|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 10 2017 07:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 07:03 Danglars wrote:On February 10 2017 05:37 farvacola wrote:
That's nonsense, Danglars; Milo, perhaps even unintentionally, presents his ideas in venues and in circumstances that render substantive interaction impossible. While he most definitely has a 1st Amendment right to speak and present his ideas in a mostly unfettered manner, it's disingenuous to pretend that what gets said at these events is in any way helpful in furthering productive discourse. All sides represented at these Ted talk-comedian schtick hybrid events put their worst foot forward by function, and Milo's snide yelling shows are no exception.
The exact same thing can be said for talks led by Richard Dawkins; these events are nothing more than piñata factories with an ideological Quinceañera attached. The people who show up opposed are the sort to loudly proclaim their ideas without thinking, and those who show up in support do so specifically to see those people yell and get exposed as stupid. Performance, spectacle-based pats-on-the-back are not valuable. Nonsense. That's your ideology speaking about "helpful in furthering productive discourse." We can use any number of people railing against the current impediments of a true debate of ideas (beyond defending/accusing racism) until this republic is restored. For fuck's sake, your "perhaps even unintentionally" is an admission that it's all about your perception and not his motives. The nation's got a censorship problem in the culture and I don't care if it's antifa, college students, or academia shutting down invited speakers. I don't want Trump in the White House in 2020, but he's also a help for the sickness ... which would be totally unnecessary in a well patient. Let the speakers speak and don't justify violence against them and don't equate them to nazis or lynch squads or spread a "I'm too scared to walk on this campus that allows such hate, I'm fearful for my safety" sort of message. If Milo does his schtick and a mature audience can let that occur, he peters out in a year (except for maybe glbt idea homogeneity in the Democrat party, that might keep him relevant for longer). It's exactly a product of the front-and-center culture wars from the pendulum swinging too far past "openly calls for violence" (necessary abridgment) to "he speaks brashly and I disagree with it so it's hate speech." You want higher interaction and more substance, Lincoln/Douglas or New Deal era? Blow off the loudmouths to irrelevance and try returning to a defense of free speech ... you know, especially the speech you disagree with. You've lost the dialogue, the counter-culture is incensed and loud, wait it out and return to some more liberal first principles. That's the spirit. When people expound hate, only silent complicity will stop their message from normalizing. #areyoureallythisfuckingstupid
When people expound ANYTHING there message will not normalize unless
1. some people find it normal
and
2. other people don't explain why it shouldn't be normal
I don't think Jonathan Swift's proposal started normalizing cannibalism in Britain, since Poe's law involves the internet.
Also..... in one sense ALL views should be "normalized": communism, state replacing parents, 'the Purge', genocide of everyone east of the missisippi, slavery for immigrants, imprisoning people where they might get raped, etc
Those views should be "normalized" in the sense that if you hear that view, you should normally be able to explain Why it is a bad idea.
If people's only reason why we shouldn't execute everyone with an IQ between 80 and 120 is "go back to Mexico, commie fundamentalist"... then its going to start happening. (because you don't have an argument against it)
If you hear multiple people talking about it, the idea is Already "normalized" at least in some subculture... so you have to have a reason why that idea is bad.
|
Canada11372 Posts
Only Milo, in what way- the protests or the riots? Because the protests are absolutely happening to more than just Milo- bringing in amplification to blare white noise to drown out speeches or pulling fire alarms to shut down free speech conferences. That's more than Milo. The Berkley riot? Sure that's unique to Milo so far, but as antagonizing as he is, I have heard nothing that warrants or justifies a violent response. That has nothing to do with being apathetic or indifferent. He can be strongly and rigorously opposed without violence and without shutting him out of places to speak.
|
On February 10 2017 07:22 ZasZ. wrote:
Yeah I would normally be on board with the Danglars "let him speak" approach, but Milo has always walked the fine line between exercising his first amendment rights, and directly inciting harassment and violence on other people. There have been many cases where "letting him speak" resulted in real danger to his targets. In my eyes this is the difference between protesting Milo and protesting someone like Ben Shapiro, who is just a conservative commentator.
