The Trump Presidency

[Julio3000]

Trump: “I have no problem — I think that’s basically what Dick [Durbin] is saying, we're going to come up with DACA, we’re going to do DACA, and then we can start with phase two, which would be comprehensive.”

McCarthy: “Mr. President, you need to be clear, though. I think what Senator Feinstein is asking there — when we talk about just DACA, we don’t want to be back here two years later. You have to have security.”

Trump: “I think that’s what she’s saying.”

McCarthy: "No, I think she’s saying something different.”

Seriously. What's the issue here? He acquiesced to an idea to do daca first, then move on. He got checked up in the room, and then after the fact.

[mqt]

Well, let's see what they do with legislation. I'd like to see the concept tightened up a bit.

If Trump can use DACA as a pawn to push through comprehensive reform (addressing things like the H1B and chain migration, among others) then it might be worth it in the end.

My personal stance is that it's unethical and disgusting to use the Dreamers as pawns in a political chess match, but if you don't feel that way, I'm sure it is.

[Hawk]

Seriously. What's the issue here? He acquiesced to an idea to do daca first, then move on. He got checked up in the room, and then after the fact.

The way you are choosing to read this is kind of bizarre to me.

McCarthy: "You have to have security.”

Trump: “I think that’s what she’s saying.”

[Hawk]

I don't see how you can refer to a DACA bill as clean if it involves anything else. That seems to be the opposite of the working definition.

The cleanliness of a 'clean bill' refers to what distinguishes the legislation from its original form.

It doesn't mean that we strip away everything except DACA.

[Julio3000]

But it was it what she was saying? DiFi was proposing a bait-and-switch and McCarthy was trying to pull Trump's chestnuts out of the fire.

[Julio3000]

Meanwhile, the important business of the nation has to get done.

[Hawk]

Tortured as the language is, it's ultimately comprehensible.

This where I get lost, because you've chased this thread of rhetorical sloppiness around as if there's some substantial flub on Trump's part. I don't see the language as tortured, or even inelegant. I see common parlance and plain transparency.

My point is that the sum of his statements was ambiguous enough that they required extensive cleaning up after the fact, which wouldn't have been necessary had he clearly answered DF's inquiry. This is neither disingenuous nor controversial...it's backed up by media response to the meeting across the spectrum.

Actually, that wasn't your original point, but we've digressed here today for some reason.

I actually appreciate your pushback against facile criticisms and lazy media narratives about Trump, but when you just blatantly stan for him in support of a similarly facile counternarrative...I dunno. You are diligent and tenacious, but you don't have a lot to work with.

To reiterate now, for the third time, I "support" the unplanned, unscripted, natural exposure of the meeting yesterday. It something that I've never seen before, and this same sentiment was echoed in the media both yesterday and today ("welcome to the studio").

[Hawk]

My personal stance is that it's unethical and disgusting to use the Dreamers as pawns in a political chess match, but if you don't feel that way, I'm sure it is.

My personal stance is that immigration reform is more important than DACA.

Conveniently, it's my political stance as well.

[thethe]

Well, let's see what they do with legislation. I'd like to see the concept tightened up a bit.

If Trump can use DACA as a pawn to push through comprehensive reform (addressing things like the H1B and chain migration, among others) then it might be worth it in the end.

Amnesty in any form is death to Conservative policies. This will negatively impact Americans as poverty will increase and the result will be higher crime and a further deterioration of the country. People are dying all across the world to get to America. Its a slap in the face to all those to just amnesty those who came here illegally. I get DACA is a different animal and will have less impact but I see no way the left compromises on any of these items.

As a Trump supporter this is a non-negotiable item.

[Julio3000]

Aiight, well, if your position depends on a belief that Trump understands what was meant by a clean bill, or indeed the depth and breadth of the issues, go with God.

[57Brave]

Trump after insisting Obama was born in Kenya and Ted Cruz father was part of JFK assasination insists on stronger libel laws.
This is less than 24 hours after being heralded by our Trumpian friends for not pissing himself in public

We can all sleep safe tonight.

[Hawk]

Aiight, well, if your position depends on a belief that Trump understands what was meant by a clean bill, or indeed the depth and breadth of the issues, go with God.

I have no qualms with the position that Trump is inarticulate, although I don't think that makes him any less qualified to do his job.

I do have some issue with your touting of that particular quote as a kind of prima facie evidence that Trump doesn't know what his positions are or what he's talking about.

But these are two completely different things.

[thethe]

More establishment lies. When will people stop paying attention?

[Hawk]

Trump after insisting Obama was born in Kenya and Ted Cruz father was part of JFK assasination insists on stronger libel laws.

Hmm, might want to brush up on defamation law a bit.

(and once you'll do, you'll see that Trump has a very legitimate point about libel, ironically enough)

[57Brave]

do tell
.......................

Definition of libel
1 a : a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought
b archaic : a handbill especially attacking or defaming someone
2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression
b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt
(2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means
(3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures
(4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel
..............

oh here, just pick one



https://www.google.com/search?q=trum...nt=firefox-b-1

https://www.google.com/search?q=ted+...nt=firefox-b-1

[Hawk]

Neither of the instances you mention meets the judicial standard for libel.

[goldfly]

a peddler of bull**** lies that got him to where he is

crying about libel

is just laughable

[Julio3000]

Hmm, might want to brush up on defamation law a bit.

(and once you'll do, you'll see that Trump has a very legitimate point about libel, ironically enough)

You really think so?

[57Brave]

Neither of the instances you mention meets the judicial standard for libel.

do tell

[Hawk]

do tell

To win a U.S. defamation lawsuit, the plaintiff, at the very least, must prove that the defendant:

Published or otherwise broadcast an unprivileged, false statement of fact about the plaintiff;
Caused material harm to the plaintiff by publishing or broadcasting said false statement of fact;
Acted either negligently or with actual malice;

http://kellywarnerlaw.com/us-defamation-laws/