Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2018 5:46 AM
198 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Pressie, Tangle (4 members, 194 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,781 Year: 18,604/29,783 Month: 549/2,043 Week: 101/386 Day: 4/47 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
128129
130
131132
...
178NextFF
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
Percy
Member
Posts: 17968
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1936 of 2663 (828536)
02-20-2018 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1934 by NoNukes
02-20-2018 3:35 PM


Re: Collusion by the Trump Campaign Proven Six Months Ago?
NoNukes writes:

Actually, absent a bit more, this looks like a plot[1] to collude because apparently there was no actual dirt or a furthering of a plot to get dirt, at least that is according to what we've been told about that meeting.

From Trump campaign–Russian meetings:

quote:
On July 14, Akhmetshin stated in an interview that Veselnitskaya had claimed to have evidence of "violations of Russian law by a Democratic donor", and added that she "described her findings at the meeting and left a document about them with Trump Jr. and the others."

Details about who is who can be found at the link. Claims about what was in the document vary, Akhmetshin's being just one version, but apparently information changed hands. Donald Jr. characterizes this as opposition research, and it would be were the other people at the meeting representatives of your average everyday opposition research firm, but since they were Russian agents it does look like collusion to me that can be connected (because of derivative liability) to all the other Russian election-related meddling.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1934 by NoNukes, posted 02-20-2018 3:35 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1937 by NoNukes, posted 02-20-2018 8:12 PM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 1937 of 2663 (828542)
02-20-2018 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1936 by Percy
02-20-2018 6:06 PM


Re: Collusion by the Trump Campaign Proven Six Months Ago?
On July 14, Akhmetshin stated in an interview that Veselnitskaya had claimed to have evidence of "violations of Russian law by a Democratic donor", and added that she "described her findings at the meeting and left a document about them with Trump Jr. and the others."

Where is the illegality? Releasing dirt is not illegal. If the dirt was illegally obtained, then you'd have something... on the Russians. But where is the American participation in an illegal activity?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1936 by Percy, posted 02-20-2018 6:06 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1939 by Percy, posted 02-21-2018 8:22 AM NoNukes has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14547
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 1938 of 2663 (828548)
02-21-2018 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1935 by Percy
02-20-2018 5:38 PM


Re: Collusion by the Trump Campaign Proven Six Months Ago?
quote:

I guess we can differ on what constitutes an agreement and sufficient evidence, but boiled down this is what does it for me. From the emails between Goldstone and Donald Jr.:

Goldstone: "The Crown prosecutor of Russia...offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary...and be very useful to your father."
Donald Jr.: "...I love it..."
And then they attended the meeting.


I think that you are stretching. Is handing over information illegal in itself ?

You may presume that it referred to illegally obtained information but that claim is not explicit in the email and I don’t see how you can prove that Trump jr thought it referred to illegally obtained information. (Even then the illegal act had already taken place)

As I say it looks bad but it doesn’t rise to the level of proving conspiracy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1935 by Percy, posted 02-20-2018 5:38 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1940 by Percy, posted 02-21-2018 8:27 AM PaulK has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17968
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1939 of 2663 (828561)
02-21-2018 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1937 by NoNukes
02-20-2018 8:12 PM


Re: Collusion by the Trump Campaign Proven Six Months Ago?
NoNukes writes:

Where is the illegality? Releasing dirt is not illegal. If the dirt was illegally obtained, then you'd have something... on the Russians. But where is the American participation in an illegal activity?

FEC regulations prohibit any value provided by a foreign national. Then by derivative liability the Trump campaign becomes connected to the whole Russian conspiracy, especially the tremendous value provided by release of hacked emails and by manipulation of social media.

From the Cornell Law Library (52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals):

quote:
(a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for—

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
...
...
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

The document passed from the Russians to Donald Jr. represents an "other thing of value". A crime was committed at that meeting, the meeting represents a conspiracy, and derivative liability makes the Trump campaign complicit in all the crimes described in the recent indictment.

Just what is publicly known places the Trump campaign in dire straights, and obviously Mueller knows much more than we do. Trump's continual denials of collusion is a) a lie; and b) for public political consumption to try to render impotent any Mueller charges.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1937 by NoNukes, posted 02-20-2018 8:12 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1942 by NoNukes, posted 02-21-2018 8:47 AM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17968
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1940 of 2663 (828562)
02-21-2018 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1938 by PaulK
02-21-2018 12:56 AM


Re: Collusion by the Trump Campaign Proven Six Months Ago?
PaulK writes:

I think that you are stretching. Is handing over information illegal in itself ?

