Patterico's Pontifications

7/11/2019

Trump Surrenders on Census Change

Filed under: Law — DRJ @ 4:40 pm



[Headlines from DRJ]

It has been rumored all day but now two media are reporting that Trump caved:

AP News — Trump abandons bid to include citizenship question on census.

Daily Mail: — BREAKING NEWS: Trump SURRENDERS on asking citizenship question in 2020 Census and instead orders massive trawl of federal databases to find non-citizens claiming ‘We will leave no stone unturned’

— DRJ

79 Responses to “Trump Surrenders on Census Change”

  1. When the blowback comes from his supporters, we will inevitably have another “clarification” from the White House telling us that they are still pursuing their options in having it added. Either the President is just trolling us, or there really is no one at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with their hand on the ship’s tiller.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  2. And in the announcement event in the Rose Garden, fake PhD Seb Gorka, because of course he’s there with the NAZI-Lite’s for the “social media day”, threaten’s to beat up a reporter for asking the President if he caved on the census question. https://youtu.be/zRogWTuS5HI

    Ah!!! Only the brightest…because just when you thought they’d flushed that turd, back he comes.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  3. threatens

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  4. “Deep State Wins Over Dipsticks.”
    “Trump Blows Another One.”

    I’m guessing that now he will want to fire Acosta.

    nk (dbc370)

  5. Is anyone actually surprised?

    Dana (bb0678)

  6. Trump should sack Wilbur Ross for sabotaging the effort to add the citizenship question, and then he should sack Acosta for the way he handled the case with a billionaire serial pedophile.

    Paul Montagu (fc91e5)

  7. Th EDT

    THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much everyone. Are you a citizen of the United States of America? “Oh, gee, I’m sorry, I just can’t answer that question.” And that’s after spending billions and billions of dollars. There used to be a time when you could answer questions like that very easily. There used to be a time when you could proudly declare, “I am a citizen of the United States.”

    Now they’re trying to erase the very existence of a very important word and a very important thing: citizenship. They’re even coming after the Pledge of Allegiance in Minnesota. I’m proud to be a citizen. You’re proud to be a citizen. The only people who are not proud to be citizens are the ones who are fighting us all the way about the word, “citizen.”

    Today I’m here to say we are not backing down on our effort to determine the citizenship status of the United States population. I stand before you to outline new steps my administration is taking to ensure that citizenship is counted so that we know how many citizens we have in the United States. Makes sense?

    We will defend the right of the American people to know the full facts about the population size of citizens and non-citizens in America. It is essential that we have a clear breakdown of the number of citizens and non-citizens that make up the U.S. populations. Imperative.

    Knowing this information is vital to formulating sound public policy, whether the issue is healthcare, education, civil rights, or immigration. We must have a reliable count of how many citizens, non-citizens, and illegal aliens are in our country.

    The Department of Commerce sensibly decided to include a citizenship question in the 2020 Census, as has been done many, many times throughout the history of the United States.

    Unfortunately, this effort was delayed by meritless litigation. As shocking as it may be, far-left Democrats in our country are determined to conceal the number of illegal aliens in our midst. They probably know the number is far greater, much higher than anyone would have believed before. Maybe that’s why they fight so hard.

    This is part of a broader left-wing effort to erode the rights of the American citizen. And it’s very unfair to our country.

    The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed our right to ask the citizenship question. And, very strongly, it was affirmed. But the Supreme Court ruled that we must provide further explanation that would have produced even more litigation and considerable time delays.

    The case is already in three federal district courts that have been, to be totally honest, extremely unfriendly to us. These delays would have prevented us from completing the census on time. It’s deeply regrettable, but it will not stop us from collecting the needed information — and I think even in greater detail and more accurately. Therefore, we are pursuing a new option to ensure a complete and timely count of the non-citizen population.

    Today, I will be issuing an executive order to put this very plan into effect immediately. I’m hereby ordering every department and agency in the federal government to provide the Department of Commerce with all requested records regarding the number of citizens and non-citizens in our country. They must furnish all legally accessible records in their possession immediately.

    We will utilize these vast federal databases to gain a full, complete, and accurate count of the non-citizen population, including databases maintained by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration.

    We have great knowledge in many of our agencies. We will leave no stone unturned. The Census Bureau projected that using previously available records, it could determine citizenship for 90 percent of our population or more.

