I know reality is troubling and difficult to accept for those on the left, but Mr. Perez does not get to invent his own facts. I am surprised the media hasn't been shaming him for his lies.
And to my friends on the left who are going to throw the popular, majority vote "reason" out again to try to explain away and forgive his alternate reality, that's not how our election works. And if the Dems are so in favor of majority votes, please join my call to offices of all democrats threatening to use a filibuster on the vacant SC seat. The people deserve a full SCOTUS. And I'm sure a majority of the senate would vote for the nominee.
Beyond that, I am in favor of an up or down vote. However, if the rules say that a filibuster is legal, and the democrats want to use it, so be it! A little like Trump winning by the rules of the Electoral College.
About the nuclear option, it is politics by threat. I say, call their bluff! The Republicans know, had they not had the filibuster, they would not have been able to stop Obama for the last 6 years. Plus, as the country is turning progressive, the nuclear option is a bad idea for Republicans.
About, "You seem to be okay with the alternative reality presented by Perez", I said nothing about Perez, nor do I support him personally. What I support are the progressive issues and Judge Gorsuch is bad for those issues.
Beyond that, I see Tim did not address Judge Gorsuch being an activist judge and yet conservative support him! As was written, Judge Gorsuch is "all about conservatives wanting the courts to take a much more aggressive role in shutting down policies that conservatives find distasteful." Even if it flies in the face of democracy and their philosophy!
Oh, Bob. Yo...See MoreOn 4/02/17, Bob R/CA wrote: > On 4/02/17, Tim Finnegan wrote: But when you complain > about the head of the DNC making up facts (he didn't) it > demonstrates your complete hypocrisy, because you support > the PRESIDENT who quite plainly lives in an alternative > universe. > > Fraud.
Oh, Bob. You're wrong. Here is the quote from Mr. Perez. "You didn't win this election." (talking about/to Mr. Trump). The fact is that Trump did win the election, regardless of what Democrats want to believe. (I keep waiting for all of the Hillary states to bring up an amendment to abolish the electoral college.)
So, unfortunately, the head of the DNC did make up his fact about Trump not winning the election. I wonder who he is going to decide will be the nominee in a few years. Hopefully someone who is not so weak that she cannot even beat a candidate as awful as Trump.
...Trump’s language—all the middle-school-level vocabulary and grammar of it—is actually serving a greater purpose. It’s helping early English learners grasp this country’s complicated language.
Though his speeches may be hard to translate into foreign languages, listening to Trump and reading his subtitles can actually be a boon for people learning English as a second language, due to his low-level vocabulary, constant word repetition, and discussion of basic concepts.
--snip-- “It’s really easy for me to imitate Trump’s speech,” he says, noting some of his favorite phrases: “make America great again,” “so sad,” and “so huge.” And linguists have a pretty good idea why that’s so. “What learners are finding helpful is Trump’s relatively slower speech and his use of repetition,” says Derek Denis, a linguist at the University of Toronto Mississauga. “These are both beneficial for learners of English because they provide more time to parse the speech stream, helping with comprehension.” Trump’s relatively small vocabulary helps, too, says Denis. “The fewer unfamiliar words, the better the comprehension.”
--snip-- And though early learners can find comprehension in Trump’s repetitive and simple language, advanced learners and native speakers are often confused by his rambling, tangential style, another reason linguists say Trump might not be the best learning tool.
“When speaking off the cuff, he seems to lack cohesion, jumping or circling from one topic to the next and often mistakenly assuming a shared context with his audience,” says Georgetown University Department of Linguistics linguist Luke Plonsky. “This lack of a linear progression of ideas would present a challenge for anyone, not just those individuals listening in their second language.”
Trump’s mistaken shared context means he has a tendency to assume his listeners understand what he’s saying exactly as he means it, and he then makes gestures or provides visual cues to enforce that meaning. But for learners at all stages, that can be confusing—like someone shaking their head no as they’re saying “yes.”
The limitations of Trump’s speech have a somewhat hidden benefit: They can show non-native English speakers just how little fluency they need to make it in America. Henk Wolf, member of the Facebook group Omniglot Fan Club and a native Dutch and Frisian speaker, considers that an advantage. “It helps me get used to a register of American English I do not encounter all that often,” he says. “Use and knowledge of formal language is apparently not a necessity to reach the top of the political pyramid in the New World.”
On 4/02/17, Chalky wrote: > > immigrants to learn English. > > :::quote::: > > ...Trump's language--all the middle-school-level vocabulary and > grammar of it--is actually serving a greater purpose. It's helping > early English learners grasp this country's complicated > language. > > Though his speeches may be hard to translate into foreign > languages, listening to Trump and reading his subtitles can > actually be a boon for people learning English as a second > language, due to his low-level vocabulary, constant word > repetition, and discussion of basic concepts. > > --snip--
“I don’t think we can say anything definitively at this point,” Schiff said. “We are still at the very early stages of the investigation.."
LOL! By all indications, Obama and the democrats were "investigating" Trump as early as 2015.
"..The only thing I can say is that it would be irresponsible for us not to get to the bottom of this. We really need to find out exactly what the Russians did.."
And, they won't ever "get to the bottom of this" until they start investigating Obama and Hillary.
