Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 20 Oct 2017 9:27 pm » wrote: Here's what most of the board knows from history, and the rest can read between the lines.

1. You don't have the chops to ask the question that will make me duck.
2. The only "questions" of yours that I have ignored were either rhetorical or dishonestly premised.
3. You run from me in every thread we both post in. You never answer challenges or acknowledge refutations.
4. I have run you OFF THE BOARD several times. The most recent time, you were so humiliated that you came back as a new poster, so your old posts wouldn't be rubbed in your face.

You are a gnat, boy.

Termin8tor » 20 Oct 2017 9:52 pm » wrote:
Oh my!

**** you and your endless lies and ****.

.

Termin8tor » 20 Oct 2017 9:54 pm » wrote:
.

Here's the glorious Obama Economy you stupidly defended.

.

.

Cannonpointer » 20 Oct 2017 9:54 pm » wrote:Hey, moron. Psst.

ACCORDING TO YOUR SOURCE, REAGAN BARELY EDGED CARTER.

Cannonpointer » 20 Oct 2017 9:56 pm » wrote:Again, ****, your chart proves that Carter was barely, barely edged by reagan - and it also proves that johnson beat reagan's ***, and so did clinton.

So you have been LYING all of these years, ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN SOURCE, you ignorant ***.

Termin8tor » 20 Oct 2017 10:03 pm » wrote:
Hey Dim, Carter took a moderately healthy economy and drove it into the ground.

Reagan took that collapsing economy and turned it into an historic boom.

That isn't exactly a secret, imbecile.

Cannonpointer » 20 Oct 2017 10:06 pm » wrote:That's not what your chart shows, DIM.

Cannonpointer » 20 Oct 2017 10:06 pm » wrote: Your chart shows Reagan barely edging Carter, who inherited a crashing economy

Termin8tor » 20 Oct 2017 10:04 pm » wrote:
Hey Dim, what Clinton policies brought about that strong economy?

I'll wait.

But we both know you lack the courage and knowledge to answer.

Termin8tor » 20 Oct 2017 10:09 pm » wrote:
As I've shown repeatedly, Carter inherited a moderately health economy.

Liar.

Termin8tor » 20 Oct 2017 10:08 pm » wrote:
Yes, it takes a little knowledge to know how incompetent Carter was on the economy, Dim.

Knowledge you obviously lack.

When are you going to admit you were stupidly wrong when you praised Obama's economic performance?

Answer; you're a liar and a troll.

Cannonpointer » 20 Oct 2017 10:11 pm » wrote:And Reagan inherited an economy that created more jobs per year than his own - but he ducked it up.

Cannonpointer » 20 Oct 2017 10:12 pm » wrote:When are you going to admit that Carter's economic performance was in a dead heat with reagan's - and that both Johnson and Clinton wiped the floor with the old stooge?

Termin8tor » 20 Oct 2017 10:13 pm » wrote:
What specific Clinton policies brought about the strong economy?

Answer; you're a liar and a psychotic.

indago » 20 Oct 2017 4:56 pm » wrote:
And it will certainly make a correction...

Misty » 20 Oct 2017 8:17 pm » wrote: Yeah. The head of Cult45 said some of them were good people.

Trump personally interviewed U.S. attorney candidates.

One potential nominee would have jurisdiction over Trump Tower and be in a position to investigate the Trump administration.

President Donald Trump has personally interviewed at least two potential candidates for U.S. attorney positions in New York, according to two sources familiar with the matter — a move that critics say raises questions about whether they can be sufficiently independent from the president.

Trump has interviewed Geoffrey Berman, who is currently at the law firm Greenberg Traurig for the job of U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Ed McNally of the firm Kasowitz Benson Torres for the Eastern District post, according to the sources.

It was unclear when the discussions took place.

Trump has not announced nominees for those positions.

Neither Berman nor McNally responded to calls or emails requesting comment.

The White House did not deny that Trump had personally conducted the interviews with those two candidates.

A White House official noted: “These are individuals that the president nominates and the Senate confirms under Article II of the Constitution.”

“We realize Senate Democrats would like to reduce this President’s constitutional powers,” the White House official said.

“But he and other presidents before him and after may talk to individuals nominated to positions within the executive branch.”

The Southern District of New York is an especially notable position since it has jurisdiction over Trump Tower.

Preet Bharara, the former U.S. attorney there, has said he had been told that Trump would keep him on despite the change in administrations.

Yet he was among those abruptly fired by Trump in March.

“It is neither normal nor advisable for Trump to personally interview candidates for US Attorney positions, especially the one in Manhattan,” Bharara tweeted Wednesday.

It is rare for a president to interview candidates for the 93 U.S. attorney jobs.