    With today’s executive order, which eliminates long-standing obstacles to data sharing, we’re aiming to count everyone. Ultimately, this will allow us to have an even more complete count of citizens than through asking the single question alone. It will be, we think, far more accurate.

    The Census Bureau can use this information, along with information collected through the questionnaire, to create the official census. In other words, as a result of today’s executive order, we will be able to ensure the 2020 Census generates an accurate count of how many citizens, non-citizens, and illegal aliens are in the United States of America. Not too much to ask.

    This will greatly inform a wide array of public policy decisions. This information is also relevant to administering our elections. Some states may want to draw state and local legislative districts based upon the voter-eligible population.

    Indeed, the same day the Supreme Court handed down the census decision, it also said it would not review certain types of districting decisions, which could encourage states to make such decisions based on voter eligibility.

    With today’s order, we will collect all of the information we need to conduct an accurate census and to make responsible decisions about public policy, voting rights, and representation in Congress.

    In everything we do, we will faithfully represent the people of the United States of America.

    I would like now to introduce Attorney General Bill Barr to the podium. Thank you. Thank you, Bill. (Applause.)

    ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Good evening. Thank you, Mr. President. And congratulations on today’s executive order, which will ensure that we finally have an accurate understanding of how many citizens and non-citizens live in our country.

    As the Supreme Court recognized, it would be perfectly lawful for the federal government to ask on the census whether individuals are citizens of the United States. And it’s entirely reasonable to want to know how many citizens and non-citizens there are in the United States.

    In fact, the federal government has routinely asked questions relating to citizenship ever since the 1820s. But while the Supreme Court correctly recognized that it would be entirely appropriate to include citizenship questions on the census, it nevertheless held that the Commerce Department did not adequately explain its decisions for doing so on the 2020 Census — because, as the Supreme Court recognized, the defect in the Commerce Department’s decision was curable with a better record.

    The President asked me to work with Secretary Ross to determine whether there remained a viable path for including a citizenship question on the census. I did so.

    In my view, the government has ample justification to inquire about citizenship status on the census, and could plainly provide rationales for doing so that would satisfy the Supreme Court. And therefore, there is no question that a new decision to add the question would ultimately survive legal review.

    The problem is that any new decision would be subject to immediate challenge as a new claim in the three ongoing district court cases. In addition, there are injunctions currently in place that forbid adding the question. There is simply no way to litigate these issues and obtain relief from the current injunctions in time to implement any new decision without jeopardizing our ability to carry out the census, which we’re not going to do. We’re not going to jeopardize our ability to carry out the census.

    So as a practical matter, the Supreme Court’s decision closed all paths to adding the question to the 2020 census. Put simply, the impediment was not — it was a logistical impediment, not a legal one. We simply cannot complete the litigation in time to carry out the census.

    One other point on this: Some in the media have been suggesting, in the hysterical mode of the day, that the administration has been planning to add the citizenship question to the census by executive fiat without regard to contrary court orders or what the Supreme Court might say. This has been based on rank speculation and nothing more.

    As should be obvious, there has never been under cons- — this has never been under consideration. We have always accepted that any new decision to add a citizenship question to the census would be subject to judicial review.

    Turning to today, I applaud the President for recognizing in his executive order that including a question on the census is not the only way to obtain this vital information. The course the President has chosen today will bring unprecedented resources to bear on determining how many citizens and non-citizens are in our country, and will yield the best data the government has had on citizenship in many decades. That information will be used for countless purposes, as the President explained in his remarks today.

    For example, there is a current dispute over whether illegal aliens can be included for apportionment purposes. Depending on the resolution of that dispute, this data may be relevant to those considerations. We will be studying this issue.

    Congratulations again, Mr. President, on taking this effective action.

    THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you, Bill. (Applause.) Thank you very much.

    END 5:48 P.M. EDT
    ————————————————————

    =================================

    BuDuh (c80561)

  8. Sorry. Why did I think that Acosta was Commerce?

    nk (dbc370)

  9. Why did I think that Acosta was Commerce?

    Labor, commerce: the business of America is business.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  10. 1. What blowback? All I hear his supporters say is how wonderful he is, and how great he is at playing 64-dimensional chess.

    Gryph (08c844)

  11. “threaten’s to beat up a reporter for asking the President if he caved on the census question.”
    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c) — 7/11/2019 @ 4:58 pm

    It was a crazy enough scene which didn’t require misstatement of fact, Klink.

