I can not even imagine having to go out in front of millions of people each day a try to dance around the truth / lies everyday. One would think her credibility for any future jobs is shot... Except for maybe a tell all book... Then again it seems many people / companies want an employee with her skill set. :-)
CNN Sarah Sanders on Michael Cohen case: Trump 'did nothing wrong'
VOX In Fox interview, Trump seems to confess a campaign finance violation while trying to deny it. He doesn’t get what the illegal part was.
FOX Trump insists he learned of Michael Cohen payments 'later on,' in 'Fox & Friends' exclusive
CNN Sarah Sanders on Michael Cohen case: Trump 'did nothing wrong'
VOX In Fox interview, Trump seems to confess a campaign finance violation while trying to deny it. He doesn’t get what the illegal part was.
FOX Trump insists he learned of Michael Cohen payments 'later on,' in 'Fox & Friends' exclusive
30 comments:
For Your Amusement
It's hard to understand why people support Trump. There are lots of ways to look at it. To me, one thing that's interesting is that Republican support isn't really connected to issues. Trump has rejected Republican positions on various issues, yet he still retains Republican support.
I have thought about what would happen if the situation was reversed. If my party put forward an unqualified candidate who rejects traditional Democratic positions, how would I react?
Donald Trump the other day raised the issue of McCarthyism, which is something I have thought about myself. In this country, there is a widespread questioning of Donald Trump's patriotism, even his loyalty to America. Are people who think along those lines the new McCarthy's?
==Hiram
Though there are some things Trump has done that are not "normal Republican". (ie trade war, Russia friendly, etc) There are many more that are "normal Republican". (ie secure borders, low taxes, conservative judges / justices, fewer regulations, etc)
I am too young to know about McCarthy... :-)
Republicans aren't in favor of secure borders either, it's just something they say.
Trump's isolationist economic views are in clear contradiction of basic and longstanding Republican policy. They are far more attractive to Democrats really, which helps to explain Trump's appeal in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, which Democrats must win in presidential elections.
--Hiram
"each day"
If only. In July, there were three press briefings that totaled 56 minutes in length. In June, there were five press briefings. So far this month, there have been four. (Comparatively, there were 12 briefings in July 2010 -- the same point of the Obama Administration)
I am suddenly reminded of the Bill Clinton defense: "it's just sex." As I recall, that is not an impeachable offense, even in the Oval Office.
And yet House started impeachment for Clinton for lying and behaving inappropriately.
Kind of like Trump has.
Hiram,
There may be some questionable business owners who like unsecure borders.
However I can assure you that most of us want the borders locked down and illegal residents dealt with in one way or another.
That is why Trump's wall and deportation force resonate with us.
Maybe that is why the briefing is disappearing...
She just does not have energy to do it more often. :-)
It would have to be exhausting wondering what to say and how Trump was going to undermine it...
Hiram,
There may be some questionable business owners who like unsecure borders.
that's why Republicans favor open borders.
--Hiram
Hiram,
You are free to make guesses at what Republicans believe...
However Trump winning by "promising a wall" and hinting at a "deportation force" indicates that you are very incorrect.
Most Republicans want a stop to illegal products and people flowing across the border. It seems to be the Liberals who okay with more porous borders.
MSN NYT When is an Offense Impeachable
Republican businessmen need access to illegal labor because it's cheap. That's why our borders are open.
--Hiram
"However Trump winning by "promising a wall" and hinting at a "deportation force" indicates that you are very incorrect."
Republicans want solutions to the immigration issue that punish the immigrants, not the people who hire them and profit off of their cheap labor.
"Republicans want solutions to the immigration issue that punish the immigrants"
Well, that isn't quite correct. If we enforced the law, there would not BE any immigrants to "punish." Those who knowingly hire them are breaking the law and should be punished. Glad to see a number of candidates running on "universal E-verify and a guest worker program."
Breaking the law is a relative sort of a thing. Laws are for the little people, not as our businessman president informs us, for capitalists and their hangers on. Aren't they the ones who have the ability to hold our economy hostage? "Nice little stock market you have there, it would be a shame if something happened to it."
--Hiram
Sean,
I guess I do not see sending illegal workers home and stopping them from coming as an undesirable thing.
Do you?
I would suggest that if you're truly concerned about solving the problem, then raising the risk level to employers who gamble on hiring illegal workers has to be a much larger part of the solution than it is today. Sure, you can round folks up and send them home, but if the employer pays little or no penalty, they're just going to find somebody new.
They can not find new illegal workers if they are not in the country...
I am fine with punishing the employers of illegals, while also blocking and deporting.
I think we can do 3 things at the same time...
Or are you a one solution person like Jerry is regarding ending poverty?
You keep assuring me that Liberals are for secure borders and legal immigration.
When will you start acting like it?
Sean, the states I have heard mandating universal E-verify have provisions like this: If you use E-verify and it turns out they're illegal, you're clean, the worker gets deported. If you do NOT use E-verify, or use it and ignore it, on the first offense you lose your business license for 10 days. On a second offense that becomes permanent.
Interesting Links
$96,000,000 fine
USCIS Penalties
The Hill To Tackle Illegal Immigration
Sean,
How do you rationalize Liberals wanting to maintain "sanctuary cities" with your desire to "punish employers"?
Shouldn't we then punish sanctuary cities?
And since many of these folks work for cash as household, yard, etc help. How do you want to hold the "home owners accountable? Throw Mom in jail for paying an illegal maid / nanny...
"How do you rationalize Liberals wanting to maintain "sanctuary cities" with your desire to "punish employers"?"
I've discussed why I favor sanctuary cities in the past. Please refer to that.
"Throw Mom in jail for paying an illegal maid / nanny..."
Is that what I've suggested? I'll ask you yet again to not put words into my mouth.
You say you want to punish employers more... (ie those who attract and help illegals to stay here) And yet you do not want to punish people who pay them or the cities who shield them from ICE...
MAKE UP YOUR MIND...
I get the sales pitch that sanctuary cities are needed so illegal residents report crimes against them. But come on now...
The goal of punishing employers should not be to harm employers, it should be to give illegals no income or shelter in this country so they self deport. You keep saying you want secure borders and to support legal workers, and yet you only want to go after certain employers and defend sheltering illegal workers.
It is getting hard to believe that you are not "pro-open borders" / "pro illegal workers".....
And remember that if the goal is to pressure illegals to self deport and to discourage them from coming like you say. Then we certainly should not be sheltering them here in our cities...
"And yet you do not want to punish people who pay them or the cities who shield them from ICE..."
Again, something I did not say. Don't yell at me because you're incapable of understanding my arguments.
"Then we certainly should not be sheltering them here in our cities..."
They are human beings. My support for sanctuary provisions is based on that. If you're an undocumented person who is the victim of a crime, you shouldn't fear being stripped from your family if you call the police.
So what do you want to do to Mom for paying an illegal nanny, gardener, construction person?
You want these folks to have no income and yet you want to protect them from deportation.
Which is it?
"So what do you want to do to Mom for paying an illegal nanny, gardener, construction person?"
A fine would be sufficient for the first offense.
How much? Thoughts on who would charge them? And prosecute them?
Would local police enter into this or will the feds have to raid individual homes?
Post a Comment