Patterico's Pontifications

9/13/2017

Good News: Trump Has Negotiated with Democrats and Agreed to Amnesty in Return for No Wall

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:13 pm

Congratulations, Republicans! At dinner, your president has agreed with Democrat leaders to a new amnesty, in exchange for “a package of border security, excluding the wall”:

I am not opposed to some sort of legislative solution to the DREAMers issue. I just thought Trump had promised something about a wall. I might have DREAMed it though.

UPDATE: New York Times:

But the bipartisan comity appeared to have its limits. In a tweet, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, disputed the Democrats’ characterization of Mr. Trump’s stance on the border wall. “While DACA and border security were both discussed, excluding the wall was certainly not agreed to,” she wrote.

Mr. Schumer’s communications director, Matt House, fired back on Twitter: “The President made clear he would continue pushing the wall, just not as part of this agreement.”

This does not seem inconsistent with Pelosi’s claim. Nobody is saying they agreed there will never be a wall. It’s just that wall funding is not part of the agreement. Trump will have to get the wall funding when Democrats want something and he has a chance to negotiate and make a deal.

Wait — wasn’t that what this was?

UPDATE x2: In case anyone thinks this is “fake news” listen to Trump himself: “The wall will come later.”

It is what it is.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

282 Responses to “Good News: Trump Has Negotiated with Democrats and Agreed to Amnesty in Return for No Wall”

  1. “Well, that was quick,” said the actress to the archbishop.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  2. to be clear

    so far it’s just a cow-breasted san francisco trollop, a greasy old bit of debauched manhattantrash, and a fake news propaganda slut from “yahoo” what attests to the verity of this

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  3. Patterico is saying it so it must be true.

    jcurtis (67588d)

  4. a greasy old bit of debauched manhattantrash

    No, I expect Trump to deny it, actually.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  5. queens mind you

    My President, he hails from Queens he does

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  6. got it stitched inside his trousers case he lose them he does

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  7. ’73 Ford Pinto.

    nk (dbc370)

  8. Here’s what we can say for certain: Patterico sources are full of fake news or someone is about to have the rug pulled from under their feet. If it’s the latter, do you really think it’s the Arpaio supporters who are gonna get the rug pull? I’m thinking Patterico and the Democrats are getting played if it’s not straight up fake news. I have a talent for always being right so this will end up more egg on Patterico’s face.

    jcurtis (67588d)

  9. Breitbart’s red-font headline says: AMNESTY DON.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  10. From the NYTimes: But the bipartisan comity appeared to have its limits. In a tweet, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, disputed the Democrats’ characterization of Mr. Trump’s stance on the border wall. “While DACA and border security were both discussed, excluding the wall was certainly not agreed to,” she wrote.

    Mr. Schumer’s communications director, Matt House, fired back on Twitter: “The President made clear he would continue pushing the wall, just not as part of this agreement.”

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  11. Trump is pursing ‘The Wall’ at a steady, measured peso.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  12. I thought I had seen that and wanted to include a Trump denial in the post, if there was one, but could not find it. Thanks. I will add it.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  13. Trump always delivers less than he promises. It’s his hallmark.

    nk (dbc370)

  14. @12. How’s this for irony in messaging: the dinner was – Chinese! Seriously?!

    Sweet ‘n sour pork.

    “Oh, I’m not gonna take any shots from a waiter!” – Harry Hinkle [Jack Lemmon] ‘The Fortune Cookie’ 1966

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  15. UPDATE: New York Times:

    But the bipartisan comity appeared to have its limits. In a tweet, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, disputed the Democrats’ characterization of Mr. Trump’s stance on the border wall. “While DACA and border security were both discussed, excluding the wall was certainly not agreed to,” she wrote.

    Mr. Schumer’s communications director, Matt House, fired back on Twitter: “The President made clear he would continue pushing the wall, just not as part of this agreement.”

    This does not seem inconsistent with Pelosi’s claim. Nobody is saying they agreed there will never be a wall. It’s just that wall funding is not part of the agreement. Trump will have to get the wall funding when Democrats want something and he has a chance to negotiate and make a deal.

    Wait — wasn’t that what this was?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  16. to be clear

    so far it’s just a cow-breasted san francisco trollop, a greasy old bit of debauched manhattantrash, and a fake news propaganda slut from “yahoo” what attests to the verity of this

    If you mean Pelosi, Trump, and a reporter, yes.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  17. Are immediate Trump denials required for all fake news reports from known fake news sources to prevent Patterico from running with it? Seems like there should be some skepticism in order.

    jcurtis (085c9b)

  18. The deal Trump wants is amnesty for the Dreamers.
    Amnesty.
    For the Dreamers.
    He wants it from Congress. So he won’t have to be bothered with DACA. It’s been clear from the beginning.

    nk (dbc370)

  19. I can’t believe that happyfeet checked out Nancy Pelosi’s breasts. That’s as disturbing as anything Trump has done.

    nk (dbc370)

  20. Are immediate Trump denials required for all fake news reports from known fake news sources to prevent Patterico from running with it? Seems like there should be some skepticism in order.

    It seems like Trump’s spokesperson confirmed the story.

    Patterico (bd1cdd)

  21. See there — a great bit of controversy stirred by improper phrasing of a NEWS ARTICLE IN THE NYT — SHOCKING.

    The “excluding the wall” was written to be interpreted as an agreement that there would be no wall. I heard it reported that way on CBS Radio News.

    But the FACT is that they reached an agreement on border security issues in exchange for DREAMER protections, but their border security agreement did not extend to an agreement on building a wall.

    But the Dems and the press got what they wanted — a misleading news headline that caused an uproar because anti-Trumpers on the right were willing to shout from the roof tops — “SEE WE TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!!”

    When you will quit accepting dominant media reporting on the things Trump is doing? The reporters spin the reporting to meet the editorial narrative they know is wanted back in their newsroom.

    Hopefully Trump will learn from this that you have to get the press release out first before the dishonest media has a chance to conspire with the Dems to put out something misleading.

    And sites like this need to WAIT for a story to develop rather than jump in just because the NYT or WAPO put up a big headline.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  22. I predict that the Republican majority in both houses will see to it that no amnesty deal is made. It can’t get to Trump’s desk with only Democrat votes, after all.

    Frederick (80401a)

  23. After all, we have those Republican majorities to thank for the repeal of Obamacare. They repealed it like 15 times.

    Frederick (80401a)

  24. Amnesty is completely unnecessary. If we give Trump a way for him to look good to Morning Joe, then he’ll push that instead. Trump can help the USA *and* Mexico, make himself look good to both MAGA and Morning Joe, and undercut the MSM if he pushes a repatriation program instead of amnesty.

    Want to help Trump make the smart decision? Sign the petition at my name’s link and send it to your frieds. Even if you support other things, you can sign that petition while waiting for those other things to happen.

    Repatriations, not amnesty (e23af4)

  25. Maybe I’m being a little snarky.

    It is mathematically impossible for Democrats in Congress to make any kind of deal with Trump, without massive Republican complicity, and that’s the thing. To the extent that conservative principles are being betrayed, it is Republicans that are betraying them.

    Frederick (80401a)

  26. Would Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court really have been the end of the world?

    nk (dbc370)

  27. Shock the monkey.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  28. 88,000 new foreign exchange students. No take-backs.

    Pinandpuller (95bf00)

  29. @26 nk

    The end of the beginning of the end.

    Pinandpuller (95bf00)

  30. if that’s all there is my friends then let’s keep dancing

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  31. 88,000. 880,000. Whatever it takes.

    Pinandpuller (95bf00)

  32. Arnold Schwarzenegger pulled this same crap as governor of California.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  33. I’ve got a stupid question:

    In return for this largess to Mexican citizens in America, what did the negotiators get for American citizens in Mexico?

    I told you it was a stupid question.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  34. Would Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court really have been the end of the world?

    Amnesty for everyone and turn in your guns?

    Yes, it would have been worse.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  35. To the extent that conservative principles are being betrayed, it is Republicans that are betraying them.

    No, just a few. BUt then the GOP has never been a party based on “conservative principles” any more than the Democrats have been a party based on Marxism. At least not yet.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  36. And you haven’t even seen the health care deal yet.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  37. It is true that Merrick Garland would have completely changed the landscape on Heller and gun rights generally.

    But this is getting back to “but but he’s better than Hillary” thing that Patterico has recently remarked about. Why are people still arguing about whether Hillary or Trump would have been worse? Particularly on a conservative blog. It is really sad that this is even a question.

    At the end of Trump’s term, we’ll still be wondering. Perhaps the court appointments alone show Trump was the better result. Perhaps some disaster abroad show Trump was the worse. But electing him is in the past, nominating him is in the past. Trump won and is responsible for doing a good job, keeping his promises, not merely justifying his election.

    We know that Trump is doing a crappy job right now. This is a weak deal based on Trump’s own often stretched arguments about how weak Cruz or Rubio or Bush would have been on Amnesty. Trump was supposed to be strong on immigration.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  38. crap game in kellys heroes says some times you goat make a deal. freedom caucus just says no. so screw them.

    still trumpin (fe24d8)

  39. Damn, if only someone could have foreseen this unimaginable turn of events!

    Dave (445e97)

  40. People keep talking about Congress appropriating money for the wall.

    But Mexico is supposed to pay for one hundred percent of it. Donald Trump promised they would.

    Stop trying to stick the American taxpayers with the bill for the wall!

    Dave (445e97)

  41. Perhaps the Dems have a smoking gun and Trump is worried about impeachment. Or maybe he just wants a deal for the Dreamers and Ryan told him he cannot provide the votes.

    In any event, WAY back when the HFC started crapping all over Trump, I said that by the time this was over he’d be cutting deals with Dems, and that the HFC would be sorry.

    We KNEW when he was elected that he was not a conservative. WHY oh why block his establishment deals when you cannot reasonably expect anything better?

    Kevin M (752a26)

  42. I see that Bannon is now saying his task is to destroy the GOP. What makes him think he’s not already done it?

    Kevin M (752a26)

  43. Ok. We’ll see what great deals he makes with Chuck and Nancy when it’s time to replace Kennedy, Ginzburg and Breyer.

    As for Heller, that was ratified as the Second Amendment to the Constitution in 2008. If it had not been ratified at all, 49 states would still have the right to bear arms in public places and only Chicago and DC would have an almost total gun ban. Those two cities benefited, but across the country, meaningful RKBA protections have come from state legislatures, not federal courts.

    nk (dbc370)

  44. 41…same thought I had as news of this trickled out. So much for the impeccable character of the probe targets, even Junior and son-in-law.

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  45. You all got fooled by the Schumer-Pelosi PR machine.

    Neo (d1c681)

  46. But the FACT is that they reached an agreement on border security issues in exchange for DREAMER protections, but their border security agreement did not extend to an agreement on building a wall.

    Oh, absolutely. I never interpreted this story as anything but a report that Trump had failed to obtain wall funding as part of his DACA deal — which would have been the logical time to negotiate that. You seem to accuse me of falling for a media line that Trump agreed that there would be no wall but I never thought that and did not say that. You may have misread my post. In fact this passage seems to indicate you did:

    When you will quit accepting dominant media reporting on the things Trump is doing? The reporters spin the reporting to meet the editorial narrative they know is wanted back in their newsroom.

    Hopefully Trump will learn from this that you have to get the press release out first before the dishonest media has a chance to conspire with the Dems to put out something misleading.

    And sites like this need to WAIT for a story to develop rather than jump in just because the NYT or WAPO put up a big headline.

    My post simply makes the point that Trump promised a wall, and he has now made an immigration deal on DACA that excludes (does not include) wall funding. That seems to be what happened, doesn’t it?

    Patterico (bd1cdd)

  47. Reagan also got Dems to agree to border/immigration law enforcement in exchange for amnesty.

    The amnesty was immediate, the border/immigration law enforcement never happened.

    harkin (52aafa)

  48. Legislative DACA was perhaps the one bit of immigration-related leverage Trump had that he could trade for wall funding. But he signaled in advance that he wanted legislative DACA anyway and then traded it away over egg rolls for some nebulous promise of security measures which pretty clearly seem not to include a wall.

    Either he’s a poor negotiator or he doesn’t really care that much about a wall. Or both. That’s how it seems to me, anyway.

    Patterico (bd1cdd)

  49. Quite true, harkin.

    Patterico (bd1cdd)

  50. The Patterico Trump postings that end with a question mark seem the most gleeful.

    Right?

