Facebook > Email > More Pinterest Print Twitter Play

Texas Republican Calls White House Inauguration Claims ‘Indefensible’

State senator Konni Burton says conservatives shouldn’t just reflexively defend Trump administration.

By Comments

Konni Burton
Photography by Bob Daemmrich

State Senator Konni Burton isn’t exactly a lefty elitist. In fact, the faith-based Republican from Colleyville won office with the help of the Northeast Tarrant County Tea Party. But this weekend she warned fellow conservatives to not just buy into the Trump Administration as a mindless embrace of Republican politics.

In response to White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s tirade against the news media over the number of people who attended Donald Trump’s inaugural, Burton wrote: “Y’all Spicer made refutable claims in that press conference. If you’re on the right don’t just go to ur corner & defend the indefensible.”

burton one

She also re-tweeted someone else’s post that said: “I call this ‘The Bannon Effect’, where you hate something so much, you become exactly like it to fight it.” Burton, who hasn’t been shy about criticizing Trump, wrote in reply, “This is so true. It’s something I’ve seen and thus realized myself.”

Spicer’s news conference was so far off base that a Washington Post headline read: Sean Spicer held a press conference. He didn’t take questions. Or tell the whole truth. The main issue was news media photos comparing the size of the Trump inauguration crowd with that of President Obama’s first inaugural. In the Obama photo, the National Mall is jammed with people, but not for the Trump swearing-in. The comparison was made because Trump claimed to have the largest crowd ever. “Photographs of the inaugural proceedings were intentionally framed in a way, in one particular tweet, to minimize the enormous support that had gathered on the National Mall.” Spicer also complained about an erroneous pool report from a Time reporter stating that Martin Luther King’s bust had been removed from the Oval Office when it had not been. The error was quickly corrected, but Spicer wouldn’t let it go. “Some members of the media were engaged in deliberately false reporting,” he said. “This was irresponsible and reckless.”

Burton also had some words for the media. She wrote the media should have done “fact checking” before reporting the MLK bust story. She also ripped reporting on the Women’s Marches that occurred around the country on Saturday. The Women’s March was about women’s rights to control their own bodies and reproduction, opposition to Trump’s Administration, and an outcry against misogyny that was promoted during the campaign against Democrat Hillary Clinton. The size of the Women’s Marches was notable, not only around the country but internationally. An estimated 7,000 people marched in Dallas, and an estimated 5,000 to 6,000 people were at the Tarrant County Courthouse in Fort Worth. Another 50,000 people jammed the streets of downtown Austin. KHOU reported that 20,000 marched in Houston.

But Burton, an opponent of abortion, criticized organizers of the Women’s March on Washington for ejecting a feminist group that opposes abortion and claimed a media “#narrative” denigrated people who oppose abortion by calling them “anti-abortion” instead of “pro-life.” She retweeted a woman who observed, “Women’s March has 200,000 people? Media slobber. March for Life has 650,000 people? Media yawn. This is why the right hates the media.”

Related Content

  • donuthin2

    Interesting. I will have to be a little more open minded about Senator Burton.

    • St. Anger

      she is just as full of it as ever. just playing a role, just like trump. hers is “honest broker.”

  • donuthin2

    Wonder where all of the critics of President Obama’s executive orders are hiding. Seems that Pres. Trump has a propensity for them. Not well thought out, but he is doing them. I guess when they go wrong he will say he never intended them to be taken literally.

  • WUSRPH

    Burton will certainly be attacked for rejecting “alternative facts but it is good to see that she understands how Trump’s need to always be number one can destroy his credibiliy.

    • WUSRPH

      Some will remember a press secretary who evenntually had to declare all his prior statments “inoperable”. The way Trump’s began suggests that some day he may have to say something similar.

    • St. Anger

      “Burton will certainly be attacked for rejecting “alternative facts””

      while offering some of her own!

