President Donald Trump

[Redbirds Fan]

Being fairly new to this forum, I can say that sheep is one of the people I agree with most of the time but not all of the time. If I understand him correctly, I disagree on one major point. Here is what sheep said:

If you stood silently by while the last president wrote policy via executive orders, just because you happened to agree with those policies, then how can you credibly argue that the current president is constitutionally wrong to write policy via executive orders?

I want to take this out of the context of executive orders and broaden it to "if you didn't complain about Obama, how can you credibly argue against Trump?" so it will cover more than just the current situation. My position is that one can credibly argue against Trump, in good faith, even if one didn't argue against Obama. Further, I believe that it is not wrong to consider those arguments.

What I am willing to do (that sheep is apparently not willing to do) is to separate the message from the messenger. If you tell me that President Trump is wrong on the immigration ban because a) it is a bad idea on the merits, b) because he didn't consult the appropriate officials in his own government, and c) because he did so by executive order, I believe I should consider each of your arguments on its merits. To me, it would be irrational to consider Argument (a) and (b), but not to consider Argument (c) because you did not object so some executive order issued by President Obama. It would be equally irrational for me not to consider one of your arguments because you are a habitual liar, or a drug addict, or a CNN viewer.

So, I understand sheep's point of view. If you asked me at pretty much any point in my life, I would say the same thing.

[nots]

Being fairly new to this forum, I can say that sheep is one of the people I agree with most of the time but not all of the time. If I understand him correctly, I disagree on one major point. Here is what sheep said:

If you stood silently by while the last president wrote policy via executive orders, just because you happened to agree with those policies, then how can you credibly argue that the current president is constitutionally wrong to write policy via executive orders?

I want to take this out of the context of executive orders and broaden it to "if you didn't complain about your guy then, how can you credibly argue against this guy now?" so it will cover more than just the current situation. My position is that one can credibly argue against the new guy now, and that one can do so in good faith. Further, I believe that one can accept the arguments of such a person.

What I am willing to do (that sheep is apparently not willing to do) is to separate the message from the messenger. If you tell me that President Trump is wrong on the immigration ban because a) it is a bad idea on the merits, b) because he didn't consult the appropriate officials in his own government, and c) because he did so by executive order, I believe I should consider each of your arguments on its merits. To me, it would be irrational to consider Argument (a) and (b), but not to consider Argument (c) because you did not object so some executive order issued by President Obama. It would be equally irrational for me not to consider one of your arguments because you are a habitual liar, or a drug addict, or a CNN viewer.

I don't personally know any lawyers, but I suspect there is a similar dynamic which exists among lawyers and judges. In considering a case, the judge does not weigh the fact that Attorney Jones was in there last month arguing the opposite side of an almost identical case. The judge views the case on its merits, in light of the law and the facts presented on that day.

So, I understand sheep's point of view. If you asked me at pretty much any point in my life, I would say the same thing.

You have a pretty broad definition of 'fairly new', huh?

[Redbirds Fan]

You have a pretty broad definition of 'fairly new', huh?

October was "pre-election". Seems like a long time ago, doesn't it?

[nots]

October was "pre-election". Seems like a long time ago, doesn't it?

It does. Hard to believe in your career as a judge, you don't personally know any lawyers either.
Look, you want to reinvent yourself, go for it. Just stop with the pretending to be new here. It's sad and casts doubt about the veracity of the rest of your posts. No one cares about what name you post under, but a lot of folks don't like to be intentionally misled.

[cardboardbox]

LOL. Is this you doing another character? "Believes Everything He Hears On Fox News" Guy?

I think there's some truth to his post. This is the stuff that Trump's primary voters cared about and thats why he become the republican nominee. He became president because he was lucky enough to run against an even worse candidate.

[cardboardbox]

It does. Hard to believe in your career as a judge, you don't personally know any lawyers either.
Look, you want to reinvent yourself, go for it. Just stop with the pretending to be new here. It's sad and casts doubt about the veracity of the rest of your posts. No one cares about what name you post under, but a lot of folks don't like to be intentionally misled.

yeah I dont get it either. I've asked him before why he cant be Lucky anymore but get no response.