I'm seeing a whole lot of violence/threats of violence the other way. But to your point, the result is a nanny state that dictates a low bar for "inciting violence," since children are the ones that think the man is calling for physical assaults. "Directly inciting harassment" is also in the eyes of the beholder; criticizing your elected leaders and public figures is an American tradition for centuries.
Your fine line shows no respect for the concept of free speech whatsoever, in all honesty. The only legitimate other side should be along the lines of "will someone rid me of this troublesome priest." And like the before-linked essays show, there's a very tepid response on the topic of causing violence against an invited speaker in this very thread. Good luck finding a moral basis to argue he's directly causing violence if you excuse violence against him. The only difference between Ben Shapiro and Milo should be how much you find yourself agreeing with them, not which one is allowed to have rights and which topics he's allowed to speak on and how passionate and flippant he's allowed to be before your fine line dividing civil rights from permissive censorship is crossed.
|
If President Trump were to call a meeting of his Cabinet today, he wouldn't need a very big table. Or, he'd have to invite a bunch of Obama administration holdovers serving temporarily in acting roles.
With the Senate's confirmation this week of Betsy DeVos as education secretary and Jeff Sessions as attorney general, Trump now has just six members of his Cabinet confirmed. By this point in 2009, President Obama had 12 Cabinet members in place and President George W. Bush had his entire 14-member Cabinet. Even with the expected confirmation of Health and Human Services nominee Tom Price by Friday, Trump would still be behind.
The Senate confirmation process has been unusually slow. According to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's office, Trump has the fewest Cabinet secretaries confirmed at this point in his presidency than any other president at least since World War II.
"You can't play in the Super Bowl if you don't have your team on the field," said Max Stier, CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan organization that is tracking the Trump administration's progress in getting staffed up.
"They are in the Super Bowl," Stier said of the Trump administration. "They are running the most important organization on the planet, and they don't have their team on the field. They don't have their critical people in place and that's vital to being able to do their jobs appropriately."
The Trump administration would like to place the blame firmly on Democrats in the Senate.
"It would help if the Democrats weren't working overtime to unnecessarily block our very qualified nominees so that we could put leadership in place at each of the agencies," said White House principal deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders in an email.
But that is only part of the story. Facing pressure from an activated base, Democrats have slow-walked Trump's nominees.
Source
|
On February 10 2017 07:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 07:03 Danglars wrote:On February 10 2017 05:37 farvacola wrote:
That's nonsense, Danglars; Milo, perhaps even unintentionally, presents his ideas in venues and in circumstances that render substantive interaction impossible. While he most definitely has a 1st Amendment right to speak and present his ideas in a mostly unfettered manner, it's disingenuous to pretend that what gets said at these events is in any way helpful in furthering productive discourse. All sides represented at these Ted talk-comedian schtick hybrid events put their worst foot forward by function, and Milo's snide yelling shows are no exception.
The exact same thing can be said for talks led by Richard Dawkins; these events are nothing more than piñata factories with an ideological Quinceañera attached. The people who show up opposed are the sort to loudly proclaim their ideas without thinking, and those who show up in support do so specifically to see those people yell and get exposed as stupid. Performance, spectacle-based pats-on-the-back are not valuable. Nonsense. That's your ideology speaking about "helpful in furthering productive discourse." We can use any number of people railing against the current impediments of a true debate of ideas (beyond defending/accusing racism) until this republic is restored. For fuck's sake, your "perhaps even unintentionally" is an admission that it's all about your perception and not his motives. The nation's got a censorship problem in the culture and I don't care if it's antifa, college students, or academia shutting down invited speakers. I don't want Trump in the White House in 2020, but he's also a help for the sickness ... which would be totally unnecessary in a well patient. Let the speakers speak and don't justify violence against them and don't equate them to nazis or lynch squads or spread a "I'm too scared to walk on this campus that allows such hate, I'm fearful for my safety" sort of message. If Milo does his schtick and a mature audience can let that occur, he peters out in a year (except for maybe glbt idea homogeneity in the Democrat party, that might keep him relevant for longer). It's exactly a product of the front-and-center culture wars from the pendulum swinging too far past "openly calls for violence" (necessary abridgment) to "he speaks brashly and I disagree with it so it's hate speech." You want higher interaction and more substance, Lincoln/Douglas or New Deal era? Blow off the loudmouths to irrelevance and try returning to a defense of free speech ... you know, especially the speech you disagree with. You've lost the dialogue, the counter-culture is incensed and loud, wait it out and return to some more liberal first principles. That's the spirit. When people expound hate, only silent complicity will stop their message from normalizing. #areyoureallythisfuckingstupid
As if shutting down the speakers is the way to stop a message from normalizing. I remember the criticism of Jimmy Fallon having Trump on and joking around ... various speakers condemned it as normalizing Trump. Now he's president.