  • St. Anger

    “She retweeted a woman who observed, “Women’s March has 200,000 people? Media slobber. March for Life has 650,000 people? Media yawn. This is why the right hates the media.””

    this example is telling but not for the reasons she says.

    the right hates the media because the media has the power (if not always the will) to point out that both those numbers are incorrect, and in the predictable directions.

    ironic, given the topic of the article, innit?

    • SpiritofPearl

      Don’t know which march she means, but the DC march was estimated at 1.2 million.

      I agree that the anti-choice women should have been allowed to participate.

      • St. Anger

        “participate” or “co-sponsor”?

        everything i read said everyone was welcome.

        this is about a group being removed from the list of sponsoring organizations. whether they should have been removed from that list or not i won’t try to judge.

        but those women certainly weren’t barred from showing up and participating in the actual event.

        i think it would clarify the conversation to be explicit about the difference.

        • SpiritofPearl

          I agree, but the caveat still remains. If anti-choice marchers participated because of the sponsorship, friction might occur, but those marchers must accept the outcome.

          • jake

            The pro life feminist group in question was never told it was an anti-life march and it was not until later that the organizers said groups needed to be pro choice groups to be co sponsors.

          • SpiritofPearl

            It wasn’t an “anti-life” march. It was a pro-woman march with all positive complexity that entails.

          • jake

            Yes it was pro woman, and one of those complexities was being anti life and not allowing pro life to participate as a co-sponsor.

          • SpiritofPearl

            You’re trying “alternative facts” here. Doesn’t work with me. Blocking you.

          • jake

            No I’m not, just reporting what happened. Not very progressive of you to just block out things you don’t like. But if you can call a pro-life group as anti choice, than I can call a pro-choice march as anti-life.

          • jake

            And the organizers did tell new wave feminist, a pro life feminist group, that they could not participate because they were pro life. This has been reported by all major news organizations.

          • jake

            Apologies, I meant to say co sponsor instead of participate. They were never told they could not participate, just that they would not be a sponsor.

          • John Johnson

            Don’t debate Pearl; she is a waste of time. She got her hand slapped and got kicked off this site a few months back for being nothing more than a mud slinging, angry rant’er. Now she chooses to foolishly stick her head in the sand when anyone pointedly disagrees with her. Feel free though to continue to comment on her posts as I do on occasion. By her blocking and not reading your posts, you don’t have to put up any longer with her blathering retorts.

          • BCinBCS

            And even if the march was about abortion it would not have been a “anti-life” or “pro-life” demonstration, it would have been “anti-choice” or “pro-choice“.

          • SpiritofPearl

            Bingo! Give that man a cigar.

          • jake

            saying it is pro choice or anti choice is no different than my comment that it is pro life or anti life. Anti Choice is only used to try and disparage the idea of pro life. The reason pro life and pro choice were selected (the terms I actually prefer to use) are because they both signify the basic principle that each group believes is the central issue. One group honestly believes it is about life, and the other group honestly believes it is about choice. By changing those words it appears that you are refusing to listen to alternative points of view and taking a bigoted stance on the issue. Anti-choice, as with anti-life, implies that one is against the next word, and thus does not adequately explain the situation. People who are pro life are pro choice on a host of reasons, just as those who are pro choice are anti choice on a host of reasons. If you must use the anti and pro wording, why would you not use anti-abortion and pro-abortion?

          • jake

            I think NPR uses anti-abortion and abortion rights, also a term I would find factual and fitting instead of trying to use words as a covert way to support or disparage someones fundamental felt views on an issue.

          • BCinBCS

            saying it is pro choice or anti choice is no different than my comment that it is pro life or anti life. Anti Choice Life is only used to try and disparage the idea of pro life choice. The reason pro life and pro choice were selected (the terms I actually prefer to use) are because they both signify the basic principle that each the anti-choice group believes is the central issue. One group honestly believes it is about life, and the other group honestly believes it is about choice. [I agree with that statement.] By changing those words it appears that you are refusing to listen to alternative points of view and taking a bigoted stance on the issue. [And yet in all of your comments, you used the derisive pro- and ant-life description.] Anti-choice, as with anti-life, implies that one is against the next word, and thus does not adequately explain the situation. People who are pro life are pro choice on a host of reasons, just as those who are pro choice are anti choice on a host of reasons. If you must use the anti and pro wording, why would you not use anti-abortion and pro-abortion? [So why didn’t you?]

