
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Moderators: $iljanus, LawBeefaroni
Exactly. How many times do we have to see one of his proclamations via tweet go unimplemented because his staffers just ignore it? Why would anyone fear consequences anyway? The man has the attention span of a gnat. He won't remember these slights especially if they are under the covers and don't get big press.hepcat wrote: Tue Sep 04, 2018 9:50 pm I would be inclined to agree with you if there wasn’t mounds of evidence in Trump’s past that that kind of thing is normal in his world.
Only the best and greatest vipers.Zaxxon wrote:I get that the administration is a den of shameless vipers, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to credibly report the goings-on within. Like, much of serious reporting is done.
GungHo wrote: Tue Sep 04, 2018 7:16 pmI don't have Twitter but I read it fairly often and there was a tweet from Brit Hume of Fox who says (paraphrasing) 'And the never trumpers think there shouldn't be 'good people' working in the Administration. Good thing there are(RE: them stopping trump from doing epically stupid shit).'
The mental gymnastics required to arrive at that conclusion based on the facts (as reported by Woodward) is pretty much insane.
Instead of trying to score political points for 'the base' wouldn't it be much better, not to mention less convoluted, to simply say, 'sounds like we have a guy who isn't fit to be prez'?
i.e. It's contagious.
EDIT:
https://twitter.com/brithume/status/1037027289224146945
He says it better (worse?) than I could...
Jesus. Even Fox is saying "Hey, be glad we have adults around to stop this guy"Brit Hume, Fox Politics wrote:Woodward’s accounts of chaos and dysfunction in the Trump WH suggest he has been repeatedly restrained by advisers from his most reckless impulses. And to think there are never-Trumpers on the right who think good people should not serve this president. Good thing they do.
I don't have trouble believing that Kelly thinks that Trump is dumb as a sack of rocks. I have trouble believing that Kelly is willing to continually tell people how stupid Trump is, while remaining in the job, working as Chief of Staff for a goddamn dolt.
Every four years, I think, they ask more than a hundred historians to rank the presidents based on "Presidential Greatness" and Trump came in dead last this year. I expect (and dearly hope) he's going to bear out in that place for a very - very long time. If someone bumps him up, the world is probably literally on fire.Malificent wrote: Wed Sep 05, 2018 8:42 am It occurred to me today that Trump might legitimately be the worst President in our history.
We've had corrupt Presidents before. We've had incompetent Presidents before. But Trump hits the trifecta. Corrupt, incompetent, and anti-American values. It's honestly kind of impressive.
At least we're living in interesting times, right?
I'd be curious when he thinks those "old days" were when we "used to throw them out" happened. I can only assume he's referring to civil rights protesters, in which case...that's seriously fucked up.On Tuesday, he took his attacks on free speech one step further, suggesting in an interview with a conservative news site that the act of protesting should be illegal.
Trump made the remarks in an Oval Office interview with the Daily Caller hours after his Supreme Court nominee, Brett M. Kavanaugh, was greeted by protests on the first day of his confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill.
“I don’t know why they don’t take care of a situation like that,” Trump said. “I think it’s embarrassing for the country to allow protesters. You don’t even know what side the protesters are on.”
He added: “In the old days, we used to throw them out. Today, I guess they just keep screaming.”
I thought they did throw a lot of the more disruptive protestors out yesterday. Does he mean sending in dogs and riot cops?Skinypupy wrote: Wed Sep 05, 2018 9:09 am Trump thinks it's "embarrassing that we allow protesters".
I'd be curious when he thinks those "old days" were when we "used to throw them out" happened. I can only assume he's referring to civil rights protesters, in which case...that's seriously fucked up.On Tuesday, he took his attacks on free speech one step further, suggesting in an interview with a conservative news site that the act of protesting should be illegal.
Trump made the remarks in an Oval Office interview with the Daily Caller hours after his Supreme Court nominee, Brett M. Kavanaugh, was greeted by protests on the first day of his confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill.
“I don’t know why they don’t take care of a situation like that,” Trump said. “I think it’s embarrassing for the country to allow protesters. You don’t even know what side the protesters are on.”
He added: “In the old days, we used to throw them out. Today, I guess they just keep screaming.”
I'm going to go with yes. Yes he does.LawBeefaroni wrote: Wed Sep 05, 2018 9:20 am I thought they did throw a lot of the more disruptive protestors out yesterday. Does he mean sending in dogs and riot cops?
It is pretty reasonable to assume that they don't care too much about democracy any longer. They pretty much care about making sure rich, white people are in power.GreenGoo wrote: Wed Sep 05, 2018 9:16 am How on earth has free speech become a conservative sticking point? I get that when we do it it's free speech, when they do it it's a crime mentality, but it's a basic tenet of America, and one of the most important ones.
I'm surprised by anyone surprised by the lack of Republican push back. You can't generate pushing force without a spine.I'm not surprised Drumpf is against it, he doesn't like criticism. What I am surprised by is the lack of push back from his own side of the aisle. I mean, free speech IS America, at least when foreigners look at it. No one does it better than America.