You're on the side of smearing things you don't politically like as hate. I hope someday you realize the hysteria is counterproductive and there's no wind in the sails of Milo if everyone can hear him if a campus group invites him and is free to, I don't know, reject Milo's message and the way they says it? Puritanism-nouveau, Thy name is Thieving Magpie.
|
On February 10 2017 06:44 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Pretty sure he's called him a fraud plenty of times over the past few years. If Trump decides to go after Hillary he'd better look out for when the shoe is on the other foot people don't start coming after him and his family. Though he's a 70 year old obese man in questionable mental health so he most likely won't live to see the repercussions of it personally.
If there's one thing that impresses me about Trump, it's the ambition that drives a 70-year old man to take on a job that has to put up with as much shit as the POTUS does.
Honestly, if you gave me the option to take a job where I have to be up at 5 in the morning when I'm 70, I'd say fuck that. If I can't sleep in as late as I want when I'm 70, it's time to just off myself cuz my life sucks.
|
On February 10 2017 07:45 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 07:22 ZasZ. wrote:
Yeah I would normally be on board with the Danglars "let him speak" approach, but Milo has always walked the fine line between exercising his first amendment rights, and directly inciting harassment and violence on other people. There have been many cases where "letting him speak" resulted in real danger to his targets. In my eyes this is the difference between protesting Milo and protesting someone like Ben Shapiro, who is just a conservative commentator. I'm seeing a whole lot of violence/threats of violence the other way. But to your point, the result is a nanny state that dictates a low bar for "inciting violence," since children are the ones that think the man is calling for physical assaults. "Directly inciting harassment" is also in the eyes of the beholder; criticizing your elected leaders and public figures is an American tradition for centuries. Your fine line shows no respect for the concept of free speech whatsoever, in all honesty. The only legitimate other side should be along the lines of "will someone rid me of this troublesome priest." And like the before-linked essays show, there's a very tepid response on the topic of causing violence against an invited speaker in this very thread. Good luck finding a moral basis to argue he's directly causing violence if you excuse violence against him. The only difference between Ben Shapiro and Milo should be how much you find yourself agreeing with them, not which one is allowed to have rights and which topics he's allowed to speak on and how passionate and flippant he's allowed to be before your fine line dividing civil rights from permissive censorship is crossed.
No one is arguing violence is the solution. Just the the natural outcome of not giving a shit about other peoples fears or concerns. People like Bannon, Milo, Richard Spencer, David Duke and others all feeling emboldened and in power scares people. And it has become abundantly clear that no one gives a shit. The election pretty much proved that. It is naive to think that things would get less aggressive and violent after electing Trump.
|
On February 10 2017 08:09 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 06:44 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Pretty sure he's called him a fraud plenty of times over the past few years. If Trump decides to go after Hillary he'd better look out for when the shoe is on the other foot people don't start coming after him and his family. Though he's a 70 year old obese man in questionable mental health so he most likely won't live to see the repercussions of it personally. If there's one thing that impresses me about Trump, it's the ambition that drives a 70-year old man to take on a job that has to put up with as much shit as the POTUS does. Honestly, if you gave me the option to take a job where I have to be up at 5 in the morning when I'm 70, I'd say fuck that. If I can't sleep in as late as I want when I'm 70, it's time to just off myself cuz my life sucks.