    Right?

    harkin (52aafa)

  51. You all got fooled by the Schumer-Pelosi PR machine.

    How so? There is no DACA agreement? Trump did get wall funding? How were we fooled?

    Patterico (bd1cdd)

  52. 48. I would say a deal on DACA, independent of further action on The Wall, is in the offing, judging by his morning tweets. Schoomah and Lugosi have just created a “have you stopped beating your wife” question to bedevil Trump for the next year.

    Happy, as to your ogle of Pelosi, it is instructive in that I think your hero is starting to appreciate the older berry, starting with Macrons cougar wife, and the Irish reporter and Montegran gaffes.

    Remember, today its Motel 6…if you ramp that up to Starwood and Hyatt, whos really gonna need a big expensive wall anyway.

    urbanleftbehind (7e7d70)

  53. The Patterico Trump postings that end with a question mark seem the most gleeful.

    Right?

    Right?

    I’m not particularly gleeful about a deal that gets the American people undefined security measures that are approved by Demicratic leaders. As you note, there is precedent for such promises ending up being as empty as they sound.

    Patterico (bd1cdd)

  54. Ann Coulter is not happy.

    At this point, who DOESN’T want Trump impeached? https://t.co/g1mMhmm8ng

    Patterico (bd1cdd)

  55. Frank Vincent – RIP

    “Now go home and get your f****ing shinebox!”

    harkin (52aafa)

  56. my new friend tomtom cotton says

    do you know what he says?

    i do

    tomtom says we should package daca with the RAISE act

    with the RAISE act!

    and it will be so good

    when you do RAISE act all up in it

    you reform chain migration!

    this is sunday morning pancakes!

    this is fluffy bunnies and all-you-can-eat cheez whiz!

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  57. If Trump is such a great negotiator, wouldn’t this be a good time to tie the wall to the dreamer legislation. You know, each side gives up something and gets something.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  58. harkin,

    I think when Patterico ends a thought with a question mark, it often signals irony or irritation. Definitely not glee, maybe the opposite.

    DRJ (15874d)

  59. Lots of people, over the years, have walked out of meetings with Trump thinking they had a deal. Sometimes there really were deals in place that Trump reneged on. Amply documented here in the run up to the election.

    And sometimes people come out of meetings claiming things happened there that didn’t.

    Frederick (80401a)

  60. Exactly, AZ Bob, and I read that as Pattericco’s point.

    DRJ (15874d)

  61. And sometimes people come out of meetings claiming things happened there that didn’t.

    Interesting point. Can you give us an example?

    DRJ (15874d)

  62. @DRJ:Interesting point. Can you give us an example?

    Yes. Trump said this morning there was no deal.

    So, someone who came out of that meeting, could be Trump or someone else, said something happened there that didn’t. A deal was reached, or it was not. But one principal says it wasn’t, and other people say it was.

    “President Donald Trump fired back at congressional Democrats on Thursday morning after Democrats said the two sides agreed Wednesday night to work together on a legislative package to address the status of young undocumented immigrants.

    Democrats claimed the agreement would include protections for Dreamers and border security measures short of a border wall, a characterization disputed immediately by Press Secretary Sarah Sanders following the two-hour dinner, and Thursday morning by Trump himself.

    The president took to his usual means of communication — Twitter — to say no such agreement was made.”

    Frederick (80401a)

  63. At this point, who DOESN’T want Trump impeached?

    –Ann Coulter

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  64. Seems ABC’s source for the “deal” report was a “person briefed on the meeting”–possibly someone who wasn’t even there. Par for the course.

    Frederick (80401a)

  65. Is there any doubt in your mind that if immigrants legal or illegal including “dreamers” were known to vote Republican 90% of the time instead of Democrat that both Pelosi and Schumer would be for their immediate expulsion?

    All immigration in 21st century America boils down to two things. First, how much do you agree with the left that America is an evil, racist country and deserves to have it’s culture forever altered by people who do not desire to be American but who want to bring their former sh!t hole here? Second, are you comfortable with a permanent Democrat/socialist governing majority and leftist court system?

    BTW, since the primary I have stated that Trump has always been a liberal New York Democrat. That’s a “liberal” not a leftist like DeBlasio, Schumer and Pelosi. He spent his entire life paying off corrupt New York Democrat politicians and unions to build his buildings. He is one of them. But he’s not a leftist. I don’t know if what Patterico has written here in this Post is accurate or not. I suspect there is a deal of fake news involved so I’ll wait for time to sort it out. I do know that Trump by his nature will not accept a deal he does not gain by. He’s a selfish narcissist and any deal is about him.

    And yes, he’s still preferable to Hillary.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  66. One thing ABC gets right though:

    “It’s unclear how far any agreement can proceed on Capitol Hill without buy in from Republicans controlling both chambers.”

    Whoever is selling out conservative principles, it is Republicans. It is mathematically impossible for the Democrats, by themselves, to pass anything, no matter how badly Trump would want to sign it. Any sort of deal with “Democrats” is actually a deal with Republicans.

    Trump didn’t make the Republican Congress. Certainly he’s not the cure for it.

    Frederick (80401a)

  67. I need something to help me feel better. Could we have a post about Hillary’s new book?

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  68. Whoever is selling out conservative principles, it is Republicans

    poop-lick paul ryan is 100% all about open borders and amnesty

    he wants to do illegal rapists all up in it

    he’s perverted and sick

    and he has a passionate hatred for America

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  69. I need something to help me feel better. Could we have a post about Hillary’s new book?

    Oops. My post this morning is about reports saying Trump may be open to a “fix” of ObamaCare.

    Sorry.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  70. Frederick,

    I read Trump’s tweets this morning as confirming the basic story. Sure, he is saying there is no deal, but what he says sounds like a deal:

    Well of course there would have to be a vote! But it seems like he is just emphasizing the point that shipwreckedcrew made, that there is no deal to take the wall off the table (which I never claimed there was).

    Still sounds like a deal in principle to me.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  71. If Trump is such a great negotiator, wouldn’t this be a good time to tie the wall to the dreamer legislation. You know, each side gives up something and gets something.

    As DRJ says, that is the point I am making.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  72. @Patterico: If we all have different ideas about what Trump meant by “deal”, or what the media meant when they reported “deal”, then we can’t resolve anything from what we are reading, because we’re all putting our assumptions in at the beginning.

    Assuming a deal exists, that deal happens only with the consent and connivance of Republicans. Whether that deal is on a “fix” to Obamacare, or DACA, or whatever.

    Frederick (80401a)

  73. “The wall will come later.”

    Patterico (115b1f)

  74. Frederick, I think you’re straining here. The deal here is simple. Trump agreed to DACA and “massive border security” and “the wall will come later.” Any deal is subject to a vote, but if all Democrats are on board and some Republicans are (and I suspect this is the case) it will be signed.

    There is no fake news here. It is what it is.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  75. UPDATE x2: In case anyone thinks this is “fake news” listen to Trump himself: “The wall will come later.”

    It is what it is.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  76. I have ben pushingthis idea for months writing to lawmakers, and still cannot find significant flaws with the broad cvoncept, ok , so the majority don’t want to punish Dreamers for being brought here as smll children, agree to offer them a path to citizenship, but they must satisfy the following; A hs GARADUATION OR GED, PASS AN extensive English exam as well as U history, And no criminal record, fofor the adult group, same thing but the carrot is a temp work permit, and finally for those in between, same requirements with a potential green card at stake, that ‘ll satisy those who decry the human suffering of immediate deportation, but alo ensures at least a modicum of assimilation. A few other points, none of th sbove get to use chain migration to bring in family members, especially extended family. any one from any background having been deported once, if found again on US oil iledgslly face a fine and prison time, as wsell as as no-appeal deportation.n

    NeoCon_1 (1d6f2a)

  77. @Patterico:Frederick, I think you’re straining here.

    Straining to do what? Do you think I am defending Trump? He’s lying, the Democrats are lying, and the media is lying–or at least shows insufficient respect for truth as to be barely distinguishable from lying. Consequently there’s nothing to be learned from these reports.

    It’s the same thing we’ve BEEN having: Trump says something, that’s bulls–t, and then different voices in the media, including Trump, assign meanings to it and then argue about how bad or good Trump is based on what they decided he mist have meant.

    That’s what I’m saying.

    But whatever Trump said or meant or agreed to or didn’t, it’s the Republican Congress who will be doing the sellout. Because Democrats can’t pass anything for Trump to sign.

    Frederick (80401a)

  78. I mean, they clearly don’t have some detailed blueprint spelled out. Nobody is claiming that. The point is, Trump told Dem leaders that he will sign a DACA bill that has no wall funding. That is the entire claim and it is clearly true.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  79. If this s Trump’s idea of the art of The DEal,he is a fool. I wonder if he mightg beinterested in few used cars from the Ho uston area? I promise none of them were flooded, much…

    NeoCon_1 (1d6f2a)

  80. But whatever Trump said or meant or agreed to or didn’t, it’s the Republican Congress who will be doing the sellout. Because Democrats can’t pass anything for Trump to sign.

    Yes, some Republicans will have to be on board. It can be a distinct minority of them, though, as long as the President is on board. And you just heard him. He is.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  81. What is the value of an “agreement in principle” wrt Trump? It is not unusual at all for his written agreements to require interpretations and decisions by trial judges backed by appellate judges or settlement through mediation.

    He’s just banging his sippy cup in an effort to mitigate damage to his brand. I’m sure he finds the lack of bookings, cancellations and lack of new orders for overpriced trash quite troubling.

    Rick Ballard (1eda47)

  82. @Patterico: It can be a distinct minority of them

    Like Ryan and McConnell, the Majority Leaders? Looks like they’ve made a deal, according to Trump.

    Frederick (80401a)

  83. Trump Trump President Trump

    he gonna get that deal done

    he got the leverage now

    he got the follow-through

    this land was made for you and me

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  84. 58 DRJ: “I think when Patterico ends a thought with a question mark, it often signals irony or irritation. Definitely not glee, maybe the opposite.”

    I get the distinct feeling that these are “I was right and you were wrong, Trump voters” questions that seem very self-satisfied.

    Maybe I’m wrong. I’m not a Trump voter so it’s not directed at me regardless but that’s the tone I pick up.

    I know our host’s history of reactions for people who he feels mischaracterize his words so whatever the reaction it’s OK by me.

    harkin (52aafa)

  85. I get the distinct feeling that these are “I was right and you were wrong, Trump voters” questions that seem very self-satisfied.

    Maybe I’m wrong. I’m not a Trump voter so it’s not directed at me regardless but that’s the tone I pick up.

    I know our host’s history of reactions for people who he feels mischaracterize his words so whatever the reaction it’s OK by me.

    My post on the ObamaCare fix goes up at 8:00 and addresses the DACA deal in a postscript. It can be read now at RedState. Here is that postscript:

    P.S. I should add that I’m also not inclined in engage in a round of “I told you so” with respect to the DACA deal with Democrats. I have said that a legislative fix for the DREAMers issue may be appropriate, but creates a potential problem of unintended consequences. Still, a legislative fix is better than the unconstitutional diktat put out by President Obama. As for the lack of wall funding, I never took Trump that seriously about the wall or anything else. It’s not as though the immigration situation would be better under Hillary Clinton, for goodness’s sake. And illegal border crossings have been down — something that probably would not have happened under Hillary.

    I just don’t see this as the event that will cause me to jump up on the table and call everyone who supported Trump a sucker. Frankly, I’m not sure any event would. I don’t see most Trump voters as suckers. I see them as people who selected the lesser of two evils.

    Sure, there are some over-the-top abrasive types who loudly invested themselves in Trump and obnoxiously denounced anyone who wasn’t aboard the Trump train. I admit to being amused by the tears of some of those people — and the attempts by others to pretend that they never became that invested in him. To the extent my friends are calling some Trump supporters suckers, I suspect this is the type they’re talking about. The #MAGA “everyone who criticizes Trump is a wussy wimpy wussy wuss!” type of cheerleader. Those people know who they are, and today they are a little embarrassed.

    But most Trump supporters are just good people who are used to being disappointed by government. They’re trying to do the best they can. If they’re disappointed yet again, they can handle it. I suspect that describes most of you.

    Perhaps harkin will interpret that as self-satisfied “I was right, you were wrong” gloating. If someone does, it will be a good opportunity for me to practice patience, because that is the opposite of what I actually wrote.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  86. You guys really don’t get it. Trump hasn’t made a deal about anything. Hey, there is no deal! Tomorrow (or even later today) they’ll be saying something else.