Former President Barack Obama never interviewed a U.S. attorney candidate during his two terms, according to Matthew Miller, who served as Justice Department spokesman under the Obama administration.

But documents submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year showed Trump met with Jessie Liu, the candidate for U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, earlier this spring as she was being interviewed for the federal prosecutor post.

Liu has since been confirmed, but not without questions from Democrats.

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein raised concerns that she had personally met with Trump before she was nominated to the position that would be in charge of investigating the Trump administration.

"To be very blunt, these three jurisdictions will have authority to bring indictments over the ongoing special counsel investigation into Trump campaign collusion with the Russians and potential obstruction of justice by the president of the United States,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said in an interview Thursday.

“For him to be interviewing candidates for that prosecutor who may in turn consider whether to bring indictments involving him and his administration seems to smack of political interference."

Blumenthal asserted during an oversight hearing with Attorney General Jeff Sessions earlier this week that Trump had interviewed candidates in New York, although he did not go into details.

During the hearing, the Connecticut senator noted that it would be “quite unusual” for the president to get involved.

Sessions did not say whether Trump had personally talked to candidates for the New York position.

"I’m not sure I remember whether he had interviewed for New York, but if you say so, I assume so," Sessions told Blumenthal.

"And he has the right to, for sure, because he has to make an appointment, and I assume that everybody would understand that."

Berman, a partner at the law firm at which Trump ally Rudy Giuliani works, is considered by some in the administration to be a favorite for the job. Trump hasn't commented on whom he prefers.

But Trump, who has shown a keen interest in the position, has asked for updates on the post in recent weeks that would signify he hasn't made up his mind, one administration official said.

And Trump's relationship with Marc Kasowitz at McNally’s firm has proved uneven since this summer, when Kasowitz left his job leading the president's legal team.

White House Counsel Don McGahn has led the process for the U.S. attorney jobs, one of these people said, and has huddled with Trump at least once every week to talk about openings.

Other U.S. attorneys who have been nominated to posts around the country do not appear to have had similar interviews with Trump, according to Democrats who have been asking that of all nominees.

“The U.S. attorney for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York — like the U.S. attorney for Washington D.C. — would have jurisdiction over many important cases, including those involving President Trump’s personal and family business interests,” Feinstein said in a statement Thursday.

She added: “There’s no reason for President Trump to be meeting with candidates for these positions, which create the appearance that he may be trying to influence or elicit inappropriate commitments from potential U.S. attorneys. U.S. attorneys must be loyal to the Constitution — not the president.”

U.S. attorneys are also subject to the “blue-slip process,” meaning home-state senators could try to unilaterally block a nominee moving forward.

For the New York position, Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand would be the ones giving the green light for the nominee to advance.

Hear Trump’s judge pick admit he discriminates against gay people.

President Donald Trump’s nominee to become a district judge in Texas admitted that he discriminates based on sexual orientation. But he didn’t think that should prevent him from serving on the federal bench.

“Guess what? I attend a conservative Baptist church. We discriminate, alright. On the basis of sexual orientation, we discriminate,” Jeff Mateer said during a speech to the National Religious Liberties Conference in 2015, long before Trump nominated him.

At the time, Mateer was general counsel for the conservative legal organization First Liberty Institute.

“Does that mean I can’t be a judge? In some states, I think that’s true, unfortunately.”

That remark is just one of many that Mateer — who’s currently the first assistant attorney general in Austin, Texas — made during a pair of speeches at the conference. In them, Mateer provided a roadmap for businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ people without legal repercussions.

In the two speeches — titled “Seven Things Every Christian Employee Should Know” and “Are You Ready? Protecting Your Church or 501(c)(3) Ministry” — Mateer also said the Constitution doesn’t mandate the separation of church and state and that diversity training “brainwashes” people into accepting the LGBTQ lifestyle.

Citing both speeches, 36 LGBTQ advocacy organizations sent a letter to the Senate on Tuesday demanding that its members vote down Mateer’s nomination.

His comments, the letter states, “disqualify” him from public service.

The American Civil Liberties Union provided VICE News with audio of both speeches, which we’ve included below.

While the content of the “Seven Things” speech has been previously reported, we highlighted notable moments from both talks that don’t appear elsewhere.

Neither Mateer’s office nor the organizers of the National Religious Liberties Conference responded to VICE News’ request for comment.

“Trump has been attacking LGBT people’s civil rights in the workplace, the military, and schools,” the ACLU’s political director Faiz Shakir said.

“Mateer’s nomination raises further concerns that this administration is intent on reversing hard-fought progress for equality.”

Prayer meetings “need” to be happening in the Department of Justice

You know the attorney general of the United States under George W. Bush was a guy named John Ashcroft.