Trump works incredibly hard and always has. He considers vacation work and work vacation. It's his strongest quality by far outside all of his bullshit. Maybe narcissism drives it, but the result is an admirable work ethic.
|
At the pace I'm going, I'll be waking up at 5 AM by 70; it really splits both ways as you get older. My guess is that the quality and length of the sleep is the bigger issue, and I'd guess Trump doesn't sleep well. (nor do many Presidents, though Reagan and Clinton may be exceptions)
|
On February 10 2017 07:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +If President Trump were to call a meeting of his Cabinet today, he wouldn't need a very big table. Or, he'd have to invite a bunch of Obama administration holdovers serving temporarily in acting roles.
With the Senate's confirmation this week of Betsy DeVos as education secretary and Jeff Sessions as attorney general, Trump now has just six members of his Cabinet confirmed. By this point in 2009, President Obama had 12 Cabinet members in place and President George W. Bush had his entire 14-member Cabinet. Even with the expected confirmation of Health and Human Services nominee Tom Price by Friday, Trump would still be behind.
The Senate confirmation process has been unusually slow. According to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's office, Trump has the fewest Cabinet secretaries confirmed at this point in his presidency than any other president at least since World War II.
"You can't play in the Super Bowl if you don't have your team on the field," said Max Stier, CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan organization that is tracking the Trump administration's progress in getting staffed up.
"They are in the Super Bowl," Stier said of the Trump administration. "They are running the most important organization on the planet, and they don't have their team on the field. They don't have their critical people in place and that's vital to being able to do their jobs appropriately."
The Trump administration would like to place the blame firmly on Democrats in the Senate.
"It would help if the Democrats weren't working overtime to unnecessarily block our very qualified nominees so that we could put leadership in place at each of the agencies," said White House principal deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders in an email.
But that is only part of the story. Facing pressure from an activated base, Democrats have slow-walked Trump's nominees. Source
Darn, man. What a terrible thing to have your nominees held up? Truly awful. Were did the Democrats learn such a terrible tactic designed to force a failure of government? Only a truly faithless member of the Senate would teach them such a terrible trick is acceptable.
|
It's not so much the act of waking up early but bearing the responsibility of a job where you have to. By the time I'm 70, I don't expect to be responsible for anyone else. I'd barely expect to be responsible for myself.
|
I hope the 9th rules against him just so we get another damaging tweet. Just more evidence to use in his eventual impeachment hearings.
|
Fair enough; I'll say that unusual attitudes towards late life are fairly prevalent among lawyers, particularly those tilted towards the judiciary. It's not an uncommon opinion among federal judges that the best opinions are only written by those of advanced age, but that tradition seems to be changing given the age of judges appointed during the last few decades. Gorsuch could sit for close to 30 years without breaking a sweat lol, that shit's nuts.
|
Appeals Court rules against trump Admin.
|
On February 10 2017 07:38 Falling wrote:
Only Milo, in what way- the protests or the riots? Because the protests are absolutely happening to more than just Milo- bringing in amplification to blare white noise to drown out speeches or pulling fire alarms to shut down free speech conferences. That's more than Milo. The Berkley riot? Sure that's unique to Milo so far, but as antagonizing as he is, I have heard nothing that warrants or justifies a violent response. That has nothing to do with being apathetic or indifferent. He can be strongly and rigorously opposed without violence and without shutting him out of places to speak.
Personally, a lot of my progressive friends have lost faith in any form of rational, serious discussion about issues or policy. Centrist democrats too. It is a feeling that talking has not worked. Explaining has not worked. Debate has not worked. There is a feeling that any debate with the "conservative side" is in bad faith. That they will just lie, deny or rely on post-fact politics to promote their message. My feeling is that people are finding other ways to get their point across.
On February 10 2017 08:17 On_Slaught wrote:
I hope the 9th rules against him just so we get another damaging tweet. Just more evidence to use in his eventual impeachment hearings.