    The object is for the left and the media to delay anything being done until the midterms. Then they may have a majority and once again move the nation further left toward their goal.

    So right now we will never get the truth. We will get *confusion* and prognostication.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  87. That was published 40 minutes ago.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  88. You guys really don’t get it. Trump hasn’t made a deal about anything.

    Hoagie, did you watch the video of Trump I embedded? Where he says the wall comes later? How does that sound like anything but an agreement in principle for DACA in return for allegedly massive border security and “the wall comes later”?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  89. “DACA deal with Democrats” and the Republican majority leaders, Ryan and McConnell…

    Frederick (26d43f)

  90. @Hoagie, Patterico: “Trump says something, that’s bulls–t, and then different voices in the media, including Trump, assign meanings to it and then argue about how bad or good Trump is based on what they decided he must have meant.”

    Do you guys want to do that? I think you’ll both be in better moods if you don’t…

    Frederick (26d43f)

  91. Lemme see if I can answer this post as well as any wool-died Trumpet…

    “So?…”

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  92. Do you think he can’t pivot yet again?

    He still has to sign escrow, or so he thinx.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  93. @Hoagie, Patterico: “Trump says something, that’s bulls–t, and then different voices in the media, including Trump, assign meanings to it and then argue about how bad or good Trump is based on what they decided he must have meant.”

    Do you guys want to do that? I think you’ll both be in better moods if you don’t…

    Are you arguing that we shouldn’t assign any weight to Trump’s own characterization, as shown in a video, which is consistent with all other reports?

    If so, I cannot agree.

    Both the reports and Trump’s own words show that he has agreed not to tie wall funding to a DACA deal. If anyone disputes this, please explain how you do. I gotta go to work now and may not respond.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  94. @Patterico: Both the reports and Trump’s own words show that he has agreed not to tie wall funding to a DACA deal.

    Provided we all agree on what “agreed”, “tie wall funding to”, and “DACA deal” mean, and we agree to interpret “no deal” in a different way, or just ignore it all together, and agree on whether this is best characterized as a Trump-Democrat deal or a Republican Majority Leaders-Trump-Democrats deal, and whether what they end up doing is what was discussed last night, then there would not be much to dispute.

    And that’s the root of the issue right there.

    Frederick (26d43f)

  95. Are you arguing that we shouldn’t assign any weight to Trump’s own characterization, as shown in a video, which is consistent with all other reports?

    Both the reports and Trump’s own words show that he has agreed not to tie wall funding to a DACA deal. If anyone disputes this, please explain how you do. I gotta go to work now and may not respond.

    I understand what you’re saying Patterico, but NO deal is made till a signature hits the paper. He’s still negotiating!

    I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m saying you fail to understand The Art of the Deal. Trump will be in negotiation mode up till the very second a bill is signed. That’s how it works. If he’s saying something before a signature is on a bill you can bet he’s misdirecting.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  96. Frederick 62,

    Thanks for your response. I thought you were suggesting there is a pattern of people meeting with Trump and afterward claiming things happened that didn’t. But if your example is what happened today, that isn’t a pattern. Perhaps the real pattern is Trump’s willingness to change his policies.

    DRJ (15874d)

  97. The Wall was just a metaphor for Simplisms adherents. Shame on any who actually saw a literal wall.

    “Fool me once…”

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  98. Trump has no policies DRJ .

    He’s very flexible.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  99. Hoagie,

    Do you think he is negotiating for funding for the wall as part of the DACA deal? It doesn’t seem to me that he is. And if he is, then announcing that the wall comes later seems like a strange way to do it. We’ll see what the final product is, but if the Art of the Deal means announcing up front that you are willing to delay your alleged priorities, I think you’re right that I don’t understand it.

    Patterico (bd1cdd)

  100. The heart of every deal is knowing your adversary and doing your homework. Trump clearly knows the art of dealing with people, but he seems to lack the patience to do his homework. That may be his downfall in DC, although as long as he gives the Democrats what they want then the media will support him.

    DRJ (15874d)

  101. What exactly, are Trumps core beliefs?

    Betcha can’t name one.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  102. At this point, Trump wants people to trust him and give him time to negotiate. Is he doing that because he has a crafty, cunning plan or because he has nothing other than bluff?

    DRJ (15874d)

  103. Trump’s core belief is the Trump brand.

    DRJ (15874d)

  104. “Clearly knows the art of dealing with People..”

    He tapped into the lowest- common denominator and that’s hard to do. :)

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  105. Bluff is right. His instincts about fellow humans he’s used to are spot on.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  106. I just noticed that my headline could be read to say Trump promised DACA in return for a promise that there would be no wall. That actually would not make any sense for him to do, of course, but it would support the reading of my posts that shipwreckedcrew gave it. The headline was actually sarcasm; I was playing on the notion that one would think Trump would be trading DACA for “a wall” but instead he traded it for nothing (“no wall”). But read literally instead with the intended irony, one might think I was saying “no wall” was part of the deal — i.e. they agreed there would never be a wall. That is apparently how shipwreckedcrew understood my headline and that was not an absurd reading, even though it is not what I meant.

    Patterico (bd1cdd)

  107. Admittedly not a model of clarity. Sorry about that.

    Patterico (bd1cdd)

  108. I’m confused by your comments, Frederick. Did you say Trump is lyingand there is no deal yet, but that Ryan and McConnell agreed to it?

    DRJ (15874d)

  109. @DRJ: Did you say Trump is lyingand there is no deal yet, but that Ryan and McConnell agreed to it?

    No.

    Frederick (26d43f)

  110. I don’t think shipwreckedcrew would comment based solely on a headline, without reading the post.

    DRJ (15874d)

  111. Ok, did you say Trump is lying in your comment 77?

    Did you also say Trump said Ryan and McConnell agreed to a deal in your comment 82? Was that one of Trump’s lies, too?

    DRJ (15874d)

  112. Do you think he is negotiating for funding for the wall as part of the DACA deal? It doesn’t seem to me that he is.

    I don’t know but I do know a good deal maker doesn’t combine deals. If one goes south then they both do.

    And if he is, then announcing that the wall comes later seems like a strange way to do it.

    As I said if he is and he is announcing the wall comes later then you can bet he’s lying, prevaricating and misdirecting. Or he already has that deal in his pocket (which we all doubt).

    We’ll see what the final product is, but if the Art of the Deal means announcing up front that you are willing to delay your alleged priorities, I think you’re right that I don’t understand it.

    The Art of the Deal means doing whatever you need to do to get an edge on your opponent. It also means having your opponent believe he’s won.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  113. @DRJ: Everyone involved in the DACA legislation, including the media reporting on it, is showing such disregard for the truth that they may as well be lying. Trying to determine what happened when from the reporting, whether on last night’s dinner or this morning’s tweeting and video, is like trying to divine liver entrails–as Jonah Goldberg put it at true-blue National Review, which favors some kind of DACA legislation.

    If you believe Trump’s words, something is agreed to that Ryan and McConnell are on board with. Is that the same as what other people said was a deal last night, which Trump described this morning as not a deal? There isn’t any way to know.

    Frederick (26d43f)

  114. @46 — the content of the post isn’t an issue as much as the headline. Not sure if it was merely meant to be a “hook”, but in the headline you clearly stated that Trump traded away the wall in exchange for DREAMER protection — “Agreed To Amnesty In Return For No Wall.”

    And that’s an interpretation a reader could take away from the statement put out by Pelosi/Schumer and run with by the NYT.

    And its clearly not what happened. What did happen remains unclear, but the “excluding the wall” doesn’t accurately reflect that they “agreed to disagree” on the wall at this time while dealing with other issues.

    Is it maybe a missed opportunity? Sure, but its not like the GOP is united on its view of DREAMERS either.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  115. Caution is a good trait but sometimes it comes across as you are telling people not to even discuss a topic if it is based on questionable reports. I understand not taking some publications/reports seriously but these are not ridiculous sources, and some are Trump’s words and tweets.

    Have we gotten to the point that no one believes anything Trump says, and we shouldn’t even bother to discuss it until he signs a bill? Obama’s words had an expiration date. Do Trump’s words expire before he says them?

    DRJ (15874d)

  116. @DRJ: sometimes it comes across as you are telling people not to even discuss a topic

    Is this for me? Because I never said or implied people should not discuss it. What I said was that some kinds of discussion are bound to lead nowhere, because people are really arguing about the meaning THEY put on what’s been reported, and not actually is.

    Missing from the comments section in this post for example, is discussion of:

    Is a legislative solution for the DACA people good for the country?

    Are Republicans right to agree to it if it means accommodating Democrats, and how much accomodation?

    If Trump helped bring Democrats and Republicans together to do it, is that a good thing or not?

    I think those kinds of discussion would be very productive.

    Frederick (26d43f)

  117. @DRJ: Do Trump’s words expire before he says them?

    Trump’s words are like liver entrails, as far as divining reality or intentions from them.

    The media’s words, on the other hand, usually have a fixed meaning but very different from that they intend the public to take away. For example, with DACA “no criminal record” means they can have a criminal record.

    Frederick (26d43f)

  118. 106. Patterico (bd1cdd) — 9/14/2017 @ 8:28 am

    I just noticed that my headline could be read to say Trump promised DACA in return for a promise that there would be no wall. That actually would not make any sense for him to do, of course, but it would support the reading of my posts that shipwreckedcrew gave it I understood what it meant, but that could partially be because I knew what the deal was (and had predicted it I think the day before, except I didn’t predict it would happen so fast. I thought Trump would get around to this in December.

    Maybe “Chuck and Nancy” accelerated the timetable, because they are not so sure that what Trump says he wants [or will agree to] today he will say tomorrow.)

    Sammy Finkelman (7fac35)

  119. Didn’t close the quote right.

    My words were:

    I understood what it meant, but that could partially be because I knew what the deal was (and had predicted it I think the day before, except I didn’t predict it would happen so fast. I thought Trump would get around to this in December.)

    As for the headline of this post maybe it could have been:

    Good News: Trump Has Negotiated with Democrats and Agreed to Amnesty in Return for Nothing About a Wall

    Sammy Finkelman (7fac35)

  120. Fox & Friends: Maybe Trump’s Wall was “Symbolic”

    “Congressman, has the wall almost become symbolic?” he asked. “I know the president ran on it. It was a mantra. But at the same time, border crossings have gone down dramatically and you were talking about how the wall exists in certain forms and there’s money to go to it, has to come from Congress, but do you think we’re going to get to the point where maybe they won’t build the wall.”

    That would actually make sense.

    Not only that, but at this rate, Trump will be able to (truthfully!) claim that Mexico really DID pay for 100 percent of the wall: 100 percent of nothing.

    Dave (445e97)

  121. I’m not particularly gleeful about a deal that gets the American people undefined security measures that are approved by Demicratic leaders…

    Patterico (bd1cdd) — 9/14/2017 @ 5:54 am

    To get the Democrats on board no doubt those “security measures” will be limited to Border Patrol-operated dining trucks serving up Tex-Mex dishes along with a nice selection of Halal foods for the OTMs crossing the border to join their sleeper cells already in place. Followed by an air-conditioned bus ride to four-star reception centers where ICE will make everyone’s travel arrangements to their final destinations.

    And I’m only half kidding. A federal judge in Brownsville was shocked to discover during the course of trying a human trafficker who had brought an unaccompanied child across the border that no one arrested the illegal alien mother who had paid the coyote $8k to do it. To the contrary. Do you want to know what ICE did? They completed the criminal conspiracy and delivered the child to her mother.

    I’ll see if I can find the link; I know I saved it somewhere.

    Trump is obviously h3ll-bent on getting deals on border security and immigration. Any deal. So we’re likely to get Obama’s third term in that policy area. As I said during the campaign and run-up to the general election our choice was between two liberal life-long New York Democrats. The only difference is that the one with the D after her name is a committed ideologue while the other is a narcissist with no firm convictions whatsoever.

    I therefore can’t say I’ll be disappointed when Trump sells out. He did after all say during the campaign that he didn’t care if the GOP lost its majority in one or both chambers of Congress because he didn’t mind being a free agent.

    He already has sold out when it comes to his promise to be tough on “radical Islamic terrorism.” Here’s the transcript of Trump’s recent remarks at the 9/11 memorial.

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/09/11/remarks-president-trump-911-memorial-observance

    Guess what’s not in it? Any reference to Islamic terrorism. McMaster’s fingerprints are all over this. McMaster has been busy firing everybody on the NSC who entered the WH with the Trump transition team to advance Trump’s stated policy. And hiring people who want to help McMaster continue the failed Obama-era policy of “countering violent extremism” except that extremism of course, that dare not speak its name.

