The Former Trump Presidency Thread

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:47 pm

pr0ner wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:44 pm
LordMortis wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:07 pm If find myself in agreement. This may be a first.

“I don’t think anyone can argue it’s probably one of the most successful first years in office.”
-SHS
How can you agree with that quote??

It would depend on his definition of what qualifies as a success.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:50 pm

pr0ner wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:44 pm
LordMortis wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:07 pm If find myself in agreement. This may be a first.

“I don’t think anyone can argue it’s probably one of the most successful first years in office.”
-SHS
How can you agree with that quote??

SHS doesn't understand words.

What she wanted to say is "I don’t think anyone can deny..."

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:54 pm

pr0ner wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:44 pm
LordMortis wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:07 pm If find myself in agreement. This may be a first.

“I don’t think anyone can argue it’s probably one of the most successful first years in office.”
-SHS
How can you agree with that quote??

Because no one can credibly argue that it's been a successful year.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:01 pm

Not sure how it's to be read.

"No one can argue it’s probably one of the most successful first years in office.”
meaning - the argument (successful first year) cannot be made by any one.

or

"No one can argue... it’s probably one of the most successful first years in office.”
meaning - it (successful first year) is so clear, no one can argue against it.

?

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:04 pm

She clearly meant to say that no one could argue against the point that it's the most successful first year, but it was poorly stated. Not really her fault - how is she supposed to know that clear communication is an important element of her job?

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:05 pm

pr0ner wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:44 pm
LordMortis wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:07 pm If find myself in agreement. This may be a first.

“I don’t think anyone can argue it’s probably one of the most successful first years in office.”
-SHS
How can you agree with that quote??

I don't think anyone can argue it's probably one of the most successful first years in office. Every time I've seen someone try they, instantly change the subject to the democrats failing to vote for the right things in Congress or "The Clinton's did it." Soon, they will have one tool in their belt which will be TRUMPeted, tax code "reform" but this reason won't be true so the premise won't be valid so they can't argue it (reasonably, which kinda sorta the whole purpose of arguing). I will accept that you can argue "it is probably one of the most successful first year in office" in the same way you can argue a water molecule contains 7 atoms of hydrogen.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:08 pm

I think Holman got it right, she definitely meant "deny".

But are we really parsing the language of someone who makes ridiculously false statements so very often? To me, at least, her speech has no meaning, whether she uses the correct words or not. Utterly irrelevant.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:52 pm

I could care less.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:59 pm

Kraken wrote:I could care less.

Do it, I dare you.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:05 pm

I love how he sent an cease and desist to the publisher of the book. I think the next thing will be Trump burning copies in the front lawn of the White House. It honestly wouldn't surprise me at this point.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:34 pm

I wish a reporter would ask Trump "Which amendment to the Constitution do you hate the most?" Because he would totally take that bait.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:48 pm

Kraken wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:34 pm I wish a reporter would ask Trump "Which amendment to the Constitution do you hate the most?" Because he would totally take that bait.

You know I love the first amend, I could say something bad about the first amendment. It's treated me so unfairly but I won't I love it's a great amendment it should really apologize to me though, the worst rated amendment in the history of Declaration of Independence, I mean we are the party of Lincoln. I have zero respect for the Amendment, I think the news is overrated.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Jan 04, 2018 4:08 pm

Trump addressed today's press conference via video screen.

He was just rooms away in the White House at the time but was obviously scared to take questions from the press.

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Thu Jan 04, 2018 4:25 pm

Sanders looks utterly bored in that picture.

In other news, someone on CNN today said that Bannon is considering suing Trump for defamation.

https://twitter.com/ErikWemple/status/9 ... 7948275718

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:49 pm

Wolff's story on how he wound up with inside White House access is amazing. And somehow entirely unsurprising at the same time.

I interviewed Donald Trump for The Hollywood Reporter in June 2016, and he seemed to have liked — or not disliked — the piece I wrote. "Great cover!" his press assistant, Hope Hicks, emailed me after it came out (it was a picture of a belligerent Trump in mirrored sunglasses). After the election, I proposed to him that I come to the White House and report an inside story for later publication — journalistically, as a fly on the wall — which he seemed to misconstrue as a request for a job. No, I said. I'd like to just watch and write a book. "A book?" he responded, losing interest. "I hear a lot of people want to write books," he added, clearly not understanding why anybody would. "Do you know Ed Klein?"— author of several virulently anti-Hillary books. "Great guy. I think he should write a book about me." But sure, Trump seemed to say, knock yourself out.

Since the new White House was often uncertain about what the president meant or did not mean in any given utterance, his non-disapproval became a kind of passport for me to hang around — checking in each week at the Hay-Adams hotel, making appointments with various senior staffers who put my name in the "system," and then wandering across the street to the White House and plunking myself down, day after day, on a West Wing couch.

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:10 pm

El Guapo wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:49 pm Wolff's story on how he wound up with inside White House access is amazing. And somehow entirely unsurprising at the same time.

Exactly what I expected, and yet somehow still horrifying.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:05 pm

What I find interesting is hearing Trump's defenders disparaging Wolff by saying that he didn't follow the journalistic standards (#fake news!) and pointing out some tweets from MSM journalists who have cast some doubt on some of his stories/quotes. All of sudden they appeal to the MSM and it's standards! What a bunch of hypocrisy.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:09 pm

Skinypupy wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:10 pm
El Guapo wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:49 pm Wolff's story on how he wound up with inside White House access is amazing. And somehow entirely unsurprising at the same time.
Exactly what I expected, and yet somehow still horrifying.