            FIFY

          • jake

            I was trying to point out the ridiculousness of labeling everyone who thinks differently as “anti-choice” by doing the exact same thing. Please notice you also mentioned it is not pro life but anti choice in your post.

            I certainly understand the absurdity of doing it on a message board this way, and take responsibility for that. As you see it got me blocked from someone who was upset that I used that term, yet had no problem using anti-choice. Honestly I do not believe my point would be made otherwise. I did use both pro choice and anti life in both of my comments.

            It sounds like we may be closer in agreement than I thought?

            I 100% believe that if we could not use words or labels to attack another position, we could have better dialogue on actually understanding our differences on issues. If I need to apologize behalf on the misguided and rude pro lifers who refer to those who are pro choice as murders so be it, I apologize for that unnecessary language, and will continue to let them know when I hear it that it is not acceptable and does not help dialogue on the issue.

            We will have to disagree that saying one is pro-life is derisive, as I mentioned I think it explains what those believers think the issue is about. But if you think it creates a connotation that if one is not pro-life than they are anti-life, I would certainly consider that argument. I would be happy to use pro-abortion (or abortion rights) and anti-abortion, especially around those you use the same, but I will call out the hypocrisy and bigotry of using anti-choice when I see it.

          • BCinBCS

            Yes, jake, I do agree with you. I did not realize that you were using pro- and anti-life as examples of the polarization that happens. I was using pro- and anti-choice as as a counter to what I perceived as your polarized position. Pro- and anti-abortion is the proper terminology to use.

          • St. Anger

            “Pro- and anti-abortion is the proper terminology to use.”

            no it isn’t. very few or no people are “pro” abortion. but many see abortion as better than the other available alternatives under certain circumstances.

  • rakohlin

    I think it is probably true that there were less people at the inauguration of President Trump than to the first inauguration of President Obama. I can name over 70 Democratic legislators that were proud to not be there for President Trump’s oath of office. I was not at either. I did not vote for President Obama either time, however, after the 2008 election I said that although I did not agree with most of President Obama’s policies I will accept the fact that he has been duly elected by the citizens of this country and support him when I can. I have heard very few Democratic party leaders and even fewer members express that sentiment. If fact, just the opposite. Ranging from Congressional Minority Leaders Pelosi and Schumer, to the elitists of Hollywood, they have vowed to obstruct President Trump at every opportunity they can. What a wonderful country we have become.

    • St. Anger

      maybe if you had been in congress instead of the republicans you elected, you could have done more than they did to preserve the legitimacy of our institutions (like the presidency) and comity in government and society in general.

      but since republican officials, media figures, and voters have actively and intentionally undermined their own government every step of the way for the past eight years especially and for decades in general (even if you didn’t personally), it’s a bit late (and totally off target) to start complaining about it now.

      plus, you overlook the differences in specifics. it may be relevant that trump SHOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT, by any just measure of a functioning representative government.

      • rakohlin

        “Should not be president”, I guess the fact he was duly elected has little meaning since YOU have decided he should not be President. If you want to blame someone for the election of Donald J Trump, blame yourself and those with the same attitude you reflect. for the past eight years, the left has been continually forcing untenable policies down the throat of many Americans with a more conservative belief, using the excuse of “hey, we know better” or simply because they could do it, giving little regard to institutions the more conservative believed in. Well, as Newton’s third law states, “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” President Trump is the reaction. He is excessive because the left has been excessive in its demands. So when anyone asks who elected President Trump, be sure to raise you hand, because all I did was vote for him in the general election, you and those like you did much more during his campaign to ensure his election.

        • José

          Dude, don’t blame Trump on us. It makes you look silly. He is the responsibility of the minority of American voters who marked his name on their ballots. Man up and own him.