    Do you want to know how bad it is? Mustafa Javed Ali is McMaster’s senior director of counter-terrorism. Do you want to know what MJA was doing before becoming this nation’s “senior director of counter-terrorism? He was the diversity outreach director for CAIR. In case anybody is isn’t familiar with CAIR, or the Council on American Islamic Relations, it masquerades as a civil rights organization but is actually a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood in general and their Gazan wing (Hamas) in particular. This was firmly established during the Holy Land Foundation terror funding trial in 2007/2008.

    MJA is opposed to the fact that the US has placed groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas on our official list of foreign terrorist organizations. Instead he says we should just target the “violent members” of those groups. This makes about as much sense as the President directing the US military to just target the “violent members” of the Imperial Japanese Navy following the attack on Pearl Harbor, but to leave the IJN support ships and shore establishment alone.

    In other words MJA’s primary loyalty is still to CAIR, and therefore to the MB. CAIR gives lip service to supporting “reasonable” counter-terrorism policies. But as a practical matter it has never seen a counter-terrorism policy it considers reasonable. So our senior director of counter-terrorism is in fact still working for his old bosses to make sure we don’t adopt any effective counter-terrorism policies.

    He has McMaster convinced that if we do adopt such policies, or even if we dare connect Islam to terrorism, we’ll just rile up the Muslim world and create 1.6 billion enemies. This is stupid on so many different levels. First, Muslims already know what’s in their holy texts.

    http://time.com/4930742/islam-terrorism-islamophobia-violence/

    In Interview, Top Indonesian Muslim Scholar Says Stop Pretending That Orthodox Islam and Violence Aren’t Linked

    Notice that in the hyperlink the thoroughly indoctrinated staff at Time can’t resist the impulse to refer to such linkage as “Islamophobia” even though the top Islamic scholar in Indonesia says it is not.

    The thing is Muslims know very well that groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS are Islamic. They know exactly where in their scripture they are getting the justification for everything they do. About half of the 1.6 billion Muslims share their interpretation of Islam. This isn’t to say they’re all terrorists. But they support stoning for adulterers, death for apostates and homosexuals, slavery including sex slavery (Milk al-Yamin, “those that your right hand possess), and consequently they don’t consider the British rape gangs to have committed any crime at all. Aside: during the trials of the identified rapists the court rooms were packed with their supporters and when the rapists were convicted they left the courtroom shouting “Allahu Akbar,” and those in the gallery returned thunderous Allahu Akbars. That’s the mark of a sickness within Islam, and also shows that a Muslim doesn’t have to be an out-and-out terrorist to be dangerous.

    But the other half doesn’t share that interpretation. And frankly we’re insulting them when we refuse to link Islam to terrorism or violence. They want to know, are we stupid or just afraid and weak? Which half of the Muslim world would you rather alienate? Personally I’d rather alienate the violent half. But McMaster is under MJA’s spell and MJA has convinced him that calling a spade a spade is the recruiting tool when it fact when McMaster dances to the tune called by the Muslim Brotherhood, that’s the recruiting tool.

    Another oh-by-the-way, Al Qaeda is rebranding itself as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the “moderate” alternative to ISIS. Frankly I wouldn’t be surprised if our senior director of counter-terrorism had something to do with directing the transition, given that he’s still working for the MB, and although Ayman al-Zawahiri’s brother Muhammad claims to have renounced his ties to the Muslim Brotherhood he’s a lying sack of s**t. Or to put it more simply, CAIR’s former diversity outreach director has a direct conduit to Al Qaeda.

    The problem is that Trump has not military experience. Consequently he’s overawed by anyone who attained general or flag rank. What he doesn’t understand is that these people are political. Under Obama the service secretaries purged the ranks of any general or flag officer who wouldn’t roll over for anything when it came to turning the armed forces into social engineering laboratories. That McMaster survived and even thrived under Obama should tell you all you need to know.

    To give you a practical example. There’s a reason the Iranians captured two Riverine Command Boats and ten Sailors. There’s a reason why the USS Antietam ran aground off Yokosuka in January, why the Fitzgerald and John S. McCain were run down by merchant ships, and in between the Lake Champlain ran over a South Korean fishing boat. This is a senior leadership failure. The Sailors didn’t fail, the Navy failed them. You can either concentrate on sexual assault training, gays in the military training, transgenders in the military training, women in the military training, and get a social justice force. Or you can concentrate on navigation, ship handling, weapons systems and engineering and have an operational force. But any flag officer who’d put his career on the line to have an operational force was “retired” under Obama. Careerists who were willing to accept, and sometimes enthusiastically cooperate, with Obama’s drive to turn the services into a social justice force remained.

    That’s McMaster. He’s in the mold of former Army COS Casey. Recall his initial reaction to Nidal Hassan’s Fort Hood massacre. He said it was a tragedy, but it would be an even greater tragedy if it hurt the Army’s diversity outreach efforts. In other words, putting Muslims in uniform no matter where their loyalties lie is more important than Soldier’s lives.

    Stand by for Obama’s third term of “countering violent extremism” as well.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  122. Trump’s words are like liver entrails

    I’d say they come from the end of the digestive tract, rather than the middle.

    Dave (445e97)

  123. 106 — just catching up. That is what I was reacting to — not so much the content of the post, which seemed to acknowledge that there was some uncertainty on what the reference to the wall was, and that there was already some push-back from the WH on the statement put out by Schumer/Pelosi.

    The comments all around this morning are instructive on why jumping out ahead based on reporting that is likely entirely reliant on 1) the statement, and 2) confirmation from Dem. legis. staffers confirming the details of the statement, is an invitation to unnecessary handwringing.

    But, I’ll say again, to the extent the GOP or Trump’s base feels betrayed by his outreach to the Dem leadership, my response would be they have only themselves to blame. They have not delivered on the agenda they ran on. Trump is not — as the host so regularly and accurately points out — governing from a clear and consistent set of conservative principles. He’s governing on the basis of getting things done that address lingering problems of governance that have gone unaddressed due to gridlock. He’s a deal-maker. Not every deal has everything in it you want. Trump wanted to make deals with the GOP in Congress, but they can’t agree among themselves.

    The Harvey deal with Dems was easy because so many in the GOP had already signaled they were going to vote for Harvey aide and it didn’t matter what it was attached to. Debt ceiling?? Fine, they don’t care enough about that to take a stand. Fiscal conservatives should feel betrayed by their more moderate compatriots in Congress. The Harvey deal wouldn’t have moved without the agreement of Ryan and McConnell, and they rolled over with no effort at all.

    So, until the GOP finds something they REALLY care about — care enough to take a stand — Trump is going to make deals that get him votes from both sides of the aisle so that he gets things done.

    It’s not going to be pretty, and its going to be the ideologically “pure” conservatives who are going to be voting “no” in a losing effort on a regular basis.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  124. You need to start a blog, Frederick.

    DRJ (15874d)

  125. Maybe Trump should switch to an Independent, swc.

    DRJ (15874d)

  126. hi Mr. 57 been wondering where you was

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  127. In my previous comment I said the child was unaccompanied. Obviously since she was with a coyote she was not unaccompanied, but I meant unaccompanied by any family members that would be concerned about the child’s fate. That coyote, having already pocketed the money, didn’t need to give a rip about the child’s welfare.

    Also Pence, Mattis, and Sessions never made any reference to Islamic terrorism of any stripe during their 9/11 remarks. Noticing a pattern.

    I forgot to mention on what other levels this is stupid. You can’t fight an enemy you can not name, and you can’t develop effective strategies against an enemy when even though you possess their playbook you refuse to read it.

    The Quran explains the motives and goals of Islamic terrorists. In the case of Sunni terrorists the Sunnah of Muhammad provides them with examples of how to act on their motives to achieve their goals. But since McMaster is ideologically committed to the principle that their is no link between Islam and terrorism and indeed violence in general we aren’t allowed to look at it.

    Groups like AQ, ISIS, Boko Haram, etc., can openly say exactly what they’re going to do and why, citing chapter and verse of the Quran or volume and chapter of the ahadith collections and we’re required to ignore it. Because it remains official policy under Trump as it was under Obama that one thing has nothing to do with the other. That’s what the “smart set” inside-the-beltway establishment national security swamp-dwellers have been indoctrinated to believe. And Trump is sticking with them.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  128. swc,

    Congress is certainly disappointing but what do you expect from 435 people representing vastly different segments of the nation? It doesn’t matter what Congress is. What matters is what the GOP is, and Trump is the leader and policy-maker of the GOP.

    DRJ (15874d)

  129. hi Mr. 57 been wondering where you was

    happyfeet (28a91b) — 9/14/2017 @ 9:48 am

    I’ve been splitting my time between following the news and throwing up in the bathroom.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  130. feel better

    this beautiful fall weather will soon enough give way to the gloom and hardship of winter

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  131. Therein are the real issues of concern, Steve,

    narciso (28e26c)

  132. McMaster’s a sleazy and anti-semitic US Army general

    he’s a disgusting and cowardly traitor to america, which in my book puts him in very bad company

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  133. Reagan also got Dems to agree to border/immigration law enforcement in exchange for amnesty.

    The amnesty was immediate, the border/immigration law enforcement never happened.
    harkin (52aafa) — 9/14/2017 @ 5:40 am

    I don’t think Trump is enough a student of history to appreciate this. But he should know the Popeye cartoon line from Wimpy:

    I would gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  134. Wayne Allyn Root agrees with Hoagie:

    Trump just showed why he’s the master of “The Art of the Deal.” I’m betting Trump just started a first round of negotiations on DACA.

    Unfortunately, RINO establishment GOP leaders don’t understand “the Art of the Deal.” Everything in Washington DC is a negotiation. Why would I give you something and get nothing in return? Maybe we should ask moronic GOP leaders, who have cut horrible one-sided deals for years, gaining conservatives nothing in return.

    Trump didn’t kill DACA. He’s simply a brilliant businessman and negotiator looking for a fair deal. By throwing it back to Congress with a six-month deadline before DACA dies, President Trump has put conservatives in “pole position” for a good deal.

    My guess is this is The Art of the Deal, but Trump’s version not Wayne Root’s:

    On flexibility: “I never get too attached to one deal or one approach. For starters, I keep a lot of balls in the air, because most deals fall out, no matter how promising they seem at first.”

    This is where we are. He’s playing the lottery.

    DRJ (15874d)

  135. Weren’t Republicans already in the pole position by virtue of their majorities in the House and Senate? How does it help Republicans to signal the Democrats’ deal is a winner? What this does is put pressure on wavering Republicans to get on board the DACA Express because the train is pulling out anyway.

    DRJ (15874d)

  136. @DRJ:rump is the leader and policy-maker of the GOP.

    The GOP doesn’t act as if this is true, and Trump doesn’t act as if this is true, and of course it isn’t true.

    And if Ted Cruz were President, none of that would change. The Congress we have predates Trump. Some of those Contract With America guys are still in there.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  137. “… of course it isn’t true.”

    Your logic is irrefutable, Frederick.

    DRJ (15874d)

  138. if the goal is to conjoin DACA with RAISE

    the democrats just bellowed they won a huge concession

    they bellowed like raucous moo-cows with heaving bosoms

    so now any bill without a wall is pretty gosh darn reasonable

    that’s interesting

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  139. Presidents as Party leaders:

    A shrewd president will try to make his party as strong as possible. He gets to choose the leadership of his party’s national committee, and it can help promote his interests. Voters need to weigh which candidate can best use the power of the party to advance his interests.

    As Bill Clinton has shown, the president can be a prodigious fund-raiser for his party and its candidates. His Cabinet can let his party’s members of Congress claim credit for new federal projects in their home areas. And if he is elected or re-elected in a landslide, he may claim to have helped elect others in his party “on his coattails.”

    However, the relationship between a president and his party is often uneasy. When presidents seek re-election, they often try to run in a nonpartisan fashion, and leave others in their party to fend for themselves.

    It’s not surprising that Trump has already started his re-election campaign.

    DRJ (15874d)

  140. Sometimes Presidents lead their parties, and sometimes they don’t. Sometimes no one leads a party, and sometimes that party is led by someone who is not a President. This is simply the fact of the matter, since Congress is not the House of Commons.