    Playboy’s Brian Karem, who doubles as a CNN political analyst, started the melee by telling the conservatives that they were ‘a group of people that are eager for demonic possession.’

    Just a straight up journalist doing his job.

    Munroe (0b2761)

  12. “Gorka!” has the sound of a Seinfeld nemesis.

    urbanleftbehind (c5ceb5)

  13. Yes it was Blumenthal that sent the mobs after gorkas kids, through the forward rally brave, accusing his father of being a nazi collaborator.

    Narciso (0bfcbe)

  14. “Congratulations, Captain, sir, for successfully steaming in a circle and cutting your own tow line.” – Chief Petty Officer Barr

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  15. It looks as though Barr has settled into his role. As Trump’s new “fixer”, putting the best face on the Orange’s (pronounced “a wrong gee”) f***-ups.

    nk (dbc370)

  16. He caved because Barr said, they couldn’t get through all the Court challenges in time. Of course, as a practical matter, this doesn’t effect Trump. His re-election isn’t affected by the 2020 census. The 2024 POTUS will be. But then the R’s in Congress don’t care, and the RNC doesn’t care. The only one who cared is Trump and the American people.

    Defying the courts would’ve been the way to go, but why fight over such a minor issue when you have Zero support from the Senate R’s? Mittens must be ecstatic over this. Globalists are celebrating!

    rcocean (1a839e)

  17. He had dropped the yellow stain a little earlier, when he dis-invited Garrison. http://patterico.com/2019/07/11/trump-deplatforms-cartoonist-on-whine-about-deplatforming-day/

    nk (dbc370)

  18. As you would expect all the FAKECONS at national review were AWOL on this. Have they made the “conservative case for AOC” yet?

    rcocean (1a839e)

  19. Well he’d literally be a dictator in that instance, unlike Obama who actually ignored supreme court decisions

    Narciso (0bfcbe)

  20. @12. There’s a salve for that and it’s covered under Obamacare.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  21. What Trump is now talking about is compiling a master list of citizens and known non citizens
    of the United States – pooling all databases the federal government has. It would be avery imperfet list.

    Sammy Finkelman (8b217f)

  22. He caved because Barr said, they couldn’t get through all the Court challenges in time. Of course, as a practical matter, this doesn’t effect Trump. His re-election isn’t affected by the 2020 census. The 2024 POTUS will be.

    The citizenship question would change nothing with regard to any presidential election. Per the Constitution, representation in congress, and thus the electoral college, is based on the number of “persons” in a state, not the number of citizens.

    This was all just an ineptly handled PR stunt.

    Dave (1bb933)

  23. Nope.
    It’s good to know the number of citizens.
    Congress has authorized the question.
    A head-by-head count is the best way. Better than sampling with the long form census or community surveys.
    What hasn’t Trump f***ed up? I know, I know — judges!!!1!

    nk (dbc370)

  24. John Roberts says no, come back with different potato, meanwhile he made sure to shove the potato (redacted) with Obamacare. Who better him harriet Myers, or is a tribe protege already dubious

    Narciso (0bfcbe)

  25. @16. CPO Barr says a lot of pricelessly silly things; like, ‘oh my, there’s just way too much lawyer work and paper shuffling in the way to get anything done in time for the U.S. GPO to print all those forms.’ ‘Course the Campbell Soup Company prints hundreds of thousands of tomato soup can labels at the push of button in a few minutes. He really should stick to quilling silly memos instead.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  26. All you naysayers don’t understand… he’s making inroads to your gooey, creamy centers. There will come a time when you’re faced with a choice of voting for Orange Man Bad or

    Kamala Harris.

    Your defining moment: do you actually give a schiff or are you happy with ongoing tug jobs from teh Socialists.

    Colonel Haiku (f2baf4)

  27. I think the verdict has already been rendered, why dont they want citizens counted, because the base is among illegals and felons, they get counted probably a little extra this began in 1979 with fair v kleznick

    Narciso (0bfcbe)

  28. Follow that link, it will take you all the way to a taco stand that sells muy delicioso tacos carnitas!

    Colonel Haiku (f2baf4)

  29. do Trump supporters have any “defining moments” or are they fine with anything as long as Trump is in charge?

    DRJ (15874d)

  30. 30. Yes.

    Gryph (08c844)

  31. 26. It’s cute that you think there’s any material difference between [insert Dem candidate here] and Trump. Wrong, but cute.

    Gryph (08c844)

  32. 30… we had ours in Nov-2016, DRJ.