          • rakohlin

            I am NOT disavowing President Trump. I will gladly say to all “he is MY President”. I am not BLAMING President Trump on you I am simply trying to point out that he was not caused in a vacuum. The left does not like him, the Republican establishment does not like him; the only support comes from “fly-over” America that felt neither party represented their interests. So that is fine Jose, keep on denying and throwing fits while we on the right will keep on running your state AND your country for you; I certainly don’t want to return to road President Obama was leading us down.

          • José

            Disavow, blame, cause, whatever. You want to bring us into it. Leave us out of it. We want neither credit nor blame.

            Trump has boasted that he will turn things around. I’m afraid that he’s right. Anyone who looks at the numbers should be worried.

        • St. Anger

          unless “duly elected” means “chosen by a process corrupted and rendered unconstitutional by international enemies, private organizations, and US law enforcement” then i would have to agree, it does have “little meaning.”

    • José

      “What a wonderful country we have become.”
      Um, when do you think that happened? In the last few weeks and days or, just perhaps, about eight years ago?

      • rakohlin

        You are, of course, correct Jose. I did not mean to give the impression that this is something that sprung up in the last few days. I agree with you totally that eight years ago we elected a President that started us down a road to divide our country and lead it back to the pre-civil rights days of the 50’s and 60’s.

        • SpiritofPearl

          No, you just chose a crazy man who will destroy our progress. Enjoy your coming impoverishment.

          • rakohlin

            Good, I want what you call “progress” destroyed. Eight years of President Obama has led to a country I do not care for.

          • SpiritofPearl

            Why? Because you’re a right-wing revanchist?

        • José

          You know, that is technically true. Obama was the trigger. But that’s not to say that he was responsible. Obama’s politics were reasonably moderate for a Democrat and his message was one of unity and mutual respect. His agenda was exactly what he proposed in the campaign, the one that the voters selected by a clear and decisive margin. We can only speculate why Congressional Republicans decided to embark on their petty, hateful, selfish, and destructive policy of obstruction and denial. Sad to say, racial prejudice is the most obvious reason for the unwarranted demonization of this decent man. I haven’t heard any other plausible explanation.

          I guess you could argue that since the Republicans were going to bring the nation to a standstill with Obama even though we were engaged in two shooting wars and coping with an economic meltdown it would have been better to let a Republican be President instead. But that would be giving in to the terrorists, wouldn’t it?

          • John Johnson

            See the WaPo piece yesterday on Obamas unkept promises vs kept?
            Catch the Frontline documentary on the defining mistakes he made only a few months after being in office? Well produced; well presented.

          • BCinBCS

            Well said, José.

        • BCinBCS

          …eight years ago we elected a President that started us down a road to divide our country and lead it back to the pre-civil rights days of the 50’s and 60’s.

          You think that President Obama created a new crop of 50’s and 60’s racists?

          I don’t know where you live but where I live, the racists never left, they simply decided that a black president was a bridge too far and overtly demonstrated the racism that was covertly festering.

          • John Johnson

            No…it was a black president sending a black rabbble rousing racist as his emissary to a race riot in Ferguson that did it for me. I then realized that we had a racist sitting in the Oval Office.

          • BCinBCS

            JJ, you simply will not let that canard go. He sent Al Sharpton one time to one protest and you want to paint his entire presidency with that one drop.

          • John Johnson

            No, sir…that was just the proverbial straw. Lots of other examples. Go watch the Frontline documentary covering his Presidency. While not all they address is critical of him, there was enough positive reenforcement of my views to make me feel very comfortable with the positions I have taken regarding him.

    • WUSRPH

      The night of Obama’s first inauguration in 2009 a group of GOP leaders sat down at a dinner in Washington DC and emerged with an agreement that the GOP would oppose any and all proposals made by the new president with the goal of making him a one-term president. They “honored” that pledge for 8 years…..What a wonderful country we became that night.

      • rakohlin

        What a wonderful story. Are you part of the Hollywood elite that makes up fiction, or part of the media that passes along unsubstantiated stories.

        • SpiritofPearl

          Have you been hiding in a nunnery the last eight years?