Yes. See Message 1939.

As I say it looks bad but it doesn’t rise to the level of proving conspiracy.

That may be true since whether there was a conspiracy is for a jury to decide, or if Trump is impeached then it's for the Senate to decide. But it does rise to the level of indictments charging conspiracy.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1938 by PaulK, posted 02-21-2018 12:56 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1941 by PaulK, posted 02-21-2018 8:41 AM Percy has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14547
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1941 of 2663 (828564)
02-21-2018 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1940 by Percy
02-21-2018 8:27 AM


Re: Collusion by the Trump Campaign Proven Six Months Ago?
I’ll just point out that there seem to be serious questions over whether a document alleging misconduct by a Clinton donor should really be included.

Eugene Volokh


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1940 by Percy, posted 02-21-2018 8:27 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1943 by Percy, posted 02-21-2018 5:07 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 1942 of 2663 (828565)
02-21-2018 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1939 by Percy
02-21-2018 8:22 AM


Re: Collusion by the Trump Campaign Proven Six Months Ago?
The document passed from the Russians to Donald Jr. represents an "other thing of value"

Is that your best argument? That is a serious stretch, but at least your position is out there, and we all understand it. I'm not convinced.

ABE:

Percy writes:

That may be true since whether there was a conspiracy is for a jury to decide

This is probably not true. Issues of law for always decided by the court, meaning the judge. The judge will interpret the law. He will either do it prior to trial or after the presentation of the case in instructions to the jury. Whether or not passing on information is included as "value" under the statute would certainly be a question of law and not a question of fact.

Questions of law are also treated differently on appeal. The appellate courts review issues of law under a de novo standard, while they can perform only a limited review on other questions that arise in a trial. Appellate courts are completely free to substitute their ruling on a matter of law for the original court's view, while they are supposed to give deference to the lower court's decision on fact issues.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1939 by Percy, posted 02-21-2018 8:22 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1944 by Percy, posted 02-21-2018 6:02 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17968
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1943 of 2663 (828628)
02-21-2018 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1941 by PaulK
02-21-2018 8:41 AM


Re: Collusion by the Trump Campaign Proven Six Months Ago?
PaulK writes:

I’ll just point out that there seem to be serious questions over whether a document alleging misconduct by a Clinton donor should really be included.

If you read the rest of the section (Trump campaign–Russian meetings, only three paragraphs) in addition to the small portion I quoted you'll see that it wasn't merely an allegation of "misconduct by a Clinton donor." It was an allegation that the Clinton campaign was accepting foreign campaign donations, a violation of federal campaign laws. So Donald Jr., a Trump campaign aide, accepted something of value from a Kremlin agent. Even Trump, usually unafraid to appear cozy with the Russians, realized the dangers on this one and drafted an innocuous meeting description.

Eugene Volokh

Or using the title as the link, Can it be a crime to do opposition research by asking foreigners for information? by conservative columnist Eugene Volokh. Yes, that's the Trumpian view, and maybe a foreshadowing of how Trump campaign aides will argue in court, and maybe Trump himself before the Senate if it ever comes to that.

I do think that Volokh has a point when he describes federal campaign law as too overly broad. For example, the Hillary Clinton campaign hired Fusion GPS (a U.S. firm) to do opposition research, something all presidential campaigns do. But was it a violation of federal campaign law when Fusion GPS hired a foreign national to do some of the research?

But I don't think any U.S. courts will find problems with federal campaign laws in the case of a U.S presidential campaign gleefully ("I love it") accepting information from Kremlin agents, especially not after Trump's campaign solicitation of Russian help in tracking down the missing Clinton emails. Courts have treated what Trump said on the campaign trail regarding Muslims very seriously, and I suspect they'll do the same regarding the possibility of Russian collusion. Here's another coincidence that is unlikely to really be a coincidence: Within an hour of Donald Jr.'s meeting with the Russians, Trump tweeted about missing Clinton emails. What we know publicly about that meeting is bad enough, but what really happened at that meeting is probably devastating.