    We know Trump appears to be the only politician that supports the citizenship question, so we know – in all his ineptitude – what he’s up against. Much of his party, all of the Democrats, weak weenie NEVER Trump, all the MSM, all the popular culture, etc. …

    So we hope and pray for the best and expect the worst

    Colonel Haiku (f2baf4)

  33. We have to continually jump through hoops just a few weeks ago, we had proof of an unvetted Syrian member of Islamic state who came here in 2016 and tried to blow up a black church in Pennsylvania, validating the immigration pause.

    Narciso (0bfcbe)

  34. Do you realize the question would be of no benefit to any of the purposes census data is used for? As noted before, legislative districts are apportioned on the number of people, with no distinction between citizens and noncitizens.
    And exactly how is the Census Bureau going to figure out the number of illegals? How is it going to figure out from among the people who check the noncitizen box who are illegal and who are legal? And how would it account for all the illegals who won’t submit any forms?

    When you come down to it, today’s order to trawl through government databases is probably a much better way to figure out who and where the illegals are.

    Kishnevi (a992d1)

  35. So all defining moments must help Trump, as should all speech (to be acceptable). Trump is a warrior fighting against an evil world filled with turncoats and worse.

    DRJ (15874d)

  36. Now it has to be done the hard way unlike a whole host of invasive questions already in the census that serve no purpose.

    Narciso (0bfcbe)

  37. You read too much into it, DRJ, way too dramatic. I’m open to suggestions on an alternate R candidate.

    Colonel Haiku (f2baf4)

  38. narciso, you’d think it would be an issue of common sense. And yet nothing but obstacles in the way.

    Colonel Haiku (f2baf4)

  39. Well theres William weld, you all cam get behind him, he stuck a chiv in ed meese, larry…this is seriously Jayvee

    Narciso (0bfcbe)

  40. 1. The citizenship question should have been on the census.
    2. It’s not because Trump is inept, incompetent, and ineffectual.
    3. It’s that simple.
    4. And so are Trump superfans.

    nk (dbc370)

  41. Um Ehud one more question:

    https://www.jta.org/quick-reads

    Narciso (0bfcbe)

  42. 1. The citizenship question should have been on the census.
    2. It’s because Trump is inept, incompetent, ineffectual and due to an over abundance of far left, anti-American, sh*tbag lawyers and judges
    3. It’s that simple.
    4. Entonces.

    Colonel Haiku (f2baf4)

  43. It’s because Trump is inept, incompetent, ineffectual and due to an over abundance of far left, anti-American, sh*tbag lawyers and judges

    More like an overabundance of Wilbur Ross, who was caught in a lie on the reasoning for the census question.

    Paul Montagu (fc91e5)

  44. Frankly the decision was more convoluted then necessary, it was a simple question, he has the power to do this?

    I chuckle how anyone would think sorcha faal is serious

    Narciso (0bfcbe)

  45. it was a simple question, he has the power to do this?

    Short answer: No!
    Less short answer: No! Congress has the power.
    Longer answer: No! Congress has the power but it can delegate it to the Department of Commerce.
    Even longer answer: No! Congress has the power but it can delegate it to the Department of Commerce. However, the Department of Commerce must carry it out in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act.

    Aw man! This governing stuff is so much harder than the Apprentice!

    nk (dbc370)

  46. Trump tried and failed. Any other Republican would’ve just failed, without trying, and would’ve looked impeccably competent at it.

    Munroe (0b2761)

  47. America breeds schiff bag lawyers and judges. Too bad planned parenthood showed up late to the dance.

    mg (8cbc69)

  48. do Trump supporters have any “defining moments” or are they fine with anything as long as Trump is in charge?

    It’s quite clear that we have commenters here who are fine with whatever Trump does, and also totally unwilling to apportion even the smallest iota of blame to their guy when things go wrong. Everything, I mean everything, is the fault of the spineless GOPe, or the nefarious Democrats, or the craven MSM.

    To put it in baseball terms (since the President is a former player), Trump would be pitching a perfect game except that his fielders (GOPe) are continually putting themselves in the wrong alignment which is allowing base-hits into the gaps, the other team (Dems) is corking their bats and stealing signals, and the umpire (MSM) is shrinking his strike zone down to the size of a postage stamp. Certainly those runs on the board for the other team can’t at all be the fault of the guy on the mound.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  49. @2. Best Bond villain:

    [ ] Auric Goldfinger
    [ ] Ernst Stavros Blofeld
    [X] Sebastian Gorka

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  50. I like that analogy, JVW, and I agree with your point.