    No one put Trump in charge of policy and the GOP. The voters put him in as the nominee, and lots of people in the GOP were trying to find ways to overturn that. And the Electoral College put him in as President, because of how voters in the states voted for him, and all the while the GOP tried to dissociate themselves from him and some tried to get Republicans to vote for a different GOP candidate, sometimes very far-fetched ones. The GOP is not taking direction from Trump, and there is no mechanism to make them. They can follow Trump, or their respective Majority Leaders, but no one can really make them.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  141. swc,

    Another thought on Congress: Isn’t DACA and immigration amnesty something Ryan, McConnell and other GOP moderates want but haven’t been able to get? Now they have it without being blamed, because Trump is driving the amnesty train. Did they privately encourage Trump to do this?

    DRJ (15874d)

  142. We humans respond to incentives, Frederick. Toeing the Party line and following elected leaders are age-old concepts because they are proven ways to get ahead. Think about Congress. The mavericks are the notable exceptions. Most are happy followers.

    DRJ (15874d)

  143. Ya know Steve57, you disappear for a while and return with something like what you did in #121 and #127 and you make it all better. Thanks!

    DRJ, I’m as confused as anybody about Trump but I am trying to understand the guy. I think, think mind you this is his way of negotiating. I’m probably wrong but that’s my take.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  144. A deal to deal is a deal.

    So ‘dealightfully’ Trump.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  145. Hoagie 143,

    I am disappointed in myself for daring to hope Trump might do something to curb illegal immigration. I thought he might do something, if only to please his base and get re-elected. Now I fear he is a Roberts-Souter-Kennedy-style Republican sell-out who wants elites and the media to like him.

    If so, that is my worst nightmare about what could happen with a President Trump (or President Bush, Kasich, Huckabee, or Rubio, for that matter). An inept, idiot President might get some things right but a sell-out will stay sold in DC. That’s why I supported Cruz and still like him. Cruz may bow to the reality of President Trump but he would never sell out to liberal ideology.

    DRJ (15874d)

  146. 121-“ There’s a reason why the USS Antietam ran aground off Yokosuka in January, why the Fitzgerald and John S. McCain were run down by merchant ships, and in between the Lake Champlain ran over a South Korean fishing boat. This is a senior leadership failure. The Sailors didn’t fail, the Navy failed them. You can either concentrate on sexual assault training, gays in the military training, transgenders in the military training, women in the military training, and get a social justice force. Or you can concentrate on navigation, ship handling, weapons systems and engineering and have an operational force…….

    Pretty much.

    http://inmilitary.com/real-reason-us-navy-keeps-hitting-merchant-vessels/

    harkin (52aafa)

  147. Yes that is troubling steve, but the odd thing is people here didn’t seem to be concerned of the purging of Flynn (preceded by col. Townley) bannon, lovinger, Harvey, gorka Cohen ratnick st al.

    narciso (28e26c)

  148. No one seems to want a wall, drj not anything resembling a working plurality, maybe after a dirty bomb has devastated a major city, probably not even then.

    narciso (28e26c)

  149. I’m troubled by what I see in the military but it’s hard to know why it’s happening. Is it because of specific military leaders who embraced PC issues, or is it because of Obama’s leadership/directives, or all of the above? I do know Trump has a chance to put new people in place and reverse course, but he doesn’t seem to be doing it. I also know military leaders won’t change course unless a President makes them.

    DRJ (15874d)

  150. Well, I want a wall and I don’t mind saying it, even if I am the only one.

    DRJ (15874d)

  151. That’s why I supported Cruz and still like him. Cruz may bow to the reality of President Trump but he would never sell out to liberal ideology.

    Really?

    Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) helps Mercury One volunteers unload supplies in McAllen, Texas on July 19, 2014.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/19/everything-you-need-to-know-about-mercury-ones-border-relief-effort-today-with-live-updates/

    Q! bert (fc15db)

  152. In Alaska one of the loud moth Yakker who uTed the huntress, is supporting the dauphin begich for governor, because the vampires are not yet at point barrow.

    narciso (28e26c)

  153. There seems to be a wall, to prevent Obama’s injuries to the body politics from being reversed, this is why I found that previous thread about civility fatuous, after gryphon and Julius Caesar and alexandria.

    narciso (28e26c)

  154. fatuous is a very good word for it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  155. @151. And what would Reagan say?

    “Tear down this wall.”

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  156. To give you a practical example. There’s a reason the Iranians captured two Riverine Command Boats and ten Sailors. There’s a reason why the USS Antietam ran aground off Yokosuka in January, why the Fitzgerald and John S. McCain were run down by merchant ships, and in between the Lake Champlain ran over a South Korean fishing boat. This is a senior leadership failure. The Sailors didn’t fail, the Navy failed them. You can either concentrate on sexual assault training, gays in the military training, transgenders in the military training, women in the military training, and get a social justice force. Or you can concentrate on navigation, ship handling, weapons systems and engineering and have an operational force. But any flag officer who’d put his career on the line to have an operational force was “retired” under Obama. Careerists who were willing to accept, and sometimes enthusiastically cooperate, with Obama’s drive to turn the services into a social justice force remained.

    None of this is true, other that the assertion that this is a senior leadership failure. Navy optempo is at an unsustainable rate, and has been for a while. Here’s a paper that discusses it:

    http://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CSBA6174_%28Deploying_Beyond_Their_Means%29Final2-web.pdf

    Unfortunately, the bene ts provided by a robust naval presence are also threatening the long-term health of the Navy. The high OPTEMPO of the last decade has resulted in deferred maintenance, reduced readiness, and demoralized crews. The Navy has an ambitious plan to expand the size and capability of the eet with its shipbuilding plan and return to a sustainable operational pace with O-FRP. Unfortunately, these plans may result in reduced presence in the near term and in the long term would require shipbuilding to be funded at a level that may not be supported by the Administration and Congress.
    The DoD and national leaders must decide to either reduce overseas presence or act to build up the fleet; base more of it overseas; or increase its readiness and OPTEMPO. Making this choice will require a reassessment of America’s maritime strategy and an honest appraisal of the readiness, posture, and risk of further deploying the Navy and Marine Corps beyond their means.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  157. I am disappointed in myself for daring to hope Trump might do something to curb illegal immigration.

    Start w/business: stop hiring them and they’ll stop coming.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  158. 158

    Oh noes. Not small bizness. The very foundation of Voodoo econ…

    Ben burn (84dd36)

  159. “The wall is already going through extensive renovations,” Sanders hedged. “They are already building sample walls. That part is already moving forward. That’s going to continue. The president is 100 percent committed to the walls.”

    “There’s not going to be any new wall aside from what already exists?” Doocy pressed.

    “No, like I just said, they are already building sample walls,” Sanders remarked. “There’s already extensive renovations taking place. Additional things will continue on the wall front as well as massive border security.”

    Ben burn (84dd36)

  160. 152,

    Being against illegal immigration doesn’t mean starving the children who are brought here illegally. It means treating them humanely until they can be sent home, as Beck and Cruz were doing.

    Sheesh. I hope you aren’t a Texan.

    DRJ (15874d)

  161. @159. Ain’t it ‘da trooth.

    “Repeat after me: I…your name…pledge allegiance…to Hedley Lamarr…and to the evil…for which he stands. Now go do… that voodoo… that you do… so well!!!” – Hedley Lamarr [Harvey Korman] ‘Blazing Saddles’ 1974

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  162. harkin (52aafa) @ 9/14/2017 @ 1:53 pm, that’s an excellent article. I couldn’t agree more with what the Captain had to say.

    There are two earlier articles that I believe are relevant to the matter.

    https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2014-01/deckplates-do-not-use-job

    The Department of Defense continues to make news for the wrong reasons. A recent example involves reports of Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) training for personnel assigned as equal opportunity advisers throughout the DOD.

    Criticism of DEOMI last October involved a lesson on Power and Privilege, chapter EOAC-3000 of the Equal Opportunity Advisor Course student guide. The chapter emphasizes how “power and privilege can sometimes create exclusive work environments at the expense of others” and introduces students to the concept of white privilege. Two themes of that chapter deserve scrutiny. The first is that white males gain privileges and success through “unearned advantage.” The second is the assumption that “racism is everywhere.”…

    As they say, read the whole thing.

    And then there was this:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/25/sailors-leaving-navy-over-stress-on-social-issues-/

    Sailors leaving Navy over stress on social issues, Top Gun instructor says

    A Navy F-18 fighter pilot and former Top Gun instructor is publicly warning admirals that retention is beginning to suffer from the military’s relentless social conditioning programs.

    Cmdr. Guy Snodgrass, until recently a Pentagon speech writer for the chief of naval operations, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, said sailors are becoming fed-up with the constant emphasis on social issues — an apparent reference to gays in the military, women in combat and ending sexual harassment.

    “Sailors continue to cite the over-focus on social issues by senior leadership, above and beyond discussions on war fighting — a fact that demoralizes junior and mid-grade officers alike,” Cmdr. Snodgrass wrote this month on the U.S. Naval Institute website, an independent forum for active and retired sailors and Marines…

    The first article was written in January 2014, the second in March 2014. So this has been coming for a long time. When retention starts to suffer so does readiness. On the USNI forum we were only half-joking that the crews of those two Riverine Command boats may not have known how to maintain their boats, or how to plan the transit from Iraq to Bahrain, or how to rig a tow, and they may not have known how to navigate well enough to avoid Farsi Island, but by Gawd we bet they were up to speed on their SAPR (Sexual Assault Prevention and Reporting) training.

    As an aside, if you’re going to send women into combat the real question is, is the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy up to speed on its SAPR training? But I digress.

    And then there was my own experience in the immediate post-Tailhook Navy back in the early ’90s. I noticed how if you give the flag officers a good shove they turn into a bunch of dancing bears because their highest priority is to retire at their current rank. And it trickles down that if you want to get promoted you toe the party line.

    That’s what’s unusual about the Washington Examiner article. Normally people wait until they retire, like Senior Chief Murphy who wrote the “From the Deckplates” article, to voice such criticism. But CDR Snodgrass was heading off to become the XO of an F&A-18 squadron at Atsugi. Don’t know which one. The Daimondbacks, the Royal Maces, the Dambusters, or the Eagles. And frankly things have changed a lot since I served in Japan, when the VF-154 Black Knights (Tomcats!) were the premier fighting squadron.

    But not everything has changed. Presumably CDR Snodgrass had aspirations to a command of his own. I can only conclude that somebody at the Pentagon, perhaps his boss but perhaps not, told him he’d be protected if he made these concerns public.

    If I’m right, what does it say about the Admirals who would protect him if he said it but weren’t willing to say it themselves? Pretty much what I said earlier.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  163. Davethulhu (fab944) @ 9/14/2017 @ 2:39 pm, have you ever stopped to consider that there are multiple factors at play?

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  164. I see. Treating them humanly with gift bags and prizes isn’t a lure for more to break the law, it is the right thing to do because they are children.

    Definitely not the liberal thing to do.

    Q! bert (fc15db)

  165. @164. Seems more a Ned Ryerson. But his missus has an affinity for high flying, high fashion and streetlamps.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqSYC_vwhDg

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  166. Ned Ryerson.

    How many Groundhog days can one tolerate?

    Ben burn (84dd36)

  167. “I see. Treating them humanly with gift bags and prizes isn’t a lure for more to break the law, it is the right thing to do because they are children.”

    Republican SWAG is bread and water rations.

    Ben burn (84dd36)

  168. Steve57,

    I have a question that I think you have the background and experience to answer.

    I believe the military should be about defending our country and not social engineering. BUT I also believe the military gave blacks a chance for real careers when many opportunities were foreclosed to them. We could say it was social engineering that produced a good, worthwhile result for society and the military.

    What do you think?

    DRJ (15874d)

  169. @168. Just enough to bed Andie MacDowell.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  170. “BUT I also believe the military gave blacks a chance for real careers when many opportunities were foreclosed to them. We could say it was social engineering that produced a good, worthwhile result for society and the military.”

    Ho-o-ly sh*t! Gadzooks!

    Ben burn (84dd36)

  171. Am I misreading you, Q? I tend to miss sarcasm online but do you really think Republicans are bad, mean people, especially when children are involved?