In my little experience with the legal system I think what surprises me most is the pragmatism of most courts in interpreting poorly worded portions of laws. They usually go straight for what was actually intended and ignore any spurious interpretations. Regardless of the overly broad expression of federal campaign laws criticized by Volokh, I think courts will have a pretty good idea of just the kind of thing these laws were intended to prohibit, like the Donald Jr. meeting with the Russians.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1941 by PaulK, posted 02-21-2018 8:41 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17968
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1944 of 2663 (828637)
02-21-2018 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1942 by NoNukes
02-21-2018 8:47 AM


Re: Collusion by the Trump Campaign Proven Six Months Ago?
NoNukes writes:

The document passed from the Russians to Donald Jr. represents an "other thing of value"

Is that your best argument? That is a serious stretch, but at least your position is out there, and we all understand it. I'm not convinced.

I'm not clear on what you mean. That the document was not "an other thing of value"? That Donald Jr. didn't ask for the document, so it doesn't matter? Something else?

We may never know whether what is publicly known right now is sufficient for the courts to consider it a crime, because I think Mueller knows much more, and that's what the courts will actually consider.

Next in an AbE you respond to my Message 1940 to PaulK:

Percy writes:

That may be true since whether there was a conspiracy is for a jury to decide

This is probably not true.

Sure it is.

Issues of law for always decided by the court, meaning the judge.

I wasn't posing an "issue of law." I only meant the prosecutor charges the defendants with conspiracy to defraud the United States, and the jury decides whether the defendants are guilty of the charge.

The judge will interpret the law. He will either do it prior to trial or after the presentation of the case in instructions to the jury. Whether or not passing on information is included as "value" under the statute would certainly be a question of law and not a question of fact.

Oh, that's what you're referring to as an "issue of law," the "other things of value." I don't recall "other things of value" ever coming up in the messages between me and PaulK, but sure, I guess I can see how whether the document constitutes an "other thing of value" is an issue of law for the judge to decide, and that it could be grist for an appellate court.

...while they are supposed to give deference to the lower court's decision on fact issues.

Off-topic, but this is a pet peeve of mine. I understand the need for finality regarding facts, especially in an era of endless appeals and and "new" facts and witnesses recanting and so forth, but I've read too many examples in the news of cases of the courts sticking with the original facts way beyond the point of reasonability. Worst one for me is still the Fells Acre Day Care case. Scott Harshbarger probably still believes there was a nationwide outbreak of Satanic ritual abuse of children in the 1980's, but he has to because he built his career upon it (see Harshbarger and the Amiraults and Fells Acres Day Care Center preschool trial).

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1942 by NoNukes, posted 02-21-2018 8:47 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1945 by NoNukes, posted 02-21-2018 6:28 PM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 1945 of 2663 (828640)
02-21-2018 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1944 by Percy
02-21-2018 6:02 PM


Re: Collusion by the Trump Campaign Proven Six Months Ago?
I'm not clear on what you mean. That the document was not "an other thing of value"?

I am not asking whether the document had a value. I am asking the legal question of whether the document was "an other thing of value" as targetted under the act. That question is not going to be answered simply by consulting a dictionary. You may need to read the statute, its surrounding notes, consider precedent, the legislative history, the problem the legislature is trying to address, etc. The question might well have a constitutional dimension.

In this case, we know that Congress was concerned with keeping the foreign money and other money like things (like free labor, free airtime) from being a part of the election. Yet we also understand that under our laws, foreigners are free to post derogatory information on Twitter, but that paid for campaigns are forbidden. In my view, that rationale suggests that providing a dirt document would likely not something Congress was targetting.

Off-topic, but this is a pet peeve of mine. I understand the need for finality regarding facts, especially in an era of endless appeals and and "new" facts and witnesses recanting and so forth, but I've read too many examples in the news of cases of the courts sticking with the original facts way beyond the point of reasonability.

That is an understandable concern. The primary reason for not having appellate courts take a new look at facts is that part of assessing the truth is seeing the testimony of the witnesses, and making attempts to judge their credibility. The judge/jury does not just look at a transcript, they also observe the demeanor of the witnesses and the questioner, whether or not the witness is fidgeting, pulling at his color, sweating, looking folks in the eye, etc. Evidence that appears weighty can easily be dismissed if it is offered by a party that is not credible.

