The Trump Administration's War With Reality

PeterZ wrote:Obama attacked a SCOTUS decision during one of his State of the Union addresses. The left got all over I believe Scalia for making a comment captured on Video but not audio. Selective outrage? I think so. As it is President Trump announced his disagreement to the decision. Big deal. It happened before and will again.

President Trump didn't say the Press was an enemy of the State. He called them the enemy of the people. I agree. They are so partisan that the news is reliably pro left propaganda. If you agree with them, all is good. If challenging the Press destroys their credibility, it's about time. If they can begin being honest and regain some semblance of impartiality, the whole country benefits.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Obama attacked a SCOTUS decision during one of his State of the Union addresses. The left got all over I believe Scalia for making a comment captured on Video but not audio. Selective outrage? I think so. As it is President Trump announced his disagreement to the decision. Big deal. It happened before and will again.

President Trump didn't say the Press was an enemy of the State. He called them the enemy of the people. I agree. They are so partisan that the news is reliably pro left propaganda. If you agree with them, all is good. If challenging the Press destroys their credibility, it's about time. If they can begin being honest and regain some semblance of impartiality, the whole country benefits.

There is a gaping chasm of a difference between criticizing a decision and criticizing the entire concept of Judicial review and the legitimacy of the Courts authority to be a check on presidential power.

And you know it.

gcomeau wrote:

As I said I am morally certain that Clinton lied to the relatives of the attack. She was complicit in perpetuating similar lies made by the administration. All in all I am morally certain she lied about what happened at Benghazi in either of these two ways.

What exactly do you think "morally certain" means? Because from everything you just said it appears you think it means "certain despite all evidence being to the contrary of my preferred position".

gcomeau wrote:

I guess it was the biggest electoral college win since Ronald Reagan.

HTM: Hey! He was just guessing!

For one thing, there is no reason for this. The election is over. Why is Trump blatantly lying about his election win margin when announcing his Labor Secretary nominee???

HTM: Trump did promise that he would accept the election
results if he won.
He did win; he has not accepted them.

But I feel compelled to write that,
if one deducts Mrs. Clinton's 4.2 million margin in
California, from her 2.9 million margin nationwide,
that does leave the other 49 states + DC with a 1.3
million lead for Trump.
HTM

He stood in the rain at his inauguration, gave a speech to a bunch of people huddled under plastic tarps and umbrellas, then went out afterward and proclaimed that God looked down and stopped it from raining on his speech. That is North Korean Dictator levels of denial of reality.

HTM: I find this to be "Love Song" levels of denial of
reality.
"And then, one day, I saw you standing there, and
in foggy London Town the sun was shining everywhere."
from "A Foggy Day In London Town"
There are *so many* love songs in which the presence
of The Beloved turns rain into sunshine.
Trump was with his True Love: he was now President.
*Of Course* he felt that the sun was out upon him!


He made repeated claims that he had the biggest inauguration crowd ever, and kept it up in the face of clear photographic evidence that this was very very false beyond any possibility of misinterpretation.

HTM: I *hear* that now his allies are saying that
we should count attendance-in-person + TV viewing
audience + Internet viewing audience.
They say that Trump's totals for all three combined
were actually the highest ever.
I have not checked that claim.
HTM

This. Is. Not. Normal.

PeterZ wrote:
I don't view the world with the same lens as you do. I saw a hostile press get its head handed to it. I saw a bunch of self serving egomaniacal morons attack the President and the President push back hard. I saw an egotistical President bloviate and embellish upon rather unimportant things while his actions comport with my expectation given his campaign promisses.

In short I saw political theater at its finest which will tend to promote those policies I generally support. All else is dross at the moment.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:There is a gaping chasm of a difference between criticizing a decision and criticizing the entire concept of Judicial review and the legitimacy of the Courts authority to be a check on presidential power.

And you know it.

I do know it. I don't believe that Trump challenged the validity of the court to review his EO.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:What exactly do you think "morally certain" means? Because from everything you just said it appears you think it means "certain despite all evidence being to the contrary of my preferred position".

It means that I am certain that she conducted herself consistent with disseminating what she knew to be falsehoods either by omission or commission. She. Lied.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
I do know it. I don't believe that Trump challenged the validity of the court to review his EO.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 1054974976

"What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can come into U.S.?"


What do you believe now?

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/827867311054974976

"What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can come into U.S.?"


What do you believe now?

Unchanged. This is criticism of judicial over reach. He did not challenge the judges ability to make a bad ruling by NOT complying with the bad ruling. He is in compliance.

gcomeau wrote:

Certain based on WHAT?

It has been pointed out to you that over half a dozen investigations, run by her political opponents who like nothing better than to call her a liar... all found she didn't lie.


It has been pointed out to you that the statements to which you are referring were not lies.



You have provided ZERO backing for lies being told about Benghazi.



From where does your certitude spring? An act of religious faith?