        • WUSRPH

          Sorry, but this was substantiated many times….sorry you don’t want to believe it….but then you would prefer the world of “alternative facts”.

          • José

            Further substantiated by the actions of the GOP. If there has ever been more obstruction with less justification I haven’t seen it.

        • BCinBCS

          “As President Barack Obama was celebrating his inauguration at various balls, top Republican lawmakers and strategists were conjuring up ways to submarine his presidency at a private dinner in Washington.

          The event — which provides a telling revelation for how quickly the post-election climate soured — serves as the prologue of Robert Draper’s much-discussed and heavily-reported new book, Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives.

          According to Draper, the guest list that night (which was just over 15 people in total) included Republican Reps. Eric Cantor (Va.), Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), Paul Ryan (Wis.), Pete Sessions (Texas), Jeb Hensarling (Texas), Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) and Dan Lungren (Calif.), along with Republican Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), John Ensign (Nev.) and Bob Corker (Tenn.). The non-lawmakers present included Newt Gingrich, several years removed from his presidential campaign, and Frank Luntz, the long-time Republican wordsmith. Notably absent were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) — who, Draper writes, had an acrimonious relationship with Luntz.

          For several hours in the Caucus Room (a high-end D.C. establishment), the book says they plotted out ways to not just win back political power, but to also put the brakes on Obama’s legislative platform.

          ‘If you act like you’re the minority, you’re going to stay in the minority,’ Draper quotes McCarthy as saying. ‘We’ve gotta challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign.’

          http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1451642083/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1451642083&linkCode=as2&tag=slatmaga-20

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/republicans-had-it-in-for-obama-before-day-1/2012/08/10/0c96c7c8-e31f-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_blog.html

  • John Johnson

    My Dist 10 senator, Konni Burton is a died in the wool Cruz fan; she wants to move home rule to Austin; she unfriends you if you disagree with her on FB or her website; she dances to whatever tune Texans for Lawsuit Reform or Empower Texans is singing; she is Patrick’s water carrier, and she has had her sights set on D.C. or higher state office since she first won her state senate seat. She thinks Tarrant County’s public/private partnerships with Corps like General Motors, American Airlines, Lockheed, Facebook, FedEx, TR Horton, the Rangers, Cowboys and others are bad deals …”corporate welfare”, “picking winners and losers” (which she got from Cruz). I can’t imagine what this area would look like if she had her way. Fort Worth might truly still be a cowtown.

    I can only hope that these local corporations she likes to rail against, and all the local city officials, will join together with other local power brokers to start a PAC, find someone to run against her, and send her packing. She has gotten way too big for her britches.

    • WUSRPH

      But those kinds of deals ARE “Corporate welfare”…..whether they are good ideas is another question…but she’s right about what they are and what they do…..Her position is that of a classical conservative…..not one of your modern “business conservatives” whose motto is “All I want from government is a fair advantage.” The classical conservative view is that the government should maintain conditions that make business possible……NOT finance it thru tax subsidies and abatements.

      • John Johnson

        Well, Professor…I am all onboard for outlawing corporate welfare in any form. Always have been. But it has to be a federal law. It cannot be passed just in Texas. Where do you think all the Tarrant County corporations I named would be today if Texas offered no incentives and Florida, SC, Georgia, NV and others were? This has been my point all along.

        • WUSRPH

          I have probably been ahead of you on that point for more than 20 years ever since I attended a conference of state govt. fiscal officers where we discussed the practice of “buying” jobs from other states which was then in its early phases. We all agreed that all it did was transfer jobs from one state to another, creating only a few new jobs in the process and that fiscally it made little sense. Of course, we also all agreed that our bosses would not be able to resist the pressure from the Chamber of Commerce types so that, bad policy that it is, it would happen anyway. The only federal law that could stop it would probably be one that removed any IRS tax advantages but that is very, very unlikely ESPECIALLY since Trump apparently wants to use a federal version of this system to finance his “infrastructure” economic stimulus program. He’s talking about as much as ONE TRILLION in these kinds of arrangements financed by federal tax concessions.

