The Former Trump Presidency Thread

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:40 pm

Okay, how about "consistently scheduled"?

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 2:37 pm

Chicken.

GungHo · Post by **GungHo** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 2:47 pm

Isgrimnur wrote: Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:32 pm Who needs press briefings?

President Trump on Tuesday said he directed White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders to stop holding regular briefings, citing unfair treatment by the news media.

“The reason Sarah Sanders does not go to the ‘podium’ much anymore is that the press covers her so rudely & inaccurately, in particular certain members of the press,” Trump tweeted. “I told her not to bother, the word gets out anyway!”

Which chapter in the 'How to Subvert Democracy in 10 Easy Steps' by vladimir putin, does he recommend cutting off access to the media?

It really is shockingly easy to drown in the swamp isn't it?

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:09 am

Gizmodo

President Donald Trump’s social media accounts are filled with vile racism, idiotic xenophobia, and inaccurate statistics. And now we can add another category to the list: fake photos.

In recent months, Trump’s official Facebook and Instagram accounts have published photos of the president that have been manipulated to make him look thinner. If it only happened once you might be able to chalk it up as an accident. But Gizmodo has discovered at least three different retouched photos on President Trump’s social media pages that have been published since October of 2018.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:27 am

Reminiscent of Castro and Mao Tse Tung. I remember in the 60's when they photo shopped a picture of Mao's head onto a river to show that he was "swimming."

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:51 am

Isgrimnur wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:09 am Gizmodo

President Donald Trump’s social media accounts are filled with vile racism, idiotic xenophobia, and inaccurate statistics. And now we can add another category to the list: fake photos.

In recent months, Trump’s official Facebook and Instagram accounts have published photos of the president that have been manipulated to make him look thinner. If it only happened once you might be able to chalk it up as an accident. But Gizmodo has discovered at least three different retouched photos on President Trump’s social media pages that have been published since October of 2018.

As you can see in the comparison above, Trump’s right shoulder has been slimmed down and his face is looking thinner. He’s also gotten a haircut—well, a digital one anyway—and in one of the strangest alterations, Trump’s fingers have been made slightly longer. Seriously.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:02 pm

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:05 pm

Giving the finger takes on a whole new meaning.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:23 pm

WaPo

Former White House press secretary Sean Spicer, who was lampooned on “Saturday Night Live” for his combative daily press briefings, on Wednesday defended the White House’s decision to all but do away with them.

During an appearance on Fox News, Spicer blamed “B-rate” White House reporters for using the televised briefings to get attention.

Wait, who is it that gets to decide who gets White House press credentials?

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:20 pm

Sean Hannity

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:51 pm

Paingod wrote: Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:38 pm

"The Emperor is not now, nor has he ever been, naked in public.

So... fake nudes?

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Jan 24, 2019 9:39 pm

Kushner was denied TS clearance by staff but overruled by political appointee

Jared Kushner's application for a top secret clearance was rejected by two career White House security specialists after an FBI background check raised concerns about potential foreign influence on him — but their supervisor overruled the recommendation and approved the clearance, two sources familiar with the matter told NBC News.

The official, Carl Kline, is a former Pentagon employee who was installed as director of the personnel security office in the Executive Office of the President in May 2017. Kushner's was one of at least 30 cases in which Kline overruled career security experts and approved a top secret clearance for incoming Trump officials despite unfavorable information, the two sources said. They said the number of rejections that were overruled was unprecedented — it had happened only once in the three years preceding Kline's arrival.

Nothing of concern there at all. Foreign influence. Massive uptick in clearances issued over security concerns. The deep state certainly has been really keeping Trump down, amirite?

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Jan 24, 2019 9:41 pm

Blackhawk wrote:
Paingod wrote: Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:38 pm

"The Emperor is not now, nor has he ever been, naked in public.
So... fake nudes?

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Thu Jan 24, 2019 9:52 pm

malchior wrote: Thu Jan 24, 2019 9:39 pm Kushner was denied TS clearance by staff but overruled by political appointee

Jared Kushner's application for a top secret clearance was rejected by two career White House security specialists after an FBI background check raised concerns about potential foreign influence on him — but their supervisor overruled the recommendation and approved the clearance, two sources familiar with the matter told NBC News.

The official, Carl Kline, is a former Pentagon employee who was installed as director of the personnel security office in the Executive Office of the President in May 2017. Kushner's was one of at least 30 cases in which Kline overruled career security experts and approved a top secret clearance for incoming Trump officials despite unfavorable information, the two sources said. They said the number of rejections that were overruled was unprecedented — it had happened only once in the three years preceding Kline's arrival.
Nothing of concern there at all. Foreign influence. Massive uptick in clearances issued over security concerns. The deep state certainly has been really keeping Trump down, amirite?