On the other hand, the appellate courts do not hold trials, and they don't have access to the information that the triers of fact have. If there is new evidence that was unavailable at trial, perhaps that warrants a new trial, but the appellate court won't hold that trial. If instead, we are talking about old evidence that could have been presented, well choices of what to present and not to present are matters of strategy. If you guess wrong, fairness would not require that you get a do-over.

I am not going to pretend that the current process is ideal. I know that some folks get the shaft because of desire for finality of judgment. But there are reasons why there are limits on what courts can do.

Edited by NoNukes, : address more stuff


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1944 by Percy, posted 02-21-2018 6:02 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1946 by Percy, posted 02-22-2018 1:34 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1954 by Percy, posted 02-27-2018 8:23 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17968
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1946 of 2663 (828682)
02-22-2018 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1945 by NoNukes
02-21-2018 6:28 PM


Re: Collusion by the Trump Campaign Proven Six Months Ago?
NoNukes writes:

I am not going to pretend that the current process is ideal. I know that some folks get the shaft because of desire for finality of judgment. But there are reasons why there are limits on what courts can do.

It's not that the current process isn't ideal. I actually think the process when considered in isolation is pretty good. The problem is that people run the process, people aren't perfect, and we need a process that takes that into account.

Again using the example of the Fells Acres Day Care Center preschool trial, District Attorney Scott Harshbarger prosecuted the case and put three innocent people in jail. As the appeals wended their way through the courts Harshbarger became Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (very much on the reputation he established by convicting the Amiraults) and was influential in causing the courts to deny appeals over and over again.

When Gerald Amirault was finally released from prison in 2004, one of the more likely reasons it wasn't challenged was because the then DA had no stomach for marching into a courtroom armed with the childrens' "expert child psychologist" extracted testimonies about magic rooms and rapes using knives and forks (no medical evidence supported any rapes) and assaults by clowns and being tied to trees and so on. Back in 1984 it wasn't understood how children responded to leading questions, especially when pressured with tactics like (I'm recollecting here, not quoting), "But I thought you wanted to help us? Sally helped us by telling us what happened. Don't you want to help us, too?" By 2004 it was understood all too well that such pressure combined with suggestive questions could cause 4-year olds to come up with wild fantasies.

The Amirault case is one I use as an example of extreme injustice because I'm so familiar with it. It occurred in the state where I worked and was in the news a lot, plus Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal took up the cause in a years-long series of articles (for which she won a Pulitzer) that kept the Amirault's plight in the news long after it might have been forgotten.

You probably have your own examples of extreme injustice, and I think such examples show that our confidence in the ability of our legal process to mete out justice is unwarranted because it doesn't take into sufficient account that the people running it are only people, with all the biases and weaknesses and egos and so forth that accompany.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1945 by NoNukes, posted 02-21-2018 6:28 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 1947 of 2663 (828684)
02-22-2018 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1889 by NoNukes
02-16-2018 3:07 PM


Re: Mueller Charges Russians
NoNukes writes:

quote:
As I read it, these folks had some very sinister goals, but apparently spreading lies, discord in an attempt to affect democracy isn't a crime. Heck, there is nothing about their campaign that would not be legal for any US citizen to do.

But if you look at the indictment, it's formatted pretty much in the same way as what Manafort is being charged with, so it is a crime. And it's also written up so that more co-conspirators can be easily plugged into the indictment as they are found and linked. This is not a light-weight indictment. Contrary to the Trump administrations claims that this somehow lets them off the hook, it actually is very threatening to anybody who may be involved.

And on top of that, one of the 13 is a close buddy to Putin. And we have direct evidence that Putin ordered the interference in our election.

Remember, Trump said he looked into Putin's eyes (what is it with Republicans and staring deeply into Putin's eyes?) and said he believes Putin when he says he didn't do it.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1889 by NoNukes, posted 02-16-2018 3:07 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1952 by 1.61803, posted 02-26-2018 4:30 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17968
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1948 of 2663 (828852)
02-25-2018 12:15 PM


Speaker Booed at CPAC for Criticizing Trump
This past week was the annual meeting of CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference), and many prominent conservative have addressed the meeting this week. Yesterday in a four woman panel National Review columnist Mona Charen criticized the Republican Party for tolerating harassers and abusers of women. She was booed and provided a security escort out after the panel (which she said she thought unnecessary). Here are some of her words from the New York Magazine article CPAC Speaker Needed Security Escort After Flagging Trump’s Sexual Misconduct. What she said on the panel:

quote:
I’m disappointed in people on our side for being hypocrites about about sexual harassers and abusers of women who are in our party, who are sitting in the White House, who brag about their extra-marital affairs, who brag about mistreating women. And because he happens to have an “R” after his name, we look the other way — we don’t complain. This is a party that was ready to endorse Roy Moore for the Senate in the state of Alabama even though he was a credibly accused child molester. You cannot claim that you stand for women and put up with that.