          • John Johnson

            That move will not be supported by me anymore than my feelings about Burton’s current overreach. I’ve asked her to explain if she thought companies like American Airlines would stay in Fort Worth after she told me that the city had no business negotiating with them after they announced they wanted to build a new corporate structure and needrd some concessions to remain here and do so. Her answer was a flat out “no”.

          • WUSRPH

            She is then one who is willing to accept the consequences of her actions…Of course, there is also the old tactic of being pure and standing by your principles when you know that it will not make any difference….since the deal is going to happen with our without your support.
            It is always easier to stand on principle when it has no bad consequences.

          • John Johnson

            No disrespect meant, but I just don’t think she is all that politically knowledgeable or astute. Personably? Yes…but she seems to use trite terms coined by others way too often, and follow Dunn’s dictates to the max. He has big plans for her.

          • jake

            It will be a New New Deal.

            Not sure a federal law could do anything, but I may be ignorant on this portion of tax law. Since most of the benefits they receive are actually breaks on property taxes (although the sports teams are a different story) would the federal government be able to outlaw how a state administers their tax code? Even if they COULD, would they do something that many would claim is an attack on state’s rights?
            I would like to find some smart ways to limit corporate welfare however.

          • WUSRPH

            Probably the only ban would be some wild interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause that would give the feds some power over moving jobs from one state to another…..but that would be s t r e t c h i n g. Of course, the commerce clause has been stretched pretty far in the past for many things.

            You know it is kind of funny that Trump talks about foreigners stealing our jobs….but apparently does not mind if one state steals them from another. Most those “lost” apparel industry jobs from the Southeast were originally stolen by New England as the owners went south where they could pay lower wages. They then went to Mexico and from there to who knows where…….The same thing is happening now because of these kinds of incentive programs.

          • jake

            50 states all trying to enact protectionism policies, could be interesting, but let’s hope that never happens!

    • Unwound

      She sucks

  • BCinBCS

    “That was the largest audience to witness an inauguration, period.” – Sean Spicer at his first press conference Saturday, January 21, 2017.

    When called on this whopper of a lie, Presidential Counselor Kellyanne Conway stated to NBC’s Chuck Todd that “…Sean Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts…”

    Alternative facts?!?

    Is this the kind of George Orwell 1984 thinking on which Comrade Trump will rely during his administration?

    Just for the record here are some “fact” facts:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8c8c667099691d41836118831e0bc6ca891c3737e94b30e20b094310832e5471.jpg
    Photograph during President Obama’s First Inauguration Ceremony

    .
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ec644b1f61aceb342a7b853ac3985dce881f77aad3f197eb3149703d15e32939.png
    Photograph during Comrade President Trump’s First Inauguration Ceremony

  • BCinBCS

    Ya know, I kinda hate to keep ragging on JJ’s admonition to “just wait and see” when it comes to Comrade Trump but I must point out yet another example of The Comrades astute business acumen that he is bringing to the White House. After a so-so Republican National Convention, Comrade Trump tried, once again, with his inauguration. It turned out about as good as the convention – that is to say, not that great.

    Vast open sections of the Mall and many empty seats during the parade showed lack of support and lack of adequate planning on the new administration’s part. Couple this with the diminished number of Presidential Balls and you get what amounts to a mediocre inauguration.

    But, there is a bright side. The Grifter-in Chief did raise record amounts of money to put on this “spectacle”. Below is a chart with his and historic amounts raised:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/31e6e063a85555dbfa1aeacb1ed8609e4573d123375919c155ab5c1b776f6a49.jpg

    Let’s hope that he didn’t refuse to pay the vendors.

    • John Johnson

      He won the Presidency. What about that do you not understand. What difference does it make how many show up at the inauguration or who entertains or how many “balls” there were? It seems you do. Those who elected him do not. You make me chuckle. You remind me of my four year old grandson. He can throw a really good fit for no real reason, too.

      • BCinBCS

        Speaking of four year olds, the reason that I mention it is because your president, Comrade Trump, is having a four day hissy-fit about it rather than attending to the business of running the country.

