During a Tuesday hearing at the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, the DOJ urged a three-judge panel to issue an emergency stay of a lower court order and allow the Trump administration’s deployment of the California National Guard to continue in Los Angeles — going so far as to argue a president’s federalization of militia can’t be second-guessed by the courts, even if the chief executive mobilized forces from all 50 states and Washington, D.C., simultaneously.
You’re shifting previous statements to work around my arguments instead of directly refutting them. You said this, within the context of unconditionally supporting the people doing it. What am I supposed to take from that other than “the important thing is winning at all costs”? Are you seriously trying to make the argument that you can win by lying, like that’s some sort of new information to anyone in the world anywhere? If so, forgive me for being confused by the sheer stupidity of the argument.
So you do understand part of what I’m saying, but not all of it. Yes, you can win with lies and you can win with the truth. You can also lose with either of them. Whichever way you go, you have to do it convincingly. Trump was convincing in his lies, and won. Kamala wasn’t, and didn’t. Does it do you any good to tell the truth unconvincingly in politics? This isn’t a criticism of truth, it’s a criticism of messaging and perception.
Riveting. I’m on the edge of my seat here with these revolutionary new ideas.