While this immediately pegs my OUTRAGE meter, I'm making a concerted effort at being more measured in my reactions.

I'd be interested to know if this number of security clearance exceptions and overrules are standard with an incoming administration (which I highly doubt), or if the installation of the Trump Swamp caused a massive uptick.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:02 pm

If a guy who schemed for a back channel to Moscow managed by the FSB can't get a simple top-level White House security clearance, are any of us truly free?

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:10 pm

Holman wrote: Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:02 pm
Putin wrote:If a guy who schemed for a back channel to Moscow managed by the FSB can't get a simple top-level White House security clearance, are any of us truly free? why did we put drumpf in the white house in the first place?

ftfy.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:25 pm

Thread.

https://twitter.com/Zathras3/status/108 ... 58016?s=19

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Fri Jan 25, 2019 8:25 am

Skinypupy wrote: Thu Jan 24, 2019 9:52 pmWhile this immediately pegs my OUTRAGE meter, I'm making a concerted effort at being more measured in my reactions.

I'd be interested to know if this number of security clearance exceptions and overrules are standard with an incoming administration (which I highly doubt), or if the installation of the Trump Swamp caused a massive uptick.

I highly doubt it too and went looking for it. I don't think this is something they publish. Probably could be found out via a FOIA request though. Anyway, I think what likely drove it was the family nepotism element plus the entirely bungled transition. Christie of all people is about to drop a book about his aborted role in the transition and how it drove this endless fountain of incompetence. From what I've seen about it, his theory is they vetted people for 6 months for finances, security clearance pre-checks, etc. That was thrown out entirely and they just rushed through picking Trump loyalists because they didn't want any #NeverTrump people involved. That lead to the cast of incompetents, endless scandals over the last 2 years, and drove away competent people who now didn't want to go near this.

I'm guessing these overrides were driven by that rush to get people in the door more out of pure necessity to be able to get anything done versus nefarious intent. That was all tied in to the Trump tendency to surround himself with people who: are open to kompromat, have ethical problems that should have been known, and were completely unsuited for national government work. This is just another indicator of all that.

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Sun Jan 27, 2019 11:35 am

Border Partrol is frantically trying to find evidence - ANY evidence at all - for Trump’s stories about “women being duct taped and thrown in vans”.

Yeah, this is normal.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sun Jan 27, 2019 3:19 pm

"you can keep your health plan".

GungHo · Post by **GungHo** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 4:25 am

Skinypupy wrote: Sun Jan 27, 2019 11:35 am Border Partrol is frantically trying to find evidence - ANY evidence at all - for Trump’s stories about “women being duct taped and thrown in vans”.

Yeah, this is normal.

That's crazy but the really odd thing about it, to me anyway, was why are they supposedly driving these women INTO the US? I don't doubt that there is human trafficking in this country but it seems like trump would get more political mileage out of a narrative that has 'those dastardly Mexicans stealing our womenfolk' than the other way around.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 9:26 am

And not a peep about the white guy who killed 5 people the other day.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 10:30 am

YellowKing wrote: Mon Jan 28, 2019 9:26 am And not a peep about the white guy who killed 5 people the other day.

Florida or Louisiana?

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 10:44 am

GungHo wrote: Mon Jan 28, 2019 4:25 am
Skinypupy wrote: Sun Jan 27, 2019 11:35 am Border Partrol is frantically trying to find evidence - ANY evidence at all - for Trump’s stories about “women being duct taped and thrown in vans”.

Yeah, this is normal.
That's crazy but the really odd thing about it, to me anyway, was why are they supposedly driving these women INTO the US? I don't doubt that there is human trafficking in this country but it seems like trump would get more political mileage out of a narrative that has 'those dastardly Mexicans stealing our womenfolk' than the other way around.

To be fair, i's not trafficking. They do this for fun, driving around the Mexican desert with kidnapped, duct tape-gagged women in the backs of white panel vans. It's a sport there and we need a wall or this sport will come north. It's all covered in detail on the Gorilla Chanel

TheMix · Post by **TheMix** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 10:45 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Jan 28, 2019 10:44 am It's all covered in detail on the Gorilla Chanel

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 11:26 am

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 4312178688

Howard Schultz doesn’t have the “guts” to run for President! Watched him on @60Minutes last night and I agree with him that he is not the “smartest person.” Besides, America already has that! I only hope that Starbucks is still paying me their rent in Trump Tower!

