Judge rules against Trump in records dispute with Congress (house of representatives, politician, party)

[TEPLimey]

Originally Posted by itshim

I suppose the 'deph' of ignorance between what someone who routinely clouds their capabilities with what they see on Rachel Maddow and when that same person has the time to run to a message board is roughly less than an hour these days.

Anyway, the NYT's made this specific point:
I guess, that very same someone who haphazardly throws in "talking points" and "procedural history" doesn't realize that one doesn't have to look at the DOJ's talking points to refute their ignorance--they can just do that from a simple newspaper.

Anyway, continue

This post is a bit of an incoherent word salad but it appears you seem to believe that the non-issuance of the stay was a victory for Trump. The opposite is true. Take it from someone who read the Memorandum Decision itself.

[wrecking ball]

Originally Posted by O.R.I.O.N

For LEGITIMATE REASONS....they don't have any.

and that's your subjective opinion, my opinion is that the reasons are legitimate.


but it doesn't matter, as the judge pointed out it's not the courts job to make that determination.

[DaBurgh]

Another day another hoax

[Partial Observer]

Originally Posted by itshim

I suppose the 'deph' of ignorance between what someone who routinely clouds their capabilities with what they see on Rachel Maddow and when that same person has the time to run to a message board is roughly less than an hour these days.

Anyway, the NYT's made this specific point:
I guess, that very same someone who haphazardly throws in "talking points" and "procedural history" doesn't realize that one doesn't have to look at the DOJ's talking points to refute their ignorance--they can just do that from a simple newspaper.


Anyway, continue

Sorry, maybe I should have been more clear. You said "They aren't going to comply with this judges [sic] stay." The only stay that the judge issued was a brief 7-day stay to appeal his ruling. So if the Trump administration doesn't "comply with this judges [sic] stay," then it means that they have decided not to use the time to appeal the ruling.

Is that what you're advocating, or did you just do a poor job communicating your understanding of what you read?

That's a rhetorical question. You can just respond with something quippy, like "Ur liberal tears are delishes."

[Timmyy]

Originally Posted by DaBurgh

Another day another hoax

What is the hoax? Can you let us all in on the joke?

[itshim]

Originally Posted by Partial Observer

Sorry, maybe I should have been more clear. You said "They aren't going to comply with this judges [sic] stay." The only stay that the judge issued was a brief 7-day stay to appeal his ruling. So if the Trump administration doesn't "comply with this judges [sic] stay," then it means that they have decided not to use the time to appeal the ruling.

Is that what you're advocating, or did you just do a poor job communicating your understanding of what you read?

That's a rhetorical question. You can just respond with something quippy, like "Ur liberal tears are delishes."

I'm not sure your ignorance on where I stood on this could have been any less clear. You're pretending to read and interpret a new point, to simply avoid where you were wrong in the first place with the original point, and then you haphazardly throw in "somthin quippy" while pretending to make a follow up point by calling it a "rhetorical question" as if you had anything 'rhetorical of substance' to add. You can't make this stuff up lol!

[Partial Observer]

Originally Posted by itshim

I'm not sure your ignorance on where I stood on this could have been any less clear. You're pretending to read and interpret a new point, to simply avoid where you were wrong in the first place with the original point, and then you haphazardly throw in "somthin quippy" while pretending to make a follow up point by calling it a "rhetorical question" as if you had anything 'rhetorical of substance' to add. You can't make this stuff up lol!

Good point. I'm sure this all sounds better in your head. In the future, I'll try to read it the way you mean it, instead of reading the actual words you write.

[itshim]

Originally Posted by TEPLimey

This post is a bit of an incoherent word salad but it appears you seem to believe that the non-issuance of the stay was a victory for Trump. The opposite is true. Take it from someone who read the Memorandum Decision itself.

who said anything about this being a "victory?" The word salad--is in your brain.

[itshim]

Originally Posted by Partial Observer

Good point. I'm sure this all sounds better in your head. In the future, I'll try to read it the way you mean it, instead of reading the actual words you write.

I'd rather you just 'read' something, anything, rather than responding.

Thanks in advance.

FYI, Rachel Maddow comes on in about 15 minutes, if you can't catch that, then Don Lemon comes on in about an hour

[TEPLimey]

Originally Posted by itshim

who said anything about this being a "victory?" The word salad--is in your brain.

More than one poster has told you that your post was incoherent, but it’s all in everyone else’s head.