        • John Johnson

          You must not be watching the news or reading the headlines. Heard about the meetings he has been conducting? Please get up to speed. You’re ass is showing.

          • BCinBCS

            Apparently you have not been reading the news, he was complaining about the attendance figure as late as yesterday. It was a major feature in the first pressor. I haven’t checked the news for today but I wouldn’t be surprised if it came up again. our blind bias is showing.

          • BCinBCS

            Heard about the meetings he has been conducting?

            Yea, I have. As a matter of fact at the reception for congressional leaders Comrade Trump upped the ante by ranting about how he would have won the popular vote except for the 3 to 5 million illegal votes cast in the election. This is despite the fact that virtually no confirmed cases of voter fraud have been found, let alone three to five million of them.

          • SpiritofPearl

            “Alternative facts” . . .

  • BCinBCS

    Finally a little bit of good news for democracy in Texas.
    From Reuters:

    “The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal by Texas seeking to revive the state’s strict Republican-backed voter-identification requirements that a lower court found had a discriminatory effect on black and Hispanic people.

    The justices let stand a July 2016 decision by a lower court that found that the 2011 Texas statute ran afoul of a federal law that bars racial discrimination in elections and directed a lower court to find a way to fix the law’s discriminatory effects against minorities.”

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-voters-idUSKBN1571YS?il=0

    • SpiritofPearl

      They’ll try again after a SCOTUS replacement brings to the court to nine.

  • John Bernard Books

    Give me Sen Burton over Dem Rep Dwana Dukes anyday….
    Sen Shumer to Sen Cotton, “where were 8 years ago?” Sen Cotton to Chuckie, “I was in Afghanistan getting my a** shot off while you were helping shove obamacare down our throats.”
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/542719f1bc6863cb8aa05cf5d7a9e4f8948cfab72330a3ccce14fc2d8ef796d3.jpg

  • bk

    I so enjoyed the spanking Spicer gave the media, I have seen and witnessed the many times were media has injected innuendo, speculation, and imagination into stories that should have been factual and concise. Who what when why and where used to be included in the facts of a story, now it’s hard to tell where the true factsour and our reporters opinion ends. thank God for this whole Trump administration.

    • SpiritofPearl

      Actually Sean Sphincter, as he was known at UConn, was apoplectic at the first presser. He got real nice the second time around.

      Trump will kill us all. You go first.

    • BCinBCS

      bk, I see that the lying and misinterpretation did not stop with Spicer.

    • Thank Lucifer, maybe. But God’s Will has absolutely nothing to do with this Trumplethinskin and his fascination with the number 666. Just do a search. Trump LOVES that number!

      Top five Donald Trump eerie 666 connections:

      1. Trump Tower is on 666 Fifth Avenue, New York City

      2. The Tower also happens to measure 666 feet tall

      3. Trump inherited his grandmother’s real estate empire when she died on June 6, 1966 = 6-6-6

      4. The billionaire tycoon announced his candidacy for president on June 16, 2015 = 6 + (1×6) + (1+5) = 6-6-6

      5. And the year 2016 when he won the US election = 666+666+666+6+6+6

  • SpiritofPearl
  • John Bernard Books

    Why do dems lie…..
    Obama’s approval ratings only higher than 3 presidents.
    “It puts him ahead of only Gerald Ford (47.2 percent), Jimmy Carter (45.5 percent) and Harry Truman (45.4 percent).”
    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/479-obama-had-lower-average-approval-rating-nixon-or-bush

    While Obama’s approvals were higher than Carter’s it is well known he was a worse prez….

    • Asher B. Garber

      Why do Cons think anyone takes them seriously?

    • uxixi

      An “average approval rating” is hardly a good marker to judge a president. According to that George HW Bush had higher approval than Ronald Reagan, which regardless of your political opinion I think we can all agree Reagan was the more successful president.

      Every party lies, because every party has people who try to tell the truth and liars. The more someone claims “the truth” the more likely they are to be liars.

