"But Pharaoh Shtrump-o-tep! I can't fit any more grain in the pyramids! We'll have to put the excess harvest in Shtrump-o-tep Tower!"~High Priest Huddie-Ben
Watching the light go out of his eyes as it dawned on him that Senator Klobuchar was shivving him right there on live television was just … *chef's kiss*.
With respect to the Trumpers, probably nothing. They don't really care about things like reason and logic and consistency. With respect to Democrats? He'd need some damn good reason to explain why he changed his mind a few days after testifying.
In fairness, I think it's entirely possible and reasonable to change your mind when presented with good reasons to. I believe there are congress people who have changed their mind about gay marriage, for example, because they realized they were wrong. I'd also like to think that at least some people who were in favor of "unitary executive theory" before Trump, are sure as hell against it now, because Trump is a really good reason to change your mind on that.
But I can't imagine any actual 'good reason' for Barr to change his mind. Unless, you know, it's to decide that Trump is the shit-gibbon we all know he is.
It's interesting they believe the president is a god-king in all but name when they didn't think Obama had the right to do anything while president. These things don't go together.
I had, however, briefly thought maybe this belief about the presidency is a (slightly) more rational explanation for their purported fear of 'big government' where 'big government' is synonymous with 'federal government'. If they give the power to the federal government, they're giving it to the god-king, and that could be dangerous.
Then I remembered nothing they do, and no position they take, makes any sort of continuous logical sense. It's all about what they want at the moment and how to get it.
"facially-lawful actions" is a thing? I never heard that phrase before, so I looked it up.
1) In the first place, you don't put a hyphen to connect an adverb ending in ly with a participle. For example, no hyphen is needed in the phrase "newly married couple" or "badly furnished house."
2) I couldn't find a reference to "facially lawful" but I did find "facially valid" and the latter is "a common legal locution meaning 'valid on its face'." In plain English, "facially valid" means "it didn't look illegal," and I have to assume that "facially lawful" also means "it didn't look illegal." That is NOT the same thing as "it wasn't illegal, and it is not a high enough standard for ANY elected official, let alone the POTUS.
But it's so simple ... they believe that only White Men Can Rule, because everyone who isn't a White Man is an inferior subspecies. This was the political reality for thousands of years, however things have changed, and they can't adapt. According to the Theory of Evolution (which is no longer a theory so why do we keep calling it one?) this inability to adapt means that THEY are the inferior subspecies, because if you can't adapt, you can't evolve, and eventually your subspecies will die.
That is very interesting sizing! My word!
Yes, indeed.
I generally buy "L", Large tops. I have lost weight, I have a few M tops now.
I thought I couldn’t love her more, but now I do. Yeahhhhhh.
"Sorry no backsies!"Sen Klobuchar
but then we might get some crazy a$$RW wacko rather than a normal RW wacko.
"But Pharaoh Shtrump-o-tep! I can't fit any more grain in the pyramids! We'll have to put the excess harvest in Shtrump-o-tep Tower!"~High Priest Huddie-Ben
Wow. Just - wow! :-)
🙂
Watching the light go out of his eyes as it dawned on him that Senator Klobuchar was shivving him right there on live television was just … *chef's kiss*.
With respect to the Trumpers, probably nothing. They don't really care about things like reason and logic and consistency. With respect to Democrats? He'd need some damn good reason to explain why he changed his mind a few days after testifying.
In fairness, I think it's entirely possible and reasonable to change your mind when presented with good reasons to. I believe there are congress people who have changed their mind about gay marriage, for example, because they realized they were wrong. I'd also like to think that at least some people who were in favor of "unitary executive theory" before Trump, are sure as hell against it now, because Trump is a really good reason to change your mind on that.
But I can't imagine any actual 'good reason' for Barr to change his mind. Unless, you know, it's to decide that Trump is the shit-gibbon we all know he is.
It's interesting they believe the president is a god-king in all but name when they didn't think Obama had the right to do anything while president. These things don't go together.
I had, however, briefly thought maybe this belief about the presidency is a (slightly) more rational explanation for their purported fear of 'big government' where 'big government' is synonymous with 'federal government'. If they give the power to the federal government, they're giving it to the god-king, and that could be dangerous.
Then I remembered nothing they do, and no position they take, makes any sort of continuous logical sense. It's all about what they want at the moment and how to get it.
If Klobuchar doesn't end up as our Presidential or VP nom, I think she would make a damn fine AG in the next Democratic administration.
I don't know how 45 can "dangle his pardon"... I hear his pardon looks like a stubby polka-dot mushroom.
"facially-lawful actions" is a thing? I never heard that phrase before, so I looked it up.
1) In the first place, you don't put a hyphen to connect an adverb ending in ly with a participle. For example, no hyphen is needed in the phrase "newly married couple" or "badly furnished house."
2) I couldn't find a reference to "facially lawful" but I did find "facially valid" and the latter is "a common legal locution meaning 'valid on its face'." In plain English, "facially valid" means "it didn't look illegal," and I have to assume that "facially lawful" also means "it didn't look illegal." That is NOT the same thing as "it wasn't illegal, and it is not a high enough standard for ANY elected official, let alone the POTUS.
https://www.nytimes.com/199...
But it's so simple ... they believe that only White Men Can Rule, because everyone who isn't a White Man is an inferior subspecies. This was the political reality for thousands of years, however things have changed, and they can't adapt. According to the Theory of Evolution (which is no longer a theory so why do we keep calling it one?) this inability to adapt means that THEY are the inferior subspecies, because if you can't adapt, you can't evolve, and eventually your subspecies will die.
Sounds painful!