    DRJ (15874d)

  172. 156, should have known better than to trust a western rancher on that one. And my Karnak answer to Narciso is “two reasons – the Dems nominated a short dark Green who was bilingual and Bush Sr. own-dialed with “little brown ones”.

    urbanleftbehind (9f04aa)

  173. @163 I think your Washington Times article is being deceptive. In the article itself, it says “He lists long wartime deployments as a leading retention negative.”, but then conflates it with his discussion of social issues. Here’s a link to the actual paper he wrote:

    http://www.military.com/PDF/2014-Navy-Retention-Study-Report-Full.pdf

    Here’s the summary, and you’ll note that none of the social issues are listed as retention problems:

    Operational Tempo
    41.9% of Sailors who responded report their last deployment was between 7-9 months in length and 47.4% expect their next deployment to last between 8-10 months, with a plurality believing deployments will be 9 months in length. This is significantly higher than the six month average deployment length of years past.

    Poor Work Life Balance
    62.3% of Sailors believe work-life balance is not ideal, as compared to 21.6% who believe it is ideal. Comments collected by the survey indicate this negative response exacerbates the “grass is greener on the outside” mentality.

    Low service-wide Morale
    While 59.0% of Sailors believe they are making a difference, only 17.7% of Sailors consider morale to be “excellent” or “good.” 42.2% believe morale is “marginal” or “poor.”

    Declining Pay and Compensation
    80.4% rank the current retirement system, and 73.9% rank pay and compensation, as two of the most important reasons to remain in uniform. Unfortunately, recent calls to reduce pay and benefits reduce a Sailor’s desire to remain in uniform, especially when 62.7% of Sailors believe it would be easy to get hired if they left the Navy today.

    Waning Desire for Senior Leadership Positions
    49.4% of responding Sailors do not want their boss’s job. Comments indicate an increasing belief that positions of senior leadership, specifically operational command, is less desirable because of increasing risk aversion (68.7%), high administrative burden (56.4%), and, in some cases, a pay inversion where commanding officers are paid up to 10% less than the mid-career officers they lead.

    Widespread Distrust of Senior Leadership
    Most troubling is the perception Sailors hold of senior leadership. 37.2% regard senior leadership as “marginal” or “poor”, a plurality state they do not trust senior leaders, 51.3% don’t believe senior leaders care what they think, and 50.1% of Sailors do not believe senior leaders hold themselves accountable.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  174. “Greek”

    urbanleftbehind (9f04aa)

  175. @DCSCA:“Tear down this wall.”

    You already know, of course, that the Berlin Wall was built to keep East Germans in East Germany, not to keep West Berliners out.

    It was not built by West Berlin to keep East Germans out.

    Frederick (53c627)

  176. Worker’s paradises are inevitably so wonderful that workers who wish to leave must be killed, if necessary, to prevent their making such a poor decision.

    That’s why the homemade raft traffic was always from Cuba to Florida, and not the other way.

    Frederick (53c627)

  177. @165

    I frequent a forum that has a number of current and former Navy personnel posting to it, including one of the damage control officers for the Fitzgerald. They universally decry the effects of unsustainable optempo as the primary contributing factor for the accident, and not political correctness training.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  178. Unsustainable operations? Is that what you are talking about?

    DRJ (15874d)

  179. If I followed your comment correctly, DrJ, you had hoped for better border control from Trump that you fear you aren’t going to get and then you propped up Cruz as someone who wouldn’t falter.

    IMO placing out a welcome mat for illegals is a contradiction to having a secure border.

    If “humanity” is the excuse, isn’t that the same as what you believe tricked Trump?

    Also, you mentioned that Cruz was doing the right thing until we are able to send them back. Did Cruz author such “send them back” legislation since the giveaway?

    Q! bert (aff890)

  180. 179

    Well done. It’s basically ‘multi-tasking’..a very efficient concept. :)
    http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=42131

    Ben burn (84dd36)

  181. DRJ, for your reading pleasure.

    https://www.uscg.mil/history/articles/Carlton_Skinner.asp

    U.S.S. Sea Cloud, IX-99,
    Racial Integration for Naval Efficiency

    It was never about providing job opportunities. It was about using manpower effectively. There were race riots during WWII because blacks could only serve in the USN as mess stewards. There were only a few billets on any ship for mess stewards. So black Sailors had a lot of shore duty. Meanwhile, white Sailors constantly were being pushed out to sea. Black Sailors resented being treated as second class citizens, white Sailors resented the fact that black Sailors got the coveted sea duty they couldn’t have.

    And the thing is, senior admirals like Nimitz who served in the integrated Navy before Woodrow Wilson segregated it knew black Sailors could do the job.

    Again, the push to reintegrate the Navy was motivated by the fact that admirals could not use manpower efficiently due to stupid prejudices. Unfortunately they had to conduct stupid demonstrations to prove what they already knew.

    The bottom line is that when it came to racial integration the goal was to prove it improved combat effectiveness and naval efficiency. Now the people who are insisting on all the other social engineering are actively hostile to proving that it improves combat effectiveness and efficiency. Because they know it does not. The Marines conducted such an experiment by integrating women into ground combat units for training exercises. The integrated units could not move as far or as fast as the all-male units. The Obama administration didn’t care.

    At one time the CinC and senior leadership cared about winning wars. Those days are over.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  182. Ouch. Multitasking reduces your efficiency and performance because your brain can only focus on one thing at a time. When you try to do two things at once, your brain lacks the capacity to perform both tasks successfully. Research also shows that, in addition to slowing you down, multitasking lowers your IQ.Oct 8, 2014
    Multitasking Damages Your Brain And Career, New Studies Suggest
    https://www.forbes.com › 2014/10/08
    More results

    Ben burn (84dd36)

  183. Of course any dialogue resulting from this subject may be cryptic for some of our more censorship-prone associates.

    Ben burn (84dd36)

  184. @165

    I frequent a forum that has a number of current and former Navy personnel posting to it, including one of the damage control officers for the Fitzgerald. They universally decry the effects of unsustainable optempo as the primary contributing factor for the accident, and not political correctness training.

    Davethulhu (fab944) — 9/14/2017 @ 3:33 pm

    Perhaps because they don’t want to make themselves targets for reeducation camp and/or getting fired. You can safely criticize the high OPTEMPO but not the social engineering. If you criticize the fact that the armed forces have become an SJW petri dish your Equal Opportunity scores will suffer and so will your career.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  185. @186 As I said, there are former Navy guys who agree, it’s not all current military. Also, despite the spin attempted by the Washington Times article you linked in 163, Snodgrass doesn’t list political correctness as a retention issue, he says it’s a waste of time. A true tragedy, I suppose, since prior the the last decade the military wasn’t known for wasting time.

    Anyway, I think that the papers I linked show that retention and readiness are primarily hindered by non-social issues.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  186. You also seem to have bought into the whole “Obama purged the military” thing, which is also not true.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  187. Yes, Obama did purge the military of flag/general officers who weren’t on board with his social engineering programs.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  188. Who did he purge?

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  189. I frequent a VFW that has many, many former Navy personnel and they, to a man, concur with Steve57. In fact they attribute more problems to females than anything else. They just can’t do the work of a man. And they are distracting to the men. Imagine that!

    Their main complaint about gays is how they constantly believe everything revolves around them being gay. That can’t be good for our Navy. But I suppose once the left has downgraded us to a socialist banana republic we will no longer need top flight soldiers and sailors. They can then divert the money spent on defense to where it’s really needed – paying the dole to unemployed illegals to vote democrat.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  190. In another of Obama’s purges, in October 2011 he purged not just the military but all intel, law enforcement, and national security agencies of government and outside contractor trainers that a conglomerate of Muslim Brotherhood front groups deemed “Islamophobic.” I.E. getting too close to the truth. The Obama administration agreed to fire them all, and even to “reeducate” all personnel whose minds had been poisoned by non-MB approved trainers. They also agreed to purge all training materials of any reference to Islamic terrorism.

    The 2013 Boston Marathon bombing was a direct result of this purge.

    Dude, I know my purges when I see one. And I’ve seen several.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  191. Thank you for the link, Steve57. I agree that sometimes they don’t seem to want to win.

    DRJ (15874d)

  192. Who did he purge, specifically? You’ve made a pretty extraordinary claim.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  193. Q,

    Cruz has sponsored or cosponsored 28 immigration bills designed to protect Americans from illegal immigrants (especially those who committed other crimes, too), including Kate’s Law and the America Jobs First Act with Jeff Sessions.

    In addition, Cruz opposed the Gang of 8 and “he alone among 10 candidates — including Rubio — never backed ‘amnesty’ for immigrants. “

    DRJ (15874d)

  194. Who did he purge?
    Davethulhu (fab944) — 9/14/2017 @ 4:13 pm

    It is more of an issue of, who did he recommend for promotion? At that level it’s either up or out. Those who weren’t promoted were retired. But it amounts to the same thing.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  195. Hoagie..the Navy is the class warrior branch with DFAC separation from enlisted men. They see class distinction more than say, ARMY!

    Ben burn (84dd36)

  196. It makes sense that integration of blacks was a good move for military efficiency. Would that also be true for integration of women, gays, or transgenders?

    DRJ (15874d)

  197. Dave,

    At least 197 in 5 years.

    DRJ (15874d)

  198. Which one of those 28 bills covered “treating them humanely until they can be sent home, as Beck and Cruz were doing?”

    Q! bert (aff890)

  199. @201 I’ve got to head home from work, but I will address your post when I get home. I’ve seen this list before, and it’s largely incorrect.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  200. Jeb Johnson certainly eased Phil Haney out of the analytic section, which tracked the tabligh cells, then you had George Salem, who basically reprinted cair and splc guidance.

    narciso (28e26c)

  201. It makes sense that integration of blacks was a good move for military efficiency. Would that also be true for integration of women, gays, or transgenders?
    DRJ (15874d) — 9/14/2017 @ 4:41 pm

    You would have to be willing to conduct similar studies to determine that.

    https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2015/09/10/mixed-gender-teams-come-up-short-in-marines-infantry-experiment/

    The liberals will never be willing to conduct similar experiments to that which the USN conducted aboard the USS Sea Cloud. They know the results will contradict the fore ordained conclusions.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  202. In fact they attribute more problems to females than anything else. They just can’t do the work of a man.

    “They” are lawyers; SCOTUS justices; senators and representatives; surgeons; engineers; airline and fighter pilots; police and emergency services personnel; scientists, teachers, professors, space shuttle pilots and space station commanders… not to mention mothers to every one of those so-called ‘men’ crying foul in their beers at a VFW.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  203. Which one of those 28 bills covered “treating them humanely until they can be sent home, as Beck and Cruz were doing?”

    Q! bert (aff890) — 9/14/2017 @ 4:49 pm

    That is called charity. Not everything has to be legislated for Texans, but maybe it does where you live.

    DRJ (15874d)

  204. Fergit it DC. I feel bad the RNC is the new Whig party, languishing in the fatal head injury, the hematoma Trump, but they had it coming.

    Ben burn (84dd36)

  205. That is probably true, Steve57, but I would welcome real studies.

    DRJ (15874d)

  206. The purile and unnecessary gaffes about opportunities for darkies in various guises of misplaced compassion is the linchpin.

    Nature has selected Republican for extinction.

    Ben burn (84dd36)

  207. trannies in the military is about as efficient as chopping off your pecker and saying hey check me out i’m a girl

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  208. That is called charity. Not everything has to be legislated..

    So what is your beef with Trump if he hasn’t signed any legislation?

    Q! bert (aff890)

  209. Dave 203,

    I think it’s true that people can disagree about the list. I believe General Paul Vallely compiled many of the names. And while some may have left in protest, but there may be a fine line between a purge and a protest.

    Even Politico addressed Obama’s ambivalent attitude toward the military. I don’t think there is any doubt about that.

    DRJ (15874d)

  210. My beef with Trump is that he made campaign promises to do specific things, he is supporting completely opposite policies, and he seems to think that is Winning!

    DRJ (15874d)

  211. Further to my last, DRJ, I wanted to call your attention to this gem from the above article.

    Col. Anne Weinberg, deputy director of the Marines’ Force Innovation Office, said it was important to note that the experiment only evaluated the performance of mixed-gender teams under current conditions. It was a measurement, she said, of how well average female Marines were doing today, not how well they could perform under ideal circumstances and with better training.

    Perhaps you can invite an opinion from one of our combat vets on that statement. I’ve never been under fire but even I have trained enough to know that “combat conditions” and “ideal circumstances” are mutually exclusive terms. And you can not conduct enough training to make up for the discrepancy between the physical performance of men vs. women. Back in the ’90s we learned that over 90% of female recruits could not handle the damage control equipment. I.e. pumps, generators, etc. It was just too heavy for them. I forget how many extra hours we were supposed to give women for weight training, but with sufficient extra allowances for weight training a woman could be expected to attain 60% of the upper body strength as that of a man of similar size.