And John Ashcroft had Bible studies and prayer meetings in the Department of Justice.

I don’t think they’re doing that anymore [laughs]. But they need to be.

Diversity training is “brainwashing” and “reprogramming”

… [T]he federal government right now has a lot of mandatory diversity training .… But it is nothing less than brainwashing with the Left’s agenda on LGBT.

So we’re encouraging federal employees to exercise their religious liberty rights and ask for an accommodation.

“I don’t wanna attend your diversity training because it violates my religious beliefs.”

They have a federal-law right to not be, to participate. … Really, it’s what they call “reprogramming” in order to convince them that something that they know is wrong is right.

There’s no reason an employee has to sit through that.

The “separation of church and state” is “nowhere” in the U.S. constitution

I would bring a $100 bill and I would say, “Alright, first person” — and everybody has their iPhone — and I would say “first person to find in the Constitution the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ gets this $100 bill” .… And you know what — and everybody knows that, right? — that phrase isn’t in the U.S. Constitution. It’s nowhere.

(Misty: The words "separation of powers” or “checks and balances” are not in the Constitution either, but no one doubts that those are accurate descriptions of concepts that the text and structure of the Constitution includes.)

Mateer wishes he could eat every meal at Chick-fil-A

Shouldn’t Ford be about making better automobiles rather than advancing a social cause?

And I think Wells Fargo’s the same way. I mean, look, how many of us have accounts at Wells Fargo?

How many of us drive Fords? I mean, we can’t eat every meal at Chick-fil-A.

The Supreme Court needs Evangelical Christians

We need a Republican president who does a good job of appointing people who believe the way we do.

You know on the U.S. Supreme Court today — there are nine, obviously — how many Evangelical Christians are on the U.S. Supreme Court? Zero.

Justice Scalia points that out in his opinion in Obergefell.

How many protestants are on the U.S. Supreme Court? Zero.

“Honest conviction” lets employers discriminate

If you’re an employer, you’re a business person, what you need to demonstrate is you have an honest conviction concerning this belief.

So how do you do that?

You do it the way Hobby Lobby did it. You have documents.

And Hobby Lobby gives us a roadmap for protecting business persons.

It’s not going to be good enough when you call me and you own — uh, let’s take an example, a bed and breakfast.

I don’t know why I would use that. You own a bed and breakfast. And you have some beliefs about, uh, let’s just pick a random topic, like same-sex marriage or same-sex couples. And you have beliefs about that.

Now can you, your place of public accommodation, can you restrict to just married couples of the opposite sex?

I’d submit to you, I’d submit to you, if you don’t have a written policy, the answer is probably not.

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court ruled that religious liberty allows some companies to avoid providing birth control against Obamacare’s mandate.
In Mateer’s view, the same logic would likely apply to businesses that don’t want to serve gay clients.

Gay marriage is unconstitutional

And of course, in Obergefell, the Supreme Court found, in a 5-4 decision, with Justice Kennedy adding the fifth vote on this one, found that somewhere lurking in the 14th Amendment, unknown to any lawyer for decades since its adoption right after the Civil War, somewhere in there, is a right, a fundamental right for two people of the same sex to marry.

There’s no honest attorney, no honest constitutional scholar, that would say that this decision [Obergefell] stands on its rationale.

In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court ruled that, under the 14th Amendment, states can’t keep gay people from getting married.
Some conservatives, including Mateer, think that the court inserted protections for gay people into the 14th Amendment, which doesn’t specify protections based on sexuality.

Churches should be able to endorse candidates

This is a little closer to the line, so everyone here recognizes that, the IRS’ line — which I believe is unconstitutional, by the way.

So if there’s a pastor here who wants to endorse a candidate — I was gonna try to think of one, a third one — O’Malley, who wants to endorse a candidate, I actually think you’d have a constitutional right to do so, and I don’t think — I’m waiting for the IRS to battle that.”

Trump has taken aim at the Johnson Amendment — which prevents nonprofits, including churches, from endorsing candidates and making contributions to campaigns — through an executive order that asked the IRS not to enforce the amendment.

LGBTQ-friendly workplaces force Christians to approve of their policies

Let me give you a side note: If you work for a big company and they unveil a new LGBT policy, I probably wouldn’t comment on it. ’Cause they’re not asking you to comment on it.

What they want you to say is, “This is wonderful.”

Gay marriage is a “challenge” for Christians

It’s people like you, people who are in their churches, who are now being told, I have to do this, or do I have to do this.

Do I have to marry same-sex couples? Do I have to allow a same-sex couple to use my facility?

Do I have to admit, at our Christian school, do I have to admit a same-sex couple’s child.

Challenges after challenges, all in light of [the] Obergefell [decision].