The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns
mtierney, not being a subscriber, I'm limited to the number of New York Times articles I can open in a month or year; it's something low like 4 a month and only a few times a year then you're blocked. So those links are useless to me.
The content is mostly reproduced elsewhere anyway; I knew most of the public facts, what I'm interested in is people's reactions to events and decisions, how these decisions and "Washington comments" affect people's lives and their own political beliefs and decisions.
Joanne: I was not aware opening a link was limited.
David: not me, I was never a Huma fan. I am a Condi Rice admirer.
mtierney said:
David: not me, I was never a Huma fan. I am a Condi Rice admirer.
Interesting. Remove the name from your post about Hicks and all the praise could have applied to Abedin.
Hmm. Trying to figure out what is the same and different about those three women. 
DaveSchmidt said:
mtierney said:
David: not me, I was never a Huma fan. I am a Condi Rice admirer.
Interesting. Remove the name from your post about Hicks and all the praise could have applied to Abedin.
I am sure she was an intelligent and capable assistant for HRC, but I began to question how she handled the Anthony husband/father issue. Also, learning of her use and abuse of computers and emails.
I'm curious to know what you think about
1. the problem with handling her husband
2. how Huma abused computers and emails
mtierney said:
DaveSchmidt said:
mtierney said:
David: not me, I was never a Huma fan. I am a Condi Rice admirer.
Interesting. Remove the name from your post about Hicks and all the praise could have applied to Abedin.
I am sure she was an intelligent and capable assistant for HRC, but I began to question how she handled the Anthony husband/father issue. Also, learning of her use and abuse of computers and emails.
see, this is the problem with this thread. You make statements that you simply expect to go unchallenged. Maybe if we talked about it, you could better understand our frustration with this thread.
What did Huma do that was wrong? The moment Weiner was caught texting to a teenager, she threw him out. What was wrong with her actions?
And what did Huma do that was wrong concerning computers and emails? Nothing as far as I know.
Enlighten us.
mtierney said:
DB, seriously
A woman who makes her bones lying in the service of a sexual predator can hardly be said to have "broken the glass ceiling".
mtierney said:
Joanne: I was not aware opening a link was limited.
David: not me, I was never a Huma fan. I am a Condi Rice admirer.
Rice argued for the president to commit war crimes. She's not worthy of anyone's admiration.
dave23 said:
BCC said:
Meanwhile, I have 2 attempts to change subject of my discussion with dave23. I am waiting for a response to what I wrote about the trade deal and not a response to a spelling error.
My original post was about Icahn with a side joke about Canada, which you chose to focus on. I engaged for awhile before you went down your usual, tedious road. The exchange was dumb, especially when you didn't understand my Singularity reference and decided to parse it anyway. But I'm posting this in the same spirit that I would dangle string in front of a dull kitten.
In other words you have no answer
If the topic was so unimportant you could have dismissed it off hand, in stead you entered into it and only complained about it when you ran out of answers,
I didn't misunderstand and I didn't parse ''singularity', I gave a definition of it that seemed to fit you,and pointed it out
This is what I wrote and you missed:
1
' (physics) a point or region in spacetime in which gravitational forces cause matter to have an infinite density;
If you are proud of being infinitely dense I won't argue with you,
Cannot remove 1, should be 5'
and why I added this in my response to Lost so there would be no confusion:
'Which of course is precisely why I gave you the note explaining that , for some reason, I couldn't remove the 1 and the definition was for 5.'
Back in the day, you and I referred to one another as “L” and “M” — and now our relationship has degenerated to harsh
opprobrium at every opportunity.
Aha, but we will always have Paris...
LOST said:
drummerboy said:
Enlighten us.
mtierney said:
harsh
opprobrium at every opportunity.
I would suggest to you that perhaps you might want to think about the people and policies you support that are leading to such criticism. If it comes from a conservative or a Republican, you are in support of many people who are overtly racist and xenophobic, some who are credibly accused of sexual assault, and others accused of war crimes. The policies they espouse, especially toward immigrants, the poor, people of color, and women are often unspeakably cruel. For a person who rather ostentatiously wears your Christianity on your sleeve, it's baffling how many harsh and obviously unChristian policies you support.
You lose the benefit of the doubt when you continue to support a man who is overtly bigoted, who gives aid and comfort to the worst type of white supremacists and neo-Nazis. Why should your ideas not be criticized?
Dave 23
The wheels just came off your argument. Trump just tweeted that tariffs could come off if a deal on Nafta can be reached. Not clear if he means all tariffs or this is simply a 'carve out',
Also not clear if deal on Nafta was what he was after from the beginning or a way of backing down after serious criticisms from important people. With him you frequently have no way of knowing.
Unless your argument is "Trump's a racist" or "Trump's unhinged", be careful basing an argument on what comes after the phrase "Trump tweeted ...".
BCC said:
Dave 23
The wheels just came off your argument. Trump just tweeted that tariffs could come off if a deal on Nafta can be reached. Not clear if he means all tariffs or this is simply a 'carve out',
Also not clear if deal on Nafta was what he was after from the beginning or a way of backing down after serious criticisms from important people. With him you frequently have no way of knowing.
South_Mountaineer said:
Unless your argument is "Trump's a racist" or "Trump's unhinged", be careful basing an argument on what comes after the phrase "Trump tweeted ...".