    This was actually offered as a solution by the equal opportunity types. Are you kidding me? And since when is 60% a passing grade. but then there’s this:

    Female Marines fared much better in ground combat schools for other occupational specialties, indicating that jobs placing less emphasis on marching with heavy packs than rifleman and weapons specialties do may be more conducive to gender integration. The artillery cannon crewman course had the same graduation rate — 86 percent — for men and women during the evaluation period. In the tanks and amphibious assault vehicle crewman courses, women had a 71 percent graduation rate, compared to 99 and 94 percent for men, respectively.

    The IDF recently closed armor to women. They had opened it to women only to discover that changing tracks was just too arduous for them. But as for the notion that jobs placing less emphasis on marching with heavy packs being more conducive to gender integration, yeah! I could have told you that.

    All this aside, I have nothing but the highest respect for the women I served with. In so many ways they were superior to the men. I mentioned I was in both the pre and post-Tailhook navies. Post-Tailhook a lot of guys senior to me were looking for quick and easy ways to show they were on board with the new program where advancement came along with demonstrating zero tolerance for sexual misconduct. Even if they had to manufacture that misconduct out of thin air. They’d threaten a woman with conduct unbecoming an officer unless she accused me (and others) of abusing her. She’d refuse, because she knew we had done no such thing. Then another female officer would step in and tell them to cut it out, there was nothing there.

    The fact that women aren’t as good at hauling damage control equipment up and down ladders or changing tank tracks means next to nothing knowing they wouldn’t crack under pressure.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  212. Ambivalent about Syria but he was King Drone I. POTUS consents to military advice. He doesn’t cave to it..*see MacArthur/Truman.

    Ben burn (84dd36)

  213. What campaign promise has been broken?

    Q! bert (aff890)

  214. @208. From one showman who called his second wife ‘Mommie’ to another showman on his third wife who calls his first daughter a ‘hottie’ it’s been quite a fall.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  215. @219. O’Reilly [remember him?] will tell’ya milkshakes are his thing.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  216. This sort of thing, including Obamacare, is what we were guaranteed with Hillary. With DJT, we thought we had a chance to avoid such idiocy.
    It was the way to bet.

    Richard Aubrey (0d7df4)

  217. 221

    They’re like cars in Texas after the insurance claim though…no telling where those damaged vehicles will turn up as an aftermarket surprise to the unwary consumer.

    Ben burn (84dd36)

  218. The lesser-evil excuse has reached an impasse…

    If you were up to your neck in Trump poop, and someone threw a bucket of Hillary snot at you….would you duck?

    See how that works?

    Ben burn (84dd36)

  219. @215 The list goes beyond protests and disagreements. For example, it claims General Ham was relieved “because he disagreed with orders not to mount a rescue mission in response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi.” Ham himself had this to say in congressional testimony:

    I will admit to giving a lot of thought about close air support. And in the lead up to September 11th, in the discussions about what forces should we have available, it was my determination, obviously with advice from others, but the responsibility was mine as the commander, was that close air support was not the appropriate tool in this situation.
    And as I look back on the events of that night and say … and think in my own mind would air have made a difference? And in my military judgment, I believe the answer is no. It was a very uncertain situation in an environment which we know we had an unknown surface-to-air threat with the proliferation particularly of shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, many of which remain unaccounted for. But mostly it was a lack of understanding of the environment, and hence the need for the Predator to try to gain an understanding of what was going on.

    Knowing the intelligence that I had at the time, not obviously what I have now, but the intelligence I had at the time caused me to conclude in my military judgment that attack aircraft would not be the appropriate response tool. And so I did not direct a heightened alert. That is obviously fair for criticism, and knowing what we know now maybe that was — maybe I would make a different decision. But close air support I think, I still even knowing what I know now, think that was not the right tool to effect change in this situation.

    .

    Admiral Gaouette was claimed to have been relieved for “disobeying orders when he sent his group on Sept. 11 to “assist and provide intelligence for” military forces ordered into action by Gen. Ham.” However, he was actually reprimanded for “improper conduct”, specifically “racially offensive” terms in emails and against other black flag officers.

    Gen Carey was relieved because he drank excessively during his visit to Russia, and fraternized with foreign women.

    And so on. You could make an argument that some of these represent a “PC” military, after all, why shouldn’t a general get drunk and bang some russian hookers, or an admiral call a fellow flag officer an “n-word”. But none of these were in any sense of the word a purge by Obama, and in many cases the linked news article is flat out lying.

    Davethulhu (3a2442)

  220. The idea of Trump signing legislation passed by Democrats and a few Democrat operatives in the Republican Party. If such a thing we’re to happen it would mean that Trump was a Democrat operative from the start and has a cancer diagnosis so he knows he won’t be around for a second term. In other words, you are relying on crazy theories here, Patterico.

    jcurtis (d9ae7c)

  221. Probably more fruitful to contemplate Trump’s hand rather than Schumer, Pelosi, Rubio hand. Presidents have automatic aces in the big blind, every hand.

    jcurtis (d9ae7c)

  222. Trump has delivered on his promise to nominate a conservative Supremo Court Justice and other judges. He has stopped TOP and climate change deals. He claims he is pursuing tax reform and He might.

    He has not delivered on his promise to deport all illegal immigrants, defund NATO, and end foreign trade/currency manipulation, but I don’t care because those were stupid policies. But I do care that Trump promised to enforce Iran’s sanctions, build a wall, end amnesty, and push Congress to repeal ObamaCare. He didn’t say he would try, he said he would deliver, and now he is talking about doing the opposite on all 4. I am not happy.

    DRJ (15874d)

  223. That is probably true, Steve57, but I would welcome real studies.

    DRJ (15874d) — 9/14/2017 @ 5:28 pm

    Give the Marines some credit, DRJ. That was a real study. It didn’t work out as the libs hoped so they rejected the results. I would welcome more studies, but we won’t get them. File that under, “Not wanting to know the answer.” Or, rather, “Already knowing the answer but not wanting to quantify it.”

    The libs want to airbrush history. Or at least gaslight us about history. Don’t forget that for nearly a century before WWII there had been black Soldiers and Sailors. Buffalo Soldiers, anyone? In the Army the units were segregated, but in the Navy the ships had been fully integrated for decades until racist Democrat (but I repeat myself) Woodrow Wilson came along and put a stop to that. But there were still black Sailors serving in Navy ships in limited numbers during the interwar period and then WWII. So the issue wasn’t entirely new. On the other hand, we have never allowed gays to serve openly, transgenders to serve, or women in combat. This is entirely uncharted territory, yet we are treating these issues far more lightly than the issue of race that we were much more familiar with in the ’40s.

    Again, I’m with you. I’d like to see some real studies but we are working against a government that has an agenda and therefore does not want to know the results of any such studies. They don’t believe anyone knows the long history of blacks serving in the military or that the Navy and the Army demonstrated that racial segregation caused a gross misallocation of manpower and integration of existing forces improved readiness and efficiency. They would rather have everyone think Truman just decreed, “Let there be racial integration” and out of thin air there was. And since a Democrat conjured up such good results out of nothingness a Democrat can do so any time he or she wishes.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  224. That’s a fair point, Dave, but I imagine there are negative things we can show about everyone’s life. My understanding is that the Obama Administration overlooked the things done by his supporters but not those who resisted his policies of became inconvenient. Petraeus seems a particularly good example of that.

    DRJ (15874d)

  225. But mostly it was a lack of understanding of the environment, and hence the need for the Predator to try to gain an understanding of what was going on.

    Dave, this is one of the more aggravating aspects of the excuses for inaction at Benghazi. We know we had at least two SEALs on top of the objective. One of the missions that SEALs perform is SR, or Special Reconnaissance. That is, they either infiltrate enemy held territory or they are left behind when you withdraw and the enemy advances. You don’t need drones when you have SEALs. I don’t know the identities or backgrounds of the other CIA contractors but regardless of service many of them would have similar training and experience.

    I am not so cognitively dissonant that I can buy this story that we had a lack of understanding of the environment when we had some of the best reconnaissance assets right there on the spot.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  226. @230 Steve57

    The uncharted waters say “Hyre There Be Drag Queens.”

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  227. Everyone may be right. There’s always less to Trump than meets the eye. From any angle.

    nk (dbc370)

  228. @152

    Do Trump’s words expire before he says them?
    DRJ (15874d) — 9/14/2017 @ 8:52 am

    John Anderton follows him on PreSnapchat.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  229. @231 You may very well be correct, but it hardly rises to the level of “Muslim Brotherhood is dictating staffing”. Let me turn that around on you. Do you believe that Trump is the kind of guy who acts impartially, or do you think he plays favorites?

    Davethulhu (3a2442)

  230. @232 These are the words of a guy who was supposedly fired because he wanted to send troops to Benghazi, but Obama wouldn’t let him. At the time he gave this testimony, he was retired and was speaking to what would have been a sympathetic Republican inquiry. Do you think he was lying? If so, why?

    You can read a transcript here: http://web.archive.org/web/20140225153457/http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=AAEBCAA5-4C8F-4820-BACD-2DB9B53C3424

    Davethulhu (3a2442)

  231. That is quite a list. I don’t know how they do it in Texas so maybe that is why there seemed to be quite a bit about stuff other than his broken immigration campaign promise.

    Here is where we started in case you forgot:

    I am disappointed in myself for daring to hope Trump might do something to curb illegal immigration.

    From the pertinent part of your list it appears as though I am supposed to conflate “unfulfilled” with “broken” when it comes to campaign promises.

    Was there a time limit on his immigration campaign promises?

    Q! bert (aff890)

  232. Heh. Hold out hope if you want, Q. There’s always tomorrow.

    DRJ (15874d)

  233. @238 There was this:

    Next, I will work with Congress to introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage within the first 100 days of my Administration:

    7. End Illegal Immigration Act: Fully – funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall; establishes a 2-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a 5-year mandatory minimum for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions or two or more prior deportations; also reforms visa rules to enhance penalties for overstaying and to ensure open jobs are offered to American workers first.

    Needless to say this has not occurred and we’re beyond his first 100 days.

    Davethulhu (3a2442)

  234. @184 Ben Burn

    Ouch. Multitasking reduces your efficiency and performance because your brain can only focus on one thing at a time.

    Have you ever seen the band Rush in concert? Their IQ starting point must be really high.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  235. So there are no broken immigration campaign promises you can cite?

    No need to wait for tomorrow when my work here appears to be done tonight.

    Q! bert (aff890)

  236. Maybe he expected congress to work with him, Dave. Tough to fight for passage on items congress takes a pass on.

    With today’s bill earmarking money for a Wall, only the Senate can make the delay take longer.

    Just curious, are you suggesting that Trump failure to have this done in 100 days is why DRJ has zero faith?

    Q! bert (aff890)

  237. I can’t speak for DRJ.

    As far as Trump is concerned, maybe he shouldn’t promise things that aren’t within his power to deliver.

    Davethulhu (3a2442)

  238. I’m glad that you are happy, Q.

    DRJ (15874d)

  239. Like the 7 year running promise to Repeal and Replace Obamacare?

    I looked up some of the immigration legislation introduced within the 1st 100 days and it seems that some members of Congress tried to get leadership to give you, Dave, some 100 day satisfaction.

    But we both know that you really don’t care.

    Q! bert (aff890)

  240. Happy to show the bad faith in debating presented here.

    Back to lurking at this site.

    Q! bert (aff890)

  241. Frederick said upthread that he expects conservatives in the House to block DACA as a form of amnesty. I think he’s right. And I add one further prediction based on Trump’s assertion* that if Congress doesn’t act within six months, he’ll do…something.
    Trump will eventually give us an executive order that is substantially the same as Obama’s EO, although he will try to make it appear as something very different. The only uncertainty lies with AG Sessions, and whether he will, or will not, allow his name to appear on the legal memo that will say that Obama had no authority to do what Trump does, but Trump does have such authority.
    * I use that word because, Trump being Trump, nothing he says can be called a promise…and his verbiage in this instance was even less specific than usual.

    kishnevi (b4162e)

  242. …but it hardly rises to the level of “Muslim Brotherhood is dictating staffing”…

    Davethulhu (3a2442) — 9/14/2017 @ 7:15 pm

    Why would anyone give CAIR’s former director of diversity outreach a position on the National Security staff, Dave? How does this make any sense?

    https://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/1425.pdf

    Start reading from “IV CAIR, ISNA and NAIT’s Motion to Strike” (page 14 or 20) to the end. It isn’t a long read. Then come back and tell me MJA, CAIR’s former ANYTHING, belongs anywhere near our national security apparatus. You might as well tell me we should have hired Brezhnev’s son to be CIA director during the Cold War.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  243. OK. I’m sure Trump would appreciate your efforts if he knew about you. Getting even with perceived slights is important to him.