    DRJ (15874d)

  51. Great analogy. I’d add another line, Trump would be pitching a perfect game except that his fielders (GOPe) are continually putting themselves in the wrong alignment which is allowing base-hits into the gaps, the other team (Dems) is corking their bats and stealing signals, and the umpire (MSM) is shrinking his strike zone down to the size of a postage stamp. Certainly those runs on the board for the other team can’t at all be the fault of the guy on the mound, and any other pitcher would have done worse.”

    Time123 (c9382b)

  52. JVW #50–

    You should get a look at Atlanta Braves twitter sometime. You’ll realize that you should blame the coach and the relievers far more than you do. (The coach being the fake news media, and the relief staff being nevertrump who is trying to throw the game. Of course nevertrum and the media are colluding to lose, which the Braves still manage to do occasionally)

    Appalled (c9622b)

  53. mg, agree completely that there’s nothing wrong with a question about citizenship. You just have to be able to document that you want it for a legitimate reason. Trump’s administration was too stupid and incompetent to do that.

    Time123 (c9382b)

  54. Gorka could also be:

    1. an iconoclastic author Elaine Benes has been assigned to edit for
    2. a former friend of Kramer seeking to collect a welched bet from the K-man
    3. a workplace bully of George Costanza
    4. an annoying childhood friend/rival comedian of Jerry

    urbanleftbehind (c5ceb5)

  55. Please, please, pretty please with sugar on it, somebody primary the mother______. Ted? Mr. Kasich? You came so close. Give it another shot.

    nk (dbc370)

  56. #58

    Well, there is William Weld….

    The GOP politicians — who are in the business of following their followers — know in their bones that the GOP electorate wants this. I don’t get it, but I’m not the GOP electorate.

    Appalled (c9622b)

  57. I feel reasonably confident that nobody wants Kasich.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  58. If only Ted had been willing to give those Oakleys-wearing Hoosier trash the 5th Ave treatment

    urbanleftbehind (c5ceb5)

  59. Here’s an interesting take on what the absurdists among us promote…

    http://www.bookwormroom.com/2019/07/11/the-dnc-server-the-russian-hoax-the-murder-of-seth-rich/

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  60. CH, Followed the link.

    This statement is not factually true.

    The central part of the Russian narrative is the claim that Russian agents hacked the DNC server. Amazingly, inexplicably and criminally, we do not, to this day, know if that is true because the FBI has never examined the server. An entity employed by the DNC, Crowdstrike, asserted that the emails were hacked in a phishing scheme. Both Comey and Mueller assumed that to be true without any verification.

    I italicized The part that is not accurate. The FBI performed their analysis based on images of the server drives. It’s been testified to under oath that this is valid way to perform this type of investigation. People are free to debate the accuracy of that statement but there is a factual difference between “No Verification” and “Inadequate verification”.

    I didn’t see anywhere in the piece where they acknowledged that the images of the server were provided to the FBI or provided any substantive technical complaints with how the FBI did their analysis. It doesn’t even provide any technical explanation of how having the physical servers would provide better information than the images of the servers. Neither this article, nor the piece it’s built on, addresses the details of the evidence of the hacking in the report. It does correctly note that many of the claims asserted in the report are stated with less than 100% certainty.

    Finally, while they clearly don’t like Isikoff they haven’t provided any specific complaints with his Seth Rich piece.

    Looks like a lot of spin to me.

    Time123 (797615)

  61. Do you realize the question would be of no benefit to any of the purposes census data is used for? As noted before, legislative districts are apportioned on the number of people, with no distinction between citizens and noncitizens.

    Actually, the courts hasn’t decided that and even inferred that requiring a count of citizens for apportionment may prevail.

    And exactly how is the Census Bureau going to figure out the number of illegals? How is it going to figure out from among the people who check the noncitizen box who are illegal and who are legal?

    Simply math? Fill out forms that says “Are you US Citizen”? Then subtract the census who didn’t answer the question…wala… there’s your count.

    And how would it account for all the illegals who won’t submit any forms?

    How is this any different than those here even legally who refuses to submit those forms?

    When you come down to it, today’s order to trawl through government databases is probably a much better way to figure out who and where the illegals are.

    Kishnevi (a992d1) — 7/11/2019 @ 8:02 pm

    Maybe so, but you can’t ignore that the pragmatic approach would be to include it on the census forms.