[senorsheep]

But people aren't freaking about his tweets...

LOL. You're fortunate if you've managed to avoid the hourly drip of coordinated freaking out from the Daily Beast/ HuffPo/ Media Matters left wing outrage machine that is continuously regurgitated everywhere, including in this forum. Consider yourself lucky.

Just saying that I believe in the wisdom of keeping one's powder dry.

[senorsheep]

I think there's some truth to his post. This is the stuff that Trump's primary voters cared about and thats why he become the republican nominee. He became president because he was lucky enough to run against an even worse candidate.

Most of that post contains kernels of truth blown up Fox-style into fully popped nonsense, IMO. I am always annoyed by the characterization of Mexicans sneaking over here to exploit our welfare system. The facts don't bear that out. By and large, they're here to work. We beckon them here to work. To do that, and then smear them as frauds and cheats, is unbelievably hypocritical and dishonest.

Trump has shown a disturbing propensity to take fabricated or exaggerated Fox News folk tales and treat them as the rule, rather than exceptions that they usually are.

[DMT]

LOL. You're fortunate if you've managed to avoid the hourly drip of coordinated freaking out from the Daily Beast/ HuffPo/ Media Matters left wing outrage machine that is continuously regurgitated everywhere, including in this forum. Consider yourself lucky.

Just saying that I believe in the wisdom of keeping one's powder dry.

I see it but try to drown most of it out. But people didn't take to the streets/airports spontaneously until the EO.

ETA: I think/hope most people are starting to realize that his tweets are purposefully inflammatory to create distraction from the real issues.

[nots]

With 2 GOP Senators announcing they won't support her nomination (Murchowski and Collins), things just got dicey for DeVos to be named Education Secretary. She now needs all the rest of the GOP to affirm her nomination.
She is the one appointee that I have the most severe reservations about--I am hoping President Trump asked her to step aside or that at least one other GOP Senator votes no.

[senorsheep]

Heh. I love the drama and mystery surrounding our new poster's identity. It's like when the masked wrestler suddenly shows up on the scene.

I believe Jason indicated some time ago that the original poster in question wished to avoid any professional complications, since his RJ user name and his professional name were the same and could conceivably be linked. If that is the case, I see no reason why we shouldn't respect that. Why does it matter? Respond to what he says, not who you think he is.

[senorsheep]

ETA: I think/hope most people are starting to realize that his tweets are purposefully inflammatory to create distraction from the real issues.

Yep. Another reason it's wise to dismiss them as the irrelevant nonsense that they are.

[cardboardbox]

Heh. I love the drama and mystery surrounding our new poster's identity. It's like when the masked wrestler suddenly shows up on the scene.

I believe Jason indicated some time ago that the original poster in question wished to avoid any professional complications, since his RJ user name and his professional name were the same and could conceivably be linked. If that is the case, I see no reason why we shouldn't respect that. Why does it matter? Respond to what he says, not who you think he is.

come on, he says he's new here and doesnt know any lawyers.

[senorsheep]

What I am willing to do (that sheep is apparently not willing to do) is to separate the message from the messenger. If you tell me that President Trump is wrong on the immigration ban because a) it is a bad idea on the merits, b) because he didn't consult the appropriate officials in his own government, and c) because he did so by executive order, I believe I should consider each of your arguments on its merits. To me, it would be irrational to consider Argument (a) and (b), but not to consider Argument (c) because you did not object so some executive order issued by President Obama. It would be equally irrational for me not to consider one of your arguments because you are a habitual liar, or a drug addict, or a CNN viewer.

I'm not saying that Argument C should preclude Arguments A & B, just that Argument C is also a very good one in its own right, and one that could prove critical during this administration. If I'm making Argument C to a Trump supporter, I think it legitimizes my case if I was consistent and made the same argument against the previous president.

[DMT]

With 2 GOP Senators announcing they won't support her nomination (Murchowski and Collins), things just got dicey for DeVos to be named Education Secretary. She now needs all the rest of the GOP to affirm her nomination.
She is the one appointee that I have the most severe reservations about--I am hoping President Trump asked her to step aside or that at least one other GOP Senator votes no.

Sen Flake's Tucson office is answering their phones: 520.575.8633