truthiness

After publicly being willing to personally take any heat for the shutdown, Trump the Generous, is now letting us all have some piece of the blame.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-has-lost-ground-in-the-shutdown-blame-game/?src=obsidebar=sb_1

Metadata, Trump approval ratings: Protrump: 41.0
Antitrump: 54.0

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

President Trump is taking his share of the blame. However, the real people who should be held responsible are Democrats. If they would come to the table with a compromise then this partial shutdown would have ended before it started. Had they fulfilled the promise they made last year at this time... an improved immigration policy, then there would not have been a partial shutdown. Time to own up.... Democrats will try to hold our nation hostage until they get their way. Well, I don't think that is going to happen... if you think President Trump's favorability rating is low now... if he caves, it will hit rock bottom.
And by the way, his rating among Republicans holding onto an 80 percent.

truthiness

...
Memory alert: where was the compromise in the $20B for Dreamer guarantees? for recent diminution of ACA? in the tax "reform" issue?
"Had they fulfilled the promise they (Democrats) had made last year..." is nullified by 'had the Republicans
passed the bills they agreed to two weeks ago to keep the government running...'.
No question that many people are hurt when there is no compromise on issues. Let's face it: when either party has political power, they tend toward non-compromise and people are hurt, although trump is taking the heat for this (except for Republicans, as you said, who are in the minority of the electorate).
He probably won't cave. He will try the "emergency powers" gambit; it will go to the courts who will reject it. Then he will complain of terrible courts as he has in the past when things haven't gone his way.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Never occurred to you the liberal judges do not weight evidence, they rule on politics.
Trump is justified in his words towards the courts. How many of the ruling transcripts have you read? Rhetorical, I already know the answer based on your statement.

truthiness

...
If you know my answer already, why do you ask?

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Did you need help with the definition of "Rhetorical"?
Of course you side stepped the point.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Here is your memory alert... the bill that was not signed off on by the Republicans did not contain funding for border security. And it was a CR, not a budget. Last January the President made it clear.... he would not sign a budget that did not contain funding for border security.

Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX

Well done,



Kim, appointed by Obama to the Federal Reserve is now out. A little fix by Trump to stop the IMF showing favoritism to China at our expense. Lots of stuff going on the MSM isn't reporting. FAANG (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflicks(?), Google) all show bias in China's favor over the USA.

truthiness

No help needed; there are other definitions of rhetorical--I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
No I don't read court documents, but I do read summaries:try this evaluation of Orangies response to courts
https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/his-own-words-presidents-attacks-courts
noting Chief Justice John (Republican) Roberts' words that dispute your contention about legislating from the bench:
'In a rare response, Chief Justice John Roberts told the AP that the U.S. doesn’t have “Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.” Roberts added that “The independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.” '

truthiness

Speaking of 'side-stepping the point', the original issue of the thread was trump not taking responsibility for the shutdown as he said before the whole world that he would. I notice that you are not commenting on that falsehood that the Liar-in-Chief has not lived up to.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Your selective thought process is embarrassing for all to read and see.

The ninth circuit has repeatedly ruled against Trump based solely on a political agenda.
Gee how we forget Trump trying to block radical Islamic countries from immigration, the same as Obama blocked finally took the over ruling of the Supreme Court. But the left only sees oppose Trump and this is the pattern of the liberal courts. Wake up.

The liberal weighted Supreme Court falsely used the 14 amendment written for freed slaves to redefine marriage, they also made a law which is unconstitutional. Only congress can make federal laws. Again the left didn't care the court was purely political because of their agenda.
Now with Trumps appointments this will be challenged and overturned.

Does it give you a sense of justice pulling one example and ignoring over a dozen political rulings?

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

He took responsibility. But now using facts is proving the left cares more about globalism than it does about persevering Americans safety, culture, and drain on American resources.

truthiness

Rhetorical answer to your new rhetorical question: Wrong is wrong and I don't agree with your analysis.

Bcon

Roberts did make that statement and then the 9th circuit weighed in with some of their decisions and proved him wrong, just as wrong as when he saved Obamacare.
I am still wondering what they had on him when he made that decision.

truthiness

Jack the Rhetor from Squim WA:
Since you can’t stay on the track of the thread and since you want to push your ‘dems legislate from the bench’ issue here is a suggestion that would give you a chance to demonstrate the validity of your claim as well as be helpful to us on OPP:
1) Start a new thread on your legislating from the bench’ topic.
2) Give to us folks who don’t read court documents the following data on ALL of the court cases that involve trump, trump associates (Manafort, Gates, Cohen, etc), Russian oligarchs and Russian agents [ala Mueller’s and Southern New York District cases], emoluments, border, immigration, etc) in ALL Federal, and state courts---Washington DC, Washington state, Eastern VA, Southern NY, etc., NY and other state and local courts (not just your hobbyhorse 9th circuit):
a) Court ID
b) Docket #
c) Defendant/Prosecutor
d) Judge’s name
e) the President who appointed that judge (if a federal judge)
f) Judge’s party affiliation (if known)
g) Result of the case (if finished); the status if not finished
h) Your comments—here is a place for you to spin and promote your propaganda

This will give you a wonderful pulpit for your legislating from the bench dogma and provide OPP readers with data. Perhaps w will see if the courts are biased against trump and if, in fact, the there is legislation from the bench.

Wait! There’s more! If you have extra time, you could go back and provide the same court data for the trump cases before the election: trump university, the suit with his
3500 suits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump) .We know that is a lot of research, but you read these court documents and have the data at hand, no doubt. You could put all this together into a biased book that I am sure the right would be happy to buy—making you rich and happy. Great idea? Sure—no thanks needed, always happy to help an OPP colleague.