Running__ | __2014: 1300.55 miles__ | __2015: 2036.13 miles__ | __2016: 1012.75 miles__ | __2017: 1105.82 miles__ | __2018: 1318.91 miles | __2019: 2000.00 miles |
Let's pretend it is is only 50% surrendered - is that any better? The big problem isn't the politicians. They are spineless but they are also backed by a very broken electorate that has pretty much polarized to an extent that they'll support these views no matter what. You can't help but wonder if there is an inflection coming where things go to really bad. We are on very thin ice.GreenGoo wrote: Wed Sep 05, 2018 10:07 am I'm not willing to accept that Republicans have completely surrendered any semblance of what it means to be an American.
Please sue Donald. For godsakes sue. It'd be amazing what'd unlock. What's great is he has gotten burned by the courts...countless times...but still doesn't get it. What a fucking moron.stessier wrote: Wed Sep 05, 2018 10:08 am Ahhhhhh, there it is.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 9199177728
Spoiler:
That was my thought, too. No one is going to ever even try to take this to court due to the radioactive fallout that would follow. Everyone will deny, of course, but no one will ever try to sue - meaning the denial is hollow.malchior wrote: Wed Sep 05, 2018 10:13 amPlease sue Donald. For godsakes sue. It'd be amazing what'd unlock. What's great is he has gotten burned by the courts...countless times...but still doesn't get it. What a fucking moron.
Yes, of course it's better. It's like, 50% better.
I'm not so sure he is aware.Zaxxon wrote: Wed Sep 05, 2018 10:29 am The interesting part about Trump's libel comments is that I'm pretty sure looser libel laws would hurt Trump as much as help him. Like, he's aware that he makes knowingly false statements of fact regarding others on pretty much a daily basis, right?
Note that he didn't specify to loosen them. He just wants them "changed." Presumably to make any statement that the President doesn't like illegal. Or maybe to find in favor of the loudest asshole.Zaxxon wrote: Wed Sep 05, 2018 10:29 am The interesting part about Trump's libel comments is that I'm pretty sure looser libel laws would hurt Trump as much as help him. Like, he's aware that he makes knowingly false statements of fact regarding others on pretty much a daily basis, right?
I'm so torn I believe in my heart of hearts the GOP needs to be dismantled but there are people in GOP saving us for the GOP too many people obviously want.GungHo wrote: Tue Sep 04, 2018 7:16 pm
EDIT:
https://twitter.com/brithume/status/1037027289224146945
He says it better (worse?) than I could...
Screw that, the party is rotten and needs to be chucked. The Dems too. The current dominant two-parry paradigm is just broken. We can start over with the Muzzlegumps and the Swangerfroods for all I care, we just need to wipe the slate.LordMortis wrote: Wed Sep 05, 2018 11:11 amI'm so torn I believe in my heart of hearts the GOP needs to be dismantled but there are people in GOP saving us for the GOP too many people obviously want.GungHo wrote: Tue Sep 04, 2018 7:16 pm
EDIT:
https://twitter.com/brithume/status/1037027289224146945
He says it better (worse?) than I could...
LawBeefaroni wrote: Wed Sep 05, 2018 11:25 am
Screw that, the party is rotten and needs to be chucked. The Dems too. The current dominant two-parry paradigm is just broken.
If you're talking parties then I agree but I'm sure what the price is to get there at this point.We can start over with the Muzzlegumps and the Swangerfroods for all I care, we just need to wipe the slate.
That's the fear...The tree of liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time
The next breed will be straight-up wearing their corporate sponsorships on their jackets.LawBeefaroni wrote: Wed Sep 05, 2018 11:25 am
Screw that, the party is rotten and needs to be chucked. The Dems too. The current dominant two-parry paradigm is just broken. We can start over with the Muzzlegumps and the Swangerfroods for all I care, we just need to wipe the slate.
The tree of liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time with the career change of entrenched, lazy, leeching politicians.
I know it is fatalistic but the rub is that the SCOTUS almost always sides with Corporations over the citizenry. We can spend tons of time reforming it and see it all struck down again. Especially with Kavanaugh. Kennedy at least threw bones to the individual (often even!) but indicators say that'd be a failure long-term with the court as it was much less as it will be.Holman wrote: Wed Sep 05, 2018 2:32 pmThe next breed will be straight-up wearing their corporate sponsorships on their jackets.LawBeefaroni wrote: Wed Sep 05, 2018 11:25 am
Screw that, the party is rotten and needs to be chucked. The Dems too. The current dominant two-parry paradigm is just broken. We can start over with the Muzzlegumps and the Swangerfroods for all I care, we just need to wipe the slate.
The tree of liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time with the career change of entrenched, lazy, leeching politicians.
What's needed is a massive overhaul of campaign finance and lobbying disclosure laws. Then let's see who decides to stick around--the worst offenders will bolt immediately.
It only gets worse - far worse - from there.The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.
I would know. I am one of them.
To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.
But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.
That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.