Charen wrote about her experience at the CPAC conference in an op-ed piece in the New York Times (I’m Glad I Got Booed at CPAC). Here are some excerpts from that:

quote:
I’ve been a conservative my entire life. I fell hard for William F. Buckley as a teenager and my first job was as editorial assistant at Buckley’s National Review, followed by stints writing speeches for first lady Nancy Reagan and then working for the Gipper himself. Looking toward the 1988 race, Vice President George H.W. Bush wasn’t conservative enough for me. I went to work as a speechwriter for Representative Jack Kemp in 1986.

So you’d think that the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, would be a natural fit. It once was. But on Saturday, after speaking to this year’s gathering, I had to be escorted from the premises by several guards who seemed genuinely concerned for my safety.

What happened to me at CPAC is the perfect illustration of the collective experience of a whole swath of conservatives since Donald Trump became the Republican nominee. We built and organized this party — but now we’re made to feel like interlopers.
...
But this time, and particularly in front of this crowd, it felt far more urgent to point out the hypocrisy of our side. How can conservative women hope to have any credibility on the subject of sexual harassment or relations between the sexes when they excuse the behavior of President Trump? And how can we participate in any conversation about sexual ethics when the Republican president and the Republican Party backed a man credibly accused of child molestation for the United States Senate?

I watched my fellow panelists’ eyes widen. And then the booing began.

I’d been dreading it for days, but when it came, I almost welcomed it. There is nothing more freeing than telling the truth. And it must be done, again and again, by those of us who refuse to be absorbed into this brainless, sinister, clownish thing called Trumpism, by those of us who refuse to overlook the fools, frauds and fascists attempting to glide along in his slipstream into respectability.

I spoke to a hostile audience for the sake of every person who has watched this spectacle of mendacity in disbelief and misery for the past two years. Just hearing the words you know are true can serve as ballast, steadying your mind when so much seems unreal.

For traditional conservatives, the past two years have felt like a Twilight Zone episode. Politicians, activists and intellectuals have succumbed with numbing regularity, betraying every principle they once claimed to uphold. But there remains a vigorous remnant of dissenters. I hear from them. There were even some at CPAC.


So there *are* conservatives with a conscience out there. Let us hope that their voices are heard and that the debate returns to left versus right instead of left versus mindless toadyism for Trump's parade of racist, misogynistic, xenophobic comments and actions.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 1949 by PaulK, posted 02-25-2018 1:38 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1951 by NoNukes, posted 02-25-2018 9:42 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14547
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1949 of 2663 (828862)
02-25-2018 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1948 by Percy
02-25-2018 12:15 PM


Re: Speaker Booed at CPAC for Criticizing Trump
Apparently a speaker from the Cato Institute tried to convince CPAC that immigration had net benefits.

They didn’t want to hear that: data clashes with emotion


The only panel dedicated to immigration at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference quickly went off the rails Thursday, with audience members drowning out panelists’ presentation of data about the benefits of immigration with boos, laughter, and stories of “obvious illegal immigrants defecating in the woods, fornicating in the woods.”


Whenever Bier cited research to counter incorrect claims from his fellow panelists and the audience that recent immigrants are disproportionately criminal, are an economic drain on government or take several generations to learn English, he was met with vocal hostility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1948 by Percy, posted 02-25-2018 12:15 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1950 by jar, posted 02-25-2018 3:55 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 1950 of 2663 (828869)
02-25-2018 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1949 by PaulK
02-25-2018 1:38 PM


Re: Speaker Booed at CPAC for Criticizing Trump
The Cult of Ignorance expands beyond Mere Christianity.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1949 by PaulK, posted 02-25-2018 1:38 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
128129
130
131132
...
178NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018