The Right Side of the News

As his friend of many years, Sean Hannity, puts it, he knew Trump "would govern as a conservative," and he says he turned out to be right, which most conservatives agree is the case. And he's sincerely governing as a conservative, he sincerely believes in what he's doing. This is where we need originalist interpretations of the Constitution to understand how all these things should be properly viewed. I suspect they would regard abortion as murder, and certainly would know it is a paganism that Christianity put an end to infanticide in Europe by rescuing babies put out to die, and taking seriously the Hippocratic oaths to do no hyarm and not to administer an abortifacient. The main five founders weren't Christians but they were steeped in Christian principles and morality which they strongly supported. You are represeintg Leftist revisionism, not Constitutionbalism. You also represent an unconstitutional idea of separation of church and state, for which we also need to consult the Founders beyond the usual token nod to Jefferson's letter to the Baptists. As for pesky amendments, the Constitution CALLS for amendments, it's a Constitutional provision so what are you talking about anyway? All of which are Leftist cognitive malfunctions. The views are not Trump's, they are conservative views which he has come to embrace. They are the kind of Americanism the Left has been trying to destroy for decades, which IS anti-Americanism and I wish that would be made soundsly and finally clear to all the confused Leftists out there. WE DO NOT HAVE A FREE PRESS THESE DAYS, it has been commandeered by the LEFT, and Mark Levinj has exposed it for what it is. The Democrats are the part of racism and there is no misogyny in Trump. I'm so sorry such lies are widely accepted these days. They are going to destroy the nation along with all the other Leftist anti-American policies. Not if you have a sense of real reality in America these days which unfortunately the Left does not and you've obviously bought into the Left hook, line and sinker. Fascism is a form of totalitarianism and that's where we're headed if the Left gets its way which it probably will only too soon because we have such a miseducated population these days. Yes, in principle that is no doubt true, but in reality the Left is promoting policies that are fascistic and totalitarian and probably won'd recognize it until it's too late. And they won't recognize it then either, they'll just blame it on the right as usual since they have no ability whatever to understand what is really going on jand what they are really doing in the name of their utopian idealisms.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Perhaps there's a better word for it but I mean to be talking about the ROLE of the President, not Trump or any particular President, and about the separation of powers. The President can't function if he's surrounded by enemies, such as from the previous administration by a member of the opposite party, or just people who are always in conflict with his policies for whatever reason. OR from a Congress overstepping THEIR separate Consituttional role. EVERY President has to operate this way.Thanks for the nice words about being glad I'm posting on political threads by the way, though I have to admit to having to view it with some suspiciousness. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As I understand it, the only reason the Dems are attacking Sanders is their fear he can't win against Trump. The "red-baiting" is a weird sort of smokescreen since most of them agree with Sanders for the most part anyway. He's just more willing to say what he thinks and that makes them nervous.I don't want ANY of them because they are ALL closet Communists.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I see now that you were talking about the judge, not the plaintiffs. Reading to the end it's clear you have no idea whether the judge is a never Trumper or not. He's all over the news now, and if he'd ever made any public expressions about his feelings about Trump it would already have made headlines. You're just like your hero. Whenever he says "They say" or "I hear" you know he's making it up. In this case I know it's not you who is making it up, but why are you investing any credibility in an obviously made-up claim. The only mechanism by which anyone could know whether any lost emails were classified is if they had access to them. But if there are people with access to them then the emails aren't lost. That would be stunning news.But there's never been any such news, because the emails are really lost. Any claims that the lost emails were classified is just somebody making things up, and you're falling for it.But go ahead, keep arguing that's it's possible to know the content of lost emails. No one's claiming the redacted parts contain information that would call into question Barr's memo and statements about the Mueller report. It's whether they do or not that we want to find out. People who should be protected? Not to change the subject, but you mean like whistleblowers?Anyway, yes, protecting identities is one good reason for redaction. National security is another. Soon we'll know if the redaction criteria were properly followed. Assumptions are not a way to know anything. You're merely assuming that Barr properly followed redaction procedures.Mueller raised serious objections to Barr's memo about the report, the memo isn't consistent with the redacted report, and Barr dismissed Mueller's position that DoJ policy prohibits indicting a sitting president. These facts raised eyebrows at the time, and eyebrows are still raised. That episode seemed to reveal Barr as a Trump partisan rather than an objective administer of justice. Insuring that the redactions support Barr seems a good thing to pursue. Barr should want this because it has the potential to put questions about his objectivity to rest. This is just another assumption about something of which you have no knowledge driven by your proclivity for casting aspersions at anyone and anything you disagree with. You needed a reason for dismissing the judge's statements in court, so you made one up.--Percy