BCC said:
Dave 23
The wheels just came off your argument. Trump just tweeted that tariffs could come off if a deal on Nafta can be reached. Not clear if he means all tariffs or this is simply a 'carve out',
Also not clear if deal on Nafta was what he was after from the beginning or a way of backing down after serious criticisms from important people. With him you frequently have no way of knowing.
Which is precisely my argument - you can't believe what Trump says because it could change tomorrow - which is what just happened.
BCC said:
BCC said:
Also not clear if deal on Nafta was what he was after from the beginning or a way of backing down after serious criticisms from important people. With him you frequently have no way of knowing.
Which is precisely my argument - you can't believe what Trump says because it could change tomorrow - which is what just happened.
Yes. "Frequently" is an understatement.
dave23 said:
BCC said:
I didn't misunderstand and I didn't parse ''singularity'
Yes, you did. And that's fine.
A lame response and you left out the rest of what I said,
You are the only one on MOL who would say you were basing your argument on what Trump said. No one else would be so foolish, and Trump almost immediately showed how foolish it was.
You have nothing left except taunts, insults, and BS, hardly a basis for having a decent discussion.
And Navarro contradicted (clarified)him.
The President didn't specify Monday whether the potential tariff rollback would be applied only to Mexico and Canada.
But Navarro, the director of the White House National Trade Council, made remarks less than an hour after the President's tweet that appeared at odds with the latest White House position.
Navarro says 'no exclusions' on steel and aluminum tariffs
"I understand if we get a great NAFTA agreement, and (US Trade Representative Robert) Lighthizer is trying to do that, that would be a great thing for the American people, but at this point in time, 25% on steel, 10% on aluminum, no country exclusions, firm line in the sand," Navarro told Fox News' "Fox and Friends" Monday morning.
mtierney said:
Back in the day, you and I referred to one another as “L” and “M” — and now our relationship has degenerated to harsh
opprobrium at every opportunity.
Aha, but we will always have Paris...
My mother-in-law was in Paris when the Nazis marched in. She was arrested when they came to the house where she was watching a neighbor's children. A French Police Officer saw that her name was not on the list. He told her that her name was on the next day's list and let her go. She spent the next five years hiding in a rural area, making believe she was a Christian.
Our problem with you, M, is we are not sure that in a similar situation you would not be supportive of the occupying forces or the collaborationist regime seeing that as your duty as a good citizen.
BCC said:
A lame response and you left out the rest of what I said,
You are the only one on MOL who would say you were basing your argument on what Trump said. No one else would be so foolish, and Trump almost immediately showed how foolish it was.
You have nothing left except taunts, insults, and BS, hardly a basis for having a decent discussion.
I left out the part of your post that was just a rehash of you previous posts in order to save space and to focus the point a bit.
I don't think I had an "argument" about Icahn, but ok.
dave23 said:
I don't think I had an "argument" about Icahn, but ok.
https://healthpsychologyconsultancy.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/the-argumentative-personality/
LOST said:
mtierney said:
Back in the day, you and I referred to one another as “L” and “M” — and now our relationship has degenerated to harsh
opprobrium at every opportunity.
Aha, but we will always have Paris...
My mother-in-law was in Paris when the Nazis marched in. She was arrested when they came to the house where she was watching a neighbor's children. A French Police Officer saw that her name was not on the list. He told her that her name was on the next day's list and let her go. She spent the next five years hiding in a rural area, making believe she was a Christian.
Our problem with you, M, is we are not sure that in a similar situation you would not be supportive of the occupying forces or the collaborationist regime seeing that as your duty as a good citizen.
This.
ridski said:
dave23 said:
I don't think I had an "argument" about Icahn, but ok.
https://healthpsychologyconsultancy.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/the-argumentative-personality/
If this was aimed at me, I use the words 'argument' and 'discussion' interchangeably. In discussions there is frequently argument. If you don't recognize that, that's your problem, not mine.
You want to argue about this?
LOST said:
And Navarro contradicted (clarified)him.
The President didn't specify Monday whether the potential tariff rollback would be applied only to Mexico and Canada.
But Navarro, the director of the White House National Trade Council, made remarks less than an hour after the President's tweet that appeared at odds with the latest White House position.
Navarro says 'no exclusions' on steel and aluminum tariffs
"I understand if we get a great NAFTA agreement, and (US Trade Representative Robert) Lighthizer is trying to do that, that would be a great thing for the American people, but at this point in time, 25% on steel, 10% on aluminum, no country exclusions, firm line in the sand," Navarro told Fox News' "Fox and Friends" Monday morning.
Wouldn't be the first time (or the 5th or 6th) that some higher up 'clarified' a Trump comment. And we are still not sure which is correct. Note, Navarro left wiggle room, He said 'at this time'. He can always backtrack and say 'well. times have changed'.
BCC said:
ridski said:
dave23 said:
I don't think I had an "argument" about Icahn, but ok.
https://healthpsychologyconsultancy.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/the-argumentative-personality/
If this was aimed at me, I use the words 'argument' and 'discussion' interchangeably. In discussions there is frequently argument. If you don't recognize that, that's your problem, not mine.
You want to argue about this?
I'm glad you're okay, BCC, and hope that your family in PR are okay, too. When you dropped off MOL after the election I got worried, so it's good to hear from you.
My original post was about Icahn with a side joke about Canada, which you chose to focus on. I engaged for awhile before you went down your usual, tedious road. The exchange was dumb, especially when you didn't understand my Singularity reference and decided to parse it anyway. But I'm posting this in the same spirit that I would dangle string in front of a dull kitten.