    DRJ (15874d)

  244. There is an article out today that Sessions only stayed because he wants to accomplish some of the immigration promises, kishnevi. I doubt Trump will let him when it comes to DACA. Trump wants to be the Daddy figure.

    DRJ (15874d)

  245. Do you think he was lying? If so, why?

    Classification level. No doubt improperly classified for political rather than national security purposes, but classified nonetheless.

    It isn’t that I think he’s lying. I know he has to be. Reflect on it for a moment. The first CIA operator to get killed in this stinking war on terror was Johnny Michael Spann in a prison compound just outside of Mazari Sharif, Afghanistan. Before he joined CIA he was an ANGLICO Marine. I’ll save you the trouble. ANGLICO stands for Air Naval Gunfire Liaison Company. There seems to be a particular skill set the CIA looks for and it’s entirely the kind of skill set that means you don’t need a drone to figure out what’s going on. You’ve got eyes-on, and they’re the well trained eyes of a well-trained operator.

    And Ham wants to insist that we needed to send in a drone to find out what was going on? When all he had to do was pick up the phone, so to speak? Maybe that’s enough for you, but I know better.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  246. @249 Ok so this guy was appointed McMaster in August, right? What does that have to do with Obama purging the military, or for that matter the Muslim Brotherhood dictating staffing under Obama?

    Davethulhu (3a2442)

  247. @239 DRJ “There’s always tomorrow.”
    DRJ (15874d) — 9/14/2017 @ 7:41 pm

    Psalm 27
    Boast not thyself of to morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth.

    2 Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips.

    3 A stone is heavy, and the sand weighty; but a fool’s wrath is heavier than them both.

    4 Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous; but who is able to stand before envy?

    5 Open rebuke is better than secret love.

    6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

    7 The full soul loatheth an honeycomb; but to the hungry soul every bitter thing is sweet.

    8 As a bird that wandereth from her nest, so is a man that wandereth from his place.

    9 Ointment and perfume rejoice the heart: so doth the sweetness of a man’s friend by hearty counsel.

    10 Thine own friend, and thy father’s friend, forsake not; neither go into thy brother’s house in the day of thy calamity: for better is a neighbour that is near than a brother far off.

    11 My son, be wise, and make my heart glad, that I may answer him that reproacheth me.

    12 A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself; but the simple pass on, and are punished.

    13 Take his garment that is surety for a stranger, and take a pledge of him for a strange woman.

    14 He that blesseth his friend with a loud voice, rising early in the morning, it shall be counted a curse to him.

    15 A continual dropping in a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike.

    16 Whosoever hideth her hideth the wind, and the ointment of his right hand, which bewrayeth itself.

    17 Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.

    18 Whoso keepeth the fig tree shall eat the fruit thereof: so he that waiteth on his master shall be honoured.

    19 As in water face answereth to face, so the heart of man to man.

    20 Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied.

    21 As the fining pot for silver, and the furnace for gold; so is a man to his praise.

    22 Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar among wheat with a pestle, yet will not his foolishness depart from him.

    23 Be thou diligent to know the state of thy flocks, and look well to thy herds.

    24 For riches are not for ever: and doth the crown endure to every generation?

    25 The hay appeareth, and the tender grass sheweth itself, and herbs of the mountains are gathered.

    26 The lambs are for thy clothing, and the goats are the price of the field.

    27 And thou shalt have goats’ milk enough for thy food, for the food of thy household, and for the maintenance for thy maidens.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  248. @253 The Benghazi hearings included sections where classified information was discussed. Ham could have been deposed in one of these.

    Davethulhu (3a2442)

  249. Sorry for the wall of text but it felt like Solomon was screaming at our political and business classes from the grave.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  250. The Benghazi hearings included sections where classified information was discussed. Ham could have been deposed in one of these.

    Davethulhu (3a2442) — 9/14/2017 @ 9:16 pm

    Yes, but there is no excuse to say something in an unclassified environment that you later contradict in classified environment. Or, vice versa. We do (or in my case, did) work for you.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  251. Sanitizing the information doesn’t have to mean lying about it. Unless you want it to.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  252. 151. And what would Reagan say?

    “Tear down this wall.”

    You mean the wall built to keep people in?

    harkin (52aafa)

  253. 121. Steve57 (0b1dac) — 9/14/2017 @ 9:36 am

    Another oh-by-the-way, Al Qaeda is rebranding itself as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the “moderate” alternative to ISIS. </block

    Frankly I wouldn’t be surprised if our senior director of counter-terrorism had something to do with directing the transition, given that he’s still working for the MB, and although Ayman al-Zawahiri’s brother Muhammad claims to have renounced his ties to the Muslim Brotherhood he’s a lying sack of s**t. Or to put it more simply, CAIR’s former diversity outreach director has a direct conduit to Al Qaeda.

    The problem is that Trump has not military experience. Consequently he’s overawed by anyone who attained general or flag rank. What he doesn’t understand is that these people are political. Under Obama the service secretaries purged the ranks of any general or flag officer who wouldn’t roll over for anything when it came to turning the armed forces into social engineering laboratories. That McMaster survived and even thrived under Obama should tell you all you need to know.

    To give you a practical example. There’s a reason the Iranians captured two Riverine Command Boats and ten Sailors. There’s a reason why the USS Antietam ran aground off Yokosuka in January, why the Fitzgerald and John S. McCain were run down by merchant ships, and in between the Lake Champlain ran over a South Korean fishing boat. This is a senior leadership failure. The Sailors didn’t fail, the Navy failed them. You can either concentrate on sexual assault training, gays in the military training, transgenders in the military training, women in the military training, and get a social justice force. Or you can concentrate on navigation, ship handling, weapons systems and engineering and have an operational force. But any flag officer who’d put his career on the line to have an operational force was “retired” under Obama. Careerists who were willing to accept, and sometimes enthusiastically cooperate, with Obama’s drive to turn the services into a social justice force remained.

    That’s McMaster. He’s in the mold of former Army COS Casey. Recall his initial reaction to Nidal Hassan’s Fort Hood massacre. He said it was a tragedy, but it would be an even greater tragedy if it hurt the Army’s diversity outreach efforts. In other words, putting Muslims in uniform no matter where their loyalties lie is more important than Soldier’s lives.

    Stand by for Obama’s third term of “countering violent extremism” as well

    Sammy Finkelman (58e1fc)

  254. This got sent accidentally. I meant to comment on something Steve57 wrote @121:

    Another oh-by-the-way, Al Qaeda is rebranding itself as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the “moderate” alternative to ISIS

    This ust be thepeople in PAakistan;s miitary intelligence agency who are running al Qaeda, and esoecially its public relations. THere could also be people from Saudi Arabia or the Emiratesor some other place involved.

    I didn’tknow that they had changed the name.

    There is no al Qaeda, really. It’s all a coert intelligence oeration by some foreign country or countries.

    Reemember how for 2 years the Taliban were pledging loyalty to a man who was dead?

    Sammy Finkelman (58e1fc)

  255. Some people (aid to be in Saudi Arabia) decided that there was a nticeable omission in the groups of Moslems invlbved in terrorism – there was nothing going on involving the Rohingya in Burma (which the Burmese military renamed Myanmar) and the Burmese military responded by upping the ante and they are now committing genocide, including executions of children,. Many were escaping to Bangkadesh, but they haeve now mined the border.

    In 1971, when the Pakistani military did the same thing in East Pakistan, India responded eventually by invading Pakistan and creating Bangldesh.

    Sammy Finkelman (58e1fc)

  256. Because there is no Rohingya diaspora, and few connections outside the country, this is going mostly unnoticedm except by Islamic extremists, who want to want to use this to hate – just about anybody not Moslem – but particualarly at whomever they want to point people at. Te aim is to make them feel self-roghteous.

    Sammy Finkelman (58e1fc)

  257. Thank you for the lovely Psalm. That’s a great way to start the day, Pin.

    DRJ (d35869)

  258. herbs of the mountains

    oregano means “beauty of the mountains” it’s greek

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  259. The diaspora is in Pakistan and the kingdom sammeh, the leader atul jenini was born in the former and educated in the later, I wouldn’t doubt some Abu sayyaf or gemma Islamya involvement either.

    narciso (320b28)

  260. 255. That isn’t Psalm 27 “L’Dovid Adonai Ori” which we say twice a day in synagogues at the conclusion of prayers during the month of Elul (the Jewish month before Rosh Hashonah.) The Shofar is customarily blown before it in the morning, except for Saturdays and the day before Rosh Hashonah (in order to make a disntinction between the shofar blowing that occurs on Rosh Hashonah, which is part of the holiday observances, and this other blowing.

    255 is Proverbs Chapter 27, which is part of what was added to Solomon’s collected proverbs by the men of Hezekiah, King of Judah – aso they say proverbs of Solomon that just were not included at first.

    Sammy Finkelman (05c938)

  261. “Happy in the mountains”. http://firiki.pblogs.gr/2013/04/eis-ta-orh-hairei-riganh-alla-kai-riganokeftedes.html Because it finds joy in spreading itself all over the mountainsides. Nobody buys oregano in Greece. They pick their own.

    nk (dbc370)

  262. Both Flynn and McMaster were proteges of Petraeus and mccrystal, but the fmr took a more skeptical look at who our proxies in Iraq are.

    narciso (320b28)

  263. Flynn paid for the sins of his son. He is missed in the anti-terror sphere.

    urbanleftbehind (27010b)

  264. happy in the mountains even better

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  265. Thank you for the Psalm, Pin. Everyone here knows the following to be true:

    22 Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar among wheat with a pestle, yet will not his foolishness depart from him.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  266. Sammy Finkelman (05c938) — 9/15/2017 @ 6:55 am

    Thanks, Sammy – I thought it was from Proverbs, but I went with the flow – I am a sheep “baaaaa.”.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  267. Here you go, Happyfeet.

    But let us not forget this.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  268. best movie ever

    second link having trouble with

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  269. Sorry about that HF, try this.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  270. Ahhhhh, the artistry of pre-Elmo the Molester Sesame Street.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  271. ugh this is like that veggie tales song I got stuck in head for hours the other day

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  272. Language is a funny thing. Circus people call the elephants “bulls” but they’re all female.

    nk (dbc370)

  273. The elephants, not the circus people. Not all circus people are female, some are male. Some are both, but they’re in the sideshow.

    nk (dbc370)

  274. 263, 267.

    Me at 9/15/2017 @ 6:02 am (some typos corrected)

    Some people (said to be in Saudi Arabia) decided that there was a noticeable omission in the groups of Moslems involved in terrorism – there was nothing going on involving the Rohingya in Burma (which the Burmese military renamed Myanmar) and the Burmese military responded by upping the ante and they are now committing genocide, including executions of children. Many were escaping to Bangladesh, but they have now mined the border.

    In 1971, when the Pakistani military did the same thing in East Pakistan, India responded eventually by invading Pakistan and creating Bangladesh.

    narciso (320b28) — 9/15/2017 @ 6:54 am

    The diaspora is in Pakistan and the kingdom sammeh,

    There are now refugees – around 350,000 – in Banglasdesh, or trying to reach Australia, and some sent to other countries. Maybe a few here, but they are nuch too poor, uneducated and unknown to aleert anyone.

    I did mean established disaporas in free countries.

    Whatever is in Pakistan is being trained fir something. I think Pakistan has examples of people from many many Moslem countries whom they think they can use one day. They took people from Somalia. One came here and was a terrorist. He passed the background screening because, first he was only supposed to be 16 years old, and second he was considered a Somali, not a Pakistani, although he’d been there for 9 years or so, so probably nobody got any sign off from Pakistan.

    the leader atul jenini was born in the former and educated in the later,
    Somebody paid for all of that. He was always a Pakistani agent.

    But there’s too little contact.

    I wouldn’t doubt some Abu sayyaf or gemma Islamya involvement either. A lot of organization are called Abu Sayyef. What’s that here, the one in the Phillipines?

    Gemma Islamiya is another Pakistani military intelligencce puppet.

    All of these things are not really separate organizations – they just pretend to be, so if something bad happens to one organization, the others escape.

    Sammy Finkelman (58e1fc)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7498 secs.