Your wish has been granted. I would also point out the DOJ's request was stupid. They wanted a TRO against a 14 day TRO. You can't stay a stay. They could have just waited until the next hearing, but DT wanted it removed.
|
|
|
On February 10 2017 08:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 07:38 Falling wrote:
Only Milo, in what way- the protests or the riots? Because the protests are absolutely happening to more than just Milo- bringing in amplification to blare white noise to drown out speeches or pulling fire alarms to shut down free speech conferences. That's more than Milo. The Berkley riot? Sure that's unique to Milo so far, but as antagonizing as he is, I have heard nothing that warrants or justifies a violent response. That has nothing to do with being apathetic or indifferent. He can be strongly and rigorously opposed without violence and without shutting him out of places to speak. Personally, a lot of my progressive friends have lost faith in any form of rational, serious discussion about issues or policy. Centrist democrats too. It is a feeling that talking has not worked. Explaining has not worked. Debate has not worked. There is a feeling that any debate with the "conservative side" is in bad faith. That they will just lie, deny or rely on post-fact politics to promote their message. My feeling is that people are finding other ways to get their point across. Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 08:17 On_Slaught wrote:
I hope the 9th rules against him just so we get another damaging tweet. Just more evidence to use in his eventual impeachment hearings. Your wish has been granted. I would also point out the DOJ's request was stupid. They wanted a TRO against a 14 day TRO. You can't stay a stay. They could have just waited until the next hearing, but DT wanted it removed.
That is quite the elitist and arrogant attitude you have there, and it doesn't even justify the reaction on college campuses. Just declare your opponents as arguing in "bad faith" and then shut down debate and resort to violence. Great strategy.
|
United States43259 Posts
On February 10 2017 08:14 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 07:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If President Trump were to call a meeting of his Cabinet today, he wouldn't need a very big table. Or, he'd have to invite a bunch of Obama administration holdovers serving temporarily in acting roles.
With the Senate's confirmation this week of Betsy DeVos as education secretary and Jeff Sessions as attorney general, Trump now has just six members of his Cabinet confirmed. By this point in 2009, President Obama had 12 Cabinet members in place and President George W. Bush had his entire 14-member Cabinet. Even with the expected confirmation of Health and Human Services nominee Tom Price by Friday, Trump would still be behind.
The Senate confirmation process has been unusually slow. According to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's office, Trump has the fewest Cabinet secretaries confirmed at this point in his presidency than any other president at least since World War II.
"You can't play in the Super Bowl if you don't have your team on the field," said Max Stier, CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan organization that is tracking the Trump administration's progress in getting staffed up.
"They are in the Super Bowl," Stier said of the Trump administration. "They are running the most important organization on the planet, and they don't have their team on the field. They don't have their critical people in place and that's vital to being able to do their jobs appropriately."
The Trump administration would like to place the blame firmly on Democrats in the Senate.
"It would help if the Democrats weren't working overtime to unnecessarily block our very qualified nominees so that we could put leadership in place at each of the agencies," said White House principal deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders in an email.
But that is only part of the story. Facing pressure from an activated base, Democrats have slow-walked Trump's nominees. Source Darn, man. What a terrible thing to have your nominees held up? Truly awful. Were did the Democrats learn such a terrible tactic designed to force a failure of government? Only a truly faithless member of the Senate would teach them such a terrible trick is acceptable.
It would help slightly if his nominees were even remotely qualified for the job and didn't represent a mess of foreign interests, business interests and nepotism.
|
On February 10 2017 07:31 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 07:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 10 2017 07:03 Danglars wrote:On February 10 2017 05:37 farvacola wrote:
That's nonsense, Danglars; Milo, perhaps even unintentionally, presents his ideas in venues and in circumstances that render substantive interaction impossible. While he most definitely has a 1st Amendment right to speak and present his ideas in a mostly unfettered manner, it's disingenuous to pretend that what gets said at these events is in any way helpful in furthering productive discourse. All sides represented at these Ted talk-comedian schtick hybrid events put their worst foot forward by function, and Milo's snide yelling shows are no exception.