Democracy IS NOT the reason obama interfered in the Israeli election. It was to oust Prime Minister Natenyahu. ;)
> > Your line of reasoning is the same as 45 uses for > justifying Putin killing those who oppose him. > > Do you think that's reasonable also? > > Do you not think we should defend our election process and > democracy? >
T.E.C. - IowaIt is not Obama interfering with Israel's election. It is Israel interfering with American elections - all of the congressional elections going back decades.
Intelligence and House sources with direct knowledge of the disclosure of classified names told Fox News that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., now knows who is responsible -- and that person is not in the FBI.
<b>"The main issue in this case, is not only the unmasking of these names of private citizens, but the spreading of these names for political purposes that have nothing to do with national security or an investigation into Russia’s interference in the U.S. election,”</b> a congressional source close to the investigation told Fox News.
A CNN report summarizing the findings stated that “many [primary care physicians] said they are overwhelmed with their practices, not because they have too many patients, but because there’s too much red tape generated from insurance companies and government agencies.”[2]
The 2016survey says this "72&37; indicate that external factors such as third party authorizations significantly detract from the quality of care they are able to provide.
It is no surprise that survey also says, "49&37; often or always experience feelings of burn-out." and "49&37; would not recommend medicine as a career to their children.
Aside from there being no occupation that can be recommended in America, because the workers, in general, are powerless and abused, America's doctor-patient ratio has been flat for decades. IMHO, it will get worse as the cost of a medical school education in the US is now a bit under $300,000. Plus, doctors face more work with the aging of the boomers and the increasing health problems from America's sugar loaded diet. No surprise some do not take Medicaid patients or limit the number, they do not need more patients.
Thus, the rise of Physician's Assistants, and Nurse Practitioners!
"WASHINGTON—Mike Flynn, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, has told the Federal Bureau of Investigation and congressional officials investigating the Trump campaign’s potential ties to Russia that he is willing to be interviewed in exchange for a grant of immunity from prosecution, according to officials with knowledge of the matter.
As an adviser to Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, and later one of Mr. Trump’s top aides in the White House, Mr. Flynn was privy to some of the most sensitive foreign-policy deliberations of the new administration and was directly involved in discussions about the possible lifting of sanctions on Russia imposed by the Obama administration.
He has made the offer to the FBI and the House and Senate intelligence committees though his lawyer but has so far found no takers, the officials said.
Mr. Flynn’s attorney, Robert Kelner, declined to comment."
If he a lawyer worth his salt, his likes and dislikes of Trump will never even be mentioned. It will be all about protecting his clients' interests. I often work with a group of educational advocates - some are lawyers - who are flaming liberals. Our individual political leanings are never discussed.
But, as far as the subject at hand, the "immunity" Flynn is asking for is likely one that covers whatever testimony he gives on the day he testifies, to keep the fed from coming back on him for whatever he said on that day, and nothing more. This is pretty common when testifying before the fed, since they are famous for wanting to go back and cherry-pick testimony and build a case against you for it.
On 3/31/17, EasTexSteve wrote...See More True Steve, otherwise they lose their license to practice law. In fact, the paticular lawyer discussed, since he loves to post his politics on-line, could eventually be facing some type of ethics charges and law suits down the line. A flaming liberal he may be, but he may ultimately be going down in flames...
On 3/31/17, EasTexSteve wrote: > On 3/31/17, Chalky wrote: >> >> ...is a #NeverTrumper >> >> Bet the conversations between him and Flynn are interesting. > > If he a lawyer worth his salt, his likes and dislikes of Trump > will never even be mentioned. It will be all about protecting > his clients' interests. I often work with a group of > educational advocates - some are lawyers - who are flaming > liberals. Our individual political leanings are never > discussed. > > But, as far as the subject at hand, the "immunity" Flynn is > asking for is likely one that covers whatever testimony he > gives on the day he testifies, to keep the fed from coming back > on him for whatever he said on that day, and nothing more. > This is pretty common when testifying before the fed, since > they are famous for wanting to go back and cherry-pick > testimony and build a case against you for it.
Sanctuary city proponents often say their policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities don’t endanger public safety. As ICE’s latest weekly declined detainer report shows, however, many county and city law enforcement agencies regularly release criminal aliens who have been convicted of violent crimes, including domestic battery and sexual assault.
"Forget those silly pastel/rainbow colors of White House Easter Egg Rolls past; Trump's Easter eggs will be GOLD." - Julie Davis, NYT
"Gold. Of course." - Jonathan Lemire, AP
"This delusional egomaniac branded and gilded the Easter eggs." Dennis Perkins, AV Club
I looked for their attacks on 44 and his gold eggs for the Easter Egg roll ... only thing that I can find is the tweet from Ms. Davis. "Appears my memory of Easter Egg Rolls past was wrong. Seems Obamas had a golden egg too -- not a Trump innovation"
Trump is giving people enough real things to be outraged about. No need for the media to attack him for things that 44 did as well with no coverage at all. It even makes the things that they are rightly outraged with seem less important. What next? Are they going to attack Trump for lighting the White House blue?
Beyond that, I am in favor of an up or down vote. However, if the rules say that a filibuster is legal, and the democrats want to use it, so be it! A little like Trump winning by the rules...See More