bobby.
And answer the questions. If I had you on the stand in a courtroom you would either answer yes or no i dont know or take the 5th. Simple.
And you can go back under travis's rock too.

I did answer them. And if you tried to persist a judge would shut you down.

But you don't get to cross examine me. Either this is an equal dialogue (or as equal as it can be given the evident flaws in both your premises and your ability to reason) or it's not going to happen. If you're so lacking in confidence in your ability to defend your own position that you won't respond to questions, I'm sure as hell not going to cooperate in your show. So I'll content myself in pointing out the obvious errors and other problems in your understanding of both the law and our society, and in the end the American people (which, according to a poll that Fox News released today, are solidly against Donny's position on these issues) will render their verdict next November. --Bob