It just goes to the show the utter incompetency and disorganization of this WH that they would allow a guy like this to basically wander unfettered interviewing all sorts of people.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:15 pm

Grifman wrote:What I find interesting is hearing Trump's defenders disparaging Wolff by saying that he didn't follow the journalistic standards (#fake news!) and pointing out some tweets from MSM journalists who have cast some doubt on some of his stories/quotes. All of sudden they appeal to the MSM and it's standards! What a bunch of hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy indeed. Kind of like how OMG STATES' RIGHTS the GOP/Trump club is. Unless it's states' rights to, say, legalize marijuana. Or police their vehicle emissions. Or manage their voter info. Or do anything they don't like, really.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:55 pm

Grifman wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:09 pm It just goes to the show the utter incompetency and disorganization of this WH that they would allow a guy like this to basically wander unfettered interviewing all sorts of people.

On the plus side there aren't any allies/competitors that are motivated to spy on the US government and simply use this disorganization to their advantage. Especially not with the much improved international diplomatic relations this administration has pushed from the very beginning.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:57 pm

Stupid Watergate + No Integrity + Amateur President !

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:34 pm

https://twitter.com/ashleyfeinberg/stat ... 1363547142

Sepiche · Post by **Sepiche** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:20 am

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... ald-trump/

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:53 am

Grifman wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:09 pm
Skinypupy wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:10 pm
El Guapo wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:49 pm Wolff's story on how he wound up with inside White House access is amazing. And somehow entirely unsurprising at the same time.
Exactly what I expected, and yet somehow still horrifying.
It just goes to the show the utter incompetency and disorganization of this WH that they would allow a guy like this to basically wander unfettered interviewing all sorts of people.

Fake news...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 0839572481

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:02 am

"Sloppy Steve"? I expect better from Trump in terms of dismissive nicknames, frankly.

tjg_marantz · Post by **tjg_marantz** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:40 am

Zero.

Capital Z.

The biggest zero.

Kurth · Post by **Kurth** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:04 am

Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse, this extract from Wolff’s book is a shocking insight into Trump’s mind:

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:11 am

Our entire government is one big member of the Church of Moronism.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 6:09 am

Kurth wrote: Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:04 am Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse, this extract from Wolff’s book is a shocking insight into Trump’s mind:

Spoiler:

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:52 am

Max Peck wrote: Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:53 am
Fake news...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 0839572481

I love this because it means we'll hear Wolff's tapes.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:57 am

malchior wrote: Fri Jan 05, 2018 6:09 am
Kurth wrote: Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:04 am Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse, this extract from Wolff’s book is a shocking insight into Trump’s mind:

Spoiler:
Good thing I clicked that link. I was sick at the thought it was plausible...well except for that transmission tower part...

Sometimes "satire" is counterproductive. This is one of those times.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:02 am

It would help if it was actually funny.

Sounds like something a third grader would tell and laugh at.

Chaz · Post by **Chaz** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:33 am

Kind of like bad pictures of Hillary.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:35 am

BENGHAZI!!!!

Ooops, sorry. Reflex.

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:36 am

Rip wrote: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:02 am It would help if it was actually funny.

Sounds like something a third grader would tell and laugh at.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:39 am

Chaz wrote: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:33 am Kind of like bad pictures of Hillary.

Meh, some are funny and some aren't just like pictures of Trump. I love those ones replacing him with the wax figure from Disney.

I love some Trump mocking as much as Clinton or Obama mocking.

The funny or not isn't really a matter of who is being mocked or made fun of.

Chaz · Post by **Chaz** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 11:12 am

Rip wrote: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:39 am
Chaz wrote: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:33 am Kind of like bad pictures of Hillary.

Meh, some are funny and some aren't just like pictures of Trump. I love those ones replacing him with the wax figure from Disney.

I love some Trump mocking as much as Clinton or Obama mocking.

The funny or not isn't really a matter of who is being mocked or made fun of.

So you're saying that when everyone told you repeatedly that posting bad pictures of Hillary wasn't actually funny, you agreed, then kept doing it anyway? Huh.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 11:42 am

Chaz wrote: Fri Jan 05, 2018 11:12 am
Rip wrote: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:39 am
Chaz wrote: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:33 am Kind of like bad pictures of Hillary.

Meh, some are funny and some aren't just like pictures of Trump. I love those ones replacing him with the wax figure from Disney.

I love some Trump mocking as much as Clinton or Obama mocking.

The funny or not isn't really a matter of who is being mocked or made fun of.
So you're saying that when everyone told you repeatedly that posting bad pictures of Hillary wasn't actually funny, you agreed, then kept doing it anyway? Huh.

He expected a different result.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:27 pm

https://www.snopes.com/picture-soldier-family-killed/

It's not the truth but the spirit of what is meant by the truth or whatever the hell is was SHS says when the Propagander-in-Tweet communicates.

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:51 pm

Trump's latest judiciary nominee for Utah thinks gay judges shouldn't hear LGBT cases.

Neilson represented the plaintiffs in Hollingsworth v. Perry,133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013), defending Proposition 8, which would have banned same-sex marriage in California.

- After the district court, in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010), ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, Nielson filed a Motion to Vacate the judgment. Nielson’s motion argued that the judge, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, a Reagan appointee, “had a duty to disclose not only the facts concerning his [same-sex] relationship, but also his marriage intentions.”

- Nielson’s motion reflected the rhetoric of certain right-wing groups. The American Family Association said that it was “extremely problematic that Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual himself. He should have recused himself from this case, because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity.” Conservative activist Tony Perkins specifically said that Judge Walker’s decision was compromised by the fact he is “openly homosexual.”

- Nielson argued, in attempting to vacate the judgment, that only if Judge Walker had “unequivocally disavowed any interest in marrying his partner could the parties and the public be confident that he did not have a direct personal interest in the outcome[.]”

The best people. Just the best.