    Back to “trawl through government databases” has merits though… For instance, everyone is REQUIRED to submit your tax returns, even if you didn’t work for that year. So, the bulk of “are you a citizen” count can easily start there.

    whembly (51f28e)

  62. Trump tried. But this is decision that should have been made in 2017. OTOH, the Liberals/Dems would’ve just waited till 2019 and gotten a Federal Court to stop it and we’d be where we are now. Blame it all Roberts. Another stealth liberal on the court due to the Bush Family. they ran as social conservatives and then gave us Souter and Roberts.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  63. “The citizenship question would change nothing with regard to any presidential election. Per the Constitution, representation in congress, and thus the electoral college, is based on the number of “persons” in a state, not the number of citizens.”

    No. Congressional districts could have been drawn based on citizens not “people” – and EV allocated based on the same. The SCOTUS has never defined “People” to include “Foreigners”.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  64. isn’t it amazing how the Liberals/Dems want foreigners to vote in American elections? They don’t one ounce of patriotism or love of country. Why should anyone accept their power play?

    rcocean (1a839e)

  65. JVW (54fd0b) — 7/12/2019 @ 1:19 am

    So, I guess the solution is to vote for some other guy.

    Who, exactly, would push the citizenship question? List them. Names, please.

    Munroe (0b2761)

  66. RC you’re confusing 2 different things.

    1. According to the 14nth amendment apportionment is based on ‘persons’ not ‘citizens’. That’s the number of reps and EV a state get’s. It also has an impact on some types of funding.

    2. Congressional districts can be drawn based on other criteria.

    Time123 (797615)

  67. Trump tried. But this is decision that should have been made in 2017. OTOH, the Liberals/Dems would’ve just waited till 2019 and gotten a Federal Court to stop it and we’d be where we are now. Blame it all Roberts. Another stealth liberal on the court due to the Bush Family. they ran as social conservatives and then gave us Souter and Roberts.

    rcocean (1a839e) — 7/12/2019 @ 8:00 am

    Good for him for trying, is this a participation trophy thing? or is it more a participation Ribbon? I’m not big on rewards for trying so I don’t really know what’s appropriate here.

    Time123 (797615)

  68. JVW (54fd0b) — 7/12/2019 @ 1:19 am

    So, I guess the solution is to vote for some other guy.

    Who, exactly, would push the citizenship question? List them. Names, please.

    Munroe (0b2761) — 7/12/2019 @ 8:28 am

    Cruz, Rand Paul, Kasich, Bush, Rubio.

    Any of them would likely have done this. They just wouldn’t have screwed it up royally.

    Time123 (797615)

  69. So, I guess the solution is to vote for some other guy.

    Here we go again. “If you criticize Trump, then clearly you are in favor of removing him from the ticket.” Nope, not necessarily, though in point of fact I would ditch him for Nikki Haley in a New York minute. My major point though is that the President’s Amen Chorus needs to remove the stars from their eyes and be willing to acknowledge that — incredible as it may seem — once in a while it is President DJT himself who effs-up his own agenda.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  70. I am very much in favor of removing the Fifth Avenue Faker from the ticket. In a New York minute.

    And pushing the citizenship question is not my litmus test for some other guy. It’s only important in this instance because it illustrated once again what a worthless pile of lard Trump is.

    nk (dbc370)

  71. Cruz probably that’s why Paul singer made sure he couldn’t get any traction, rand Paul doubtful, the rest fuggedaboutit

    Narciso (0bfcbe)

  72. Tedtoo has gaily got himself a beard now for public appearances. Changing your persona from Evil Tedtoo to Very Evil Tedtoo has that basketball ring to it.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  73. @72. Trump changes personnel like lovers, wives and underwear.

    Pence is on the fence; waiting for the shove. Remember that mysteriously quilled op-ed? Recall his leash being yanked back from that ew Hampshire jaunt last week? Did ‘ya hear Trump menton ‘answers’ to come in weeks ahead?

    Time will tell.

    Predicting Trump/Haley 2020 for the win.

    Place your bets.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  74. Nope, the beard is to out-pirate the new flavor Dan Crenshaw.

    urbanleftbehind (b6d697)

  75. @77. Always quaint when a hammer hired to drive nails believes he’s the architect, isn’t it.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  76. 63… the spin what unravels… http://ace.mu.nu/archives/382248.php

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4259 secs.