The exact same thing can be said for talks led by Richard Dawkins; these events are nothing more than piñata factories with an ideological Quinceañera attached. The people who show up opposed are the sort to loudly proclaim their ideas without thinking, and those who show up in support do so specifically to see those people yell and get exposed as stupid. Performance, spectacle-based pats-on-the-back are not valuable. Nonsense. That's your ideology speaking about "helpful in furthering productive discourse." We can use any number of people railing against the current impediments of a true debate of ideas (beyond defending/accusing racism) until this republic is restored. For fuck's sake, your "perhaps even unintentionally" is an admission that it's all about your perception and not his motives. The nation's got a censorship problem in the culture and I don't care if it's antifa, college students, or academia shutting down invited speakers. I don't want Trump in the White House in 2020, but he's also a help for the sickness ... which would be totally unnecessary in a well patient. Let the speakers speak and don't justify violence against them and don't equate them to nazis or lynch squads or spread a "I'm too scared to walk on this campus that allows such hate, I'm fearful for my safety" sort of message. If Milo does his schtick and a mature audience can let that occur, he peters out in a year (except for maybe glbt idea homogeneity in the Democrat party, that might keep him relevant for longer). It's exactly a product of the front-and-center culture wars from the pendulum swinging too far past "openly calls for violence" (necessary abridgment) to "he speaks brashly and I disagree with it so it's hate speech." You want higher interaction and more substance, Lincoln/Douglas or New Deal era? Blow off the loudmouths to irrelevance and try returning to a defense of free speech ... you know, especially the speech you disagree with. You've lost the dialogue, the counter-culture is incensed and loud, wait it out and return to some more liberal first principles. That's the spirit. When people expound hate, only silent complicity will stop their message from normalizing. #areyoureallythisfuckingstupid When people expound ANYTHING there message will not normalize unless 1. some people find it normal and 2. other people don't explain why it shouldn't be normal I don't think Jonathan Swift's proposal started normalizing cannibalism in Britain, since Poe's law involves the internet. Also..... in one sense ALL views should be "normalized": communism, state replacing parents, 'the Purge', genocide of everyone east of the missisippi, slavery for immigrants, imprisoning people where they might get raped, etc Those views should be "normalized" in the sense that if you hear that view, you should normally be able to explain Why it is a bad idea. If people's only reason why we shouldn't execute everyone with an IQ between 80 and 120 is "go back to Mexico, commie fundamentalist"... then its going to start happening. (because you don't have an argument against it) If you hear multiple people talking about it, the idea is Already "normalized" at least in some subculture... so you have to have a reason why that idea is bad.
We need some more teaching of Swift in schools. Also, a backdrop of the yellow journalism (back when affiliations were openly declared among the big guy). Jackson was the son of a mulatto whore, George Washington was an autocrat divisive disgrace. America survived, and I didn't hear bands of Englishmen cannabalizing the Irish poor. I don't know if we've progressed from that point: they wouldn't have let a gay Jew speak for other reasons than what he might say.
|
On February 10 2017 08:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 07:38 Falling wrote:
Only Milo, in what way- the protests or the riots? Because the protests are absolutely happening to more than just Milo- bringing in amplification to blare white noise to drown out speeches or pulling fire alarms to shut down free speech conferences. That's more than Milo. The Berkley riot? Sure that's unique to Milo so far, but as antagonizing as he is, I have heard nothing that warrants or justifies a violent response. That has nothing to do with being apathetic or indifferent. He can be strongly and rigorously opposed without violence and without shutting him out of places to speak. Personally, a lot of my progressive friends have lost faith in any form of rational, serious discussion about issues or policy. Centrist democrats too. It is a feeling that talking has not worked. Explaining has not worked. Debate has not worked. There is a feeling that any debate with the "conservative side" is in bad faith. That they will just lie, deny or rely on post-fact politics to promote their message. My feeling is that people are finding other ways to get their point across. Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 08:17 On_Slaught wrote:
I hope the 9th rules against him just so we get another damaging tweet. Just more evidence to use in his eventual impeachment hearings. Your wish has been granted. I would also point out the DOJ's request was stupid. They wanted a TRO against a 14 day TRO. You can't stay a stay. They could have just waited until the next hearing, but DT wanted it removed.
I mean, just look back to the discussion earlier today where, once again, we had to try and prove that PP is in fact not a fetus selling criminal cartel.
People only have so much patience for strait up stupidity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