  • SpiritofPearl
    • BCinBCS

      The incredible, eye opening take-away of the article is:

      So the overall picture is this: The Trump administration trusts neither its own appointees nor its own supporters, and is creating a situation where that lack of trust is reciprocal. That is of all things a strategy for getting things done, and these first one hundred days are going to be a doozy.

  • BCinBCS

    For those of you still interested in the continuing saga of the fate of Obamacare, the latest GOP replacement plan comes from Senators Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Susan Collins of Maine. According to the New York Times article:

    Under the proposal, the ‘Patient Freedom Act of 2017’ says that states could stay with the Affordable Care Act, or they could receive a similar amount of federal money, which consumers could use to pay for medical care and health insurance. ‘We are moving the locus of repeal to state government,’ Mr. Cassidy said. ‘States should have the right to choose.’

    Terrific. The Dems will hate it because it eliminates Obamacare from the red states and the Repubs will hate it because it doesn’t repeal it in the blue states. I foresee a bumpy road ahead for the Patient Freedom Act of 2017.

    • SpiritofPearl

      “Freedom to Suffer and Die in Poverty Act” is more accurate.

      Republicans want you to die, but they want your money first.

    • BCinBCS

      While poking around trying to get more information on the Patient Freedom Act of 2017, I came across a court ruling in the Aetna Insurance merger case. You might remember that Aetna wanted to merge with Humana and threatened the Obama DoJ that they would pull out of the Obamacare insurance market if their merger was not approved. The merger was disapproved and Aetna pulled out of eleven of its fifteen ACA markets claiming that it did so because it was losing money in them.

      The court ruling came down and the judge has ruled that Aetna lied about their profitability in order to gain leverage in the merger decision. Here is what the L.A. Times reported:

      Aetna claimed this summer that it was pulling out of all but four of the 15 states where it was providing Obamacare individual insurance because of a business decision — it was simply losing too much money on the Obamacare exchanges.

      Now a federal judge has ruled that that was a rank falsehood. In fact, says Judge John D. Bates, Aetna made its decision at least partially in response to a federal antitrust lawsuit blocking its proposed $37-billion merger with Humana. Aetna threatened federal officials with the pullout before the lawsuit was filed, and followed through on its threat once it was filed. Bates made the observations in the course of a ruling he issued Monday blocking the merger.

      Aetna executives had moved heaven and earth to conceal their decision-making process from the court, in part by discussing the matter on the phone rather than in emails, and by shielding what did get put in writing with the cloak of attorney-client privilege, a practice Bates found came close to ‘malfeasance’.”

      So many people used Aetna’s action as proof that the ACA was not working and now we discover that it actually was working as advertised.

      I’m brokering bets on the likelihood that Attorney General Jeff Sessions will bring contempt and/or extortion charges against Aetna for pulling this stunt. Anyone willing to bet that he will take legal action?

      • SWalkerTTU

        Instead of betting that Sessions would take legal action, it would be better to just mail you a check. Same outcome, either way.

      • txasslm

        Aetna’s decision to withdraw may look like a response to the legal problem with the merger but the truth is that financial problems with the exchange business well preceded Aetna’s apparent
        threat that it would really pull out if the merger were not approved. It would be impossible to prove but it is more likely that Aetna, knowing it was pulling out of the market and having decided to merge with Humana, thought it would try to pull a fast one on the regulators and scare them into approving the deal. It just didn’t work. Aetna’s original and biggest reason for pulling out of the market was because it was unprofitable. Trying to get its merger approved and the machinations it went through to do so were secondary.

  • SpiritofPearl
  • donuthin2

    And EPA stopped dead in its tracks, Media shut out, pipelines completed and wall built. Are we making progress or what?

    • Yeah, progress towards extinction. Don’t you dare call me a “climate change alarmist”. Serious scientists just adjusted the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight because of Trump’s Policies.

  • John Plunkett

    I could give a crap about who had more people or any of the other mindless unimportant stuff everyone is fussing about. I voted for Trump as I was definitely against clinton. However, yes, he will be watched to see what he does.
    I do have hope.