Traditional conservative policies have long embraced fiscal sanity, free trade, realistically facing the threats posed by the world's bad players like Russia and North Korea, and character. Let me guess: your views are the proper originalist interpretations. And a number of them would view slavery as right and proper, and the letting of blood as an effective medical treatment. They probably supported the first amendment, too. The revisionism is all yours. The constitutional framers held no expectation that future interpreters would be guided by what could be divined of their intent. In other words, seek other opinions until you find one you like. Original intent is not a founding principle, in fact, the opposite, else the Constitution wouldn't provide for its own amending. It's an explicit expression of the principle that the original Constitution should not be held inerrant and sacred. The founders were not gods, just people. It would be much more clear if you would tell us the views you're thinking of. If the press isn't free then why is it they have no trouble writing things you and Trump don't like? Ah, yes, the time honored, "No I'm not, you are."There's no embarrassment or shame in Trump but plenty of racism and misogyny. You only have to listen to what Trump says to know the nature of the man. I think your judgment is blinded by your hate. The reality of what Trump is doing to American institutions is very apparent. I'm afraid not. Don't worry, if Bernie gets elected he'll send your grandkids to college for free. Well, lucky us that we have you to warn us about it. Yeah, that "love your fellow man" stuff is going to be the death of us.--Percy

Yeah, those people he appointed himself were especially annoying.--Percy

He gets confused and thinks he's still on the Game Show.

The precise one-sentence summary of what we’re seeing from Pennsylvania Avenue.

Some of the emails were not lost. Or they are available from her correspondents. Which would prove she'd had them on her computer.
I trust the sources, I just don't collect information very well, and it's been some time since I heard that.\\\\Oh yes it was consistent. Barr even asked Mueller if he'd misrepresented it and Mueller said HE HAD NOT, that Mueller was just concerned about the media coverage. This attempt to discredit Barr is just another of the Left's ongoing efforts to bring down anyone at all who doesn't accept their party line. Because that was a big fat red herring. If that were the reason not to indict Trump THERE WAS NO REASON TO HAVE THE INVESTIGATION AT ALL. The whole point of such an investigation is to find something criminal that could be charged against him. The fact is they FOUND BNOTHOIHNG. They didn't even say they found something but couldn't indict him as a sitting President which they could have done. They found nothing and then tried to make that rule out to be the reason they didn't report any criminal charges. Good grief the whole thing was just a corrupt partisan witch hunt I don't know how you keep believing any of it. So now they are trying to find something wrong with Barr. Well, of course, that's what they do. Things aren't as they like so they smear somebody who sees the reality for what it is. You'vre bought the whole miserable corrupt nasty mess. Barr is fair and objective and in being fair and objective found that Trump was not guilty so of course since the Left says he's guilty even though there is no evidence for it and even though the Mueller report exonerated him they must smear anyone who says he is not guilty as a mere Trump partisan rather than the onnest man he is.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes he trusts people he should not have trusted. So?

Yes it is. Whjerever it's geneuine it's delusional and will bankrupt the country, turning us into a third world swamp like, oh, Venezuela. But mostly it's just a way to put a ruling class into power and keep the rest of us under their boots. turning the country into a third world swamp like, oh, Venezuela. That's what Communism always does.

He hired LOTS and LOTS of "people he should not have trusted ". But he said he hires only the best people!

Yet the reality is that social programs have not bankrupted any country and the US is already a third rate nation when it comes to health care, quality of life, life expectancy, equality ... just about any measurable statistic other than boorishness.

really calls into question his judgement, why hire untrustworthy people for important government posts? Poor management skills.

I think in the case of choosing his advisors and executive appointments maybe "prerogative" is a better choice.On the other hand, maybe it's still too strong a word when the choice still needs to be approved by the Senate or Congress?