"Not only am I going to simply rub the fact that I'm violating the emoluments clause in everyone's face, but I'm also going to use it to threaten a potential political opponent as well! WINNING!!"

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 11:36 am

So many things wrong with that tweet, both morally and cognitively.

He's completely broken. Good. Lord.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 11:45 am

It's so cute that he's trying reverse psychology again. (Remember when he briefly pretended to endorse Pelosi for Speaker, hoping it would push Dems away from her?)

And the projection here is hilarious: to Trump, people run for president because someone insults them.

Of course Howard Schultz is just another arrogant billionaire who thinks getting rich makes him the leader America needs. Earlier he complained that we need his brand of centrism because the Dem's dream of universal healthcare is just as bad and unworkable as Trump's wall.

(As several have pointed out on Twitter, Starbucks is a global company that operates in dozens of countries with universal healthcare...)

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 11:52 am

Wait a minute - Starbucks is fascist? Fuck!

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 11:52 am

It makes sense from his world view. He has been told that Schultz probably helps him and believes that goading him into running by bullying him would work...because it'd work on him.

Edit: Holman said it better above!

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 1:13 pm

Oh, hey, now folks are noticing that Schultz's personal wealth is heavily dependent on the continued growth of Starbucks in China.

I'm sure he'll divest of it all and spare not a moment on how his policies affect the success of his life's work, though.

(No more of this shit, please.)

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 4:08 pm

And now, a message from Michael Bloomberg to Howard Schultz:
https://twitter.com/MikeBloomberg/statu ... 1161113602

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 4:45 pm

FWIW Nate Silver's been making the argument on Twitter, which seems reasonable, that it's far from clear that an independent Shultz candidacy would help Trump. Schultz sounds like he would focus mainly on deficit reduction and entitlement program reform, and so seems like he could potentially draw a lot of soft Republican votes from people who are conservative but dislike Trump.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:06 pm

This is a risk management issue IMO. Similar to how the Democrats ran one of the most unpopular but qualified candidates against Trump. The Democrats have to find someone with charisma and the chops to take on Trump. Let's be honest here - the United States is teetering. Any additional parties siphoning away votes or attention from a head to head battle between Trump and the D candidate introduces potential risks with little upside.

Plus Howard is essentially a centrist Democrat. He has supported Democrats for years. While he may steal soft R support, the GOP will intentionally pin D issues onto him and hope they split the vote. And they have a good chance of success because the media will help them do that. The national political press didn't learn from 2016 and is still obsessed with horse race coverage. So sure Nate is right *at the moment*. However, I don't think he looked down the field enough at the whole picture to pick up the inevitable downstream impacts that will occur. In the end, he lives in that horse race world too.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:21 pm

malchior wrote: Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:06 pm This is a risk management issue IMO. Similar to how the Democrats ran one of the most unpopular but qualified candidates against Trump. The Democrats have to find someone with charisma and the chops to take on Trump. Let's be honest here - the United States is teetering. Any additional parties siphoning away votes or attention from a head to head battle between Trump and the D candidate introduces potential risks with little upside.

Plus Howard is essentially a centrist Democrat. He has supported Democrats for years. While he may steal soft R support, the GOP will intentionally pin D issues onto him and hope they split the vote. And they have a good chance of success because the media will help them do that. The national political press didn't learn from 2016 and is still obsessed with horse race coverage. So sure Nate is right *at the moment*. However, I don't think he looked down the field enough at the whole picture to pick up the inevitable downstream impacts that will occur. In the end, he lives in that horse race world too.

I agree that it's a risk management issue. And since Democrats are likely going to enter 2020 as favorites to win the presidency, they have some interest in reducing the number of variables so as to reduce the number of ways that things could go wrong.

However, if he does run, he'll be running as a billionaire white guy focused on the deficit and somewhat hostile to entitlement spending. How many Democratic votes is he really likely to take in 2020? The idea that he'll wind up taking more votes from Trump than from the Democratic nominee seems more likely than not.

Although I think the most likely outcome is that his candidacy craters and he never gets much traction.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:41 pm

El Guapo wrote: Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:21 pmHowever, if he does run, he'll be running as a billionaire white guy focused on the deficit and somewhat hostile to entitlement spending. How many Democratic votes is he really likely to take in 2020? The idea that he'll wind up taking more votes from Trump than from the Democratic nominee seems more likely than not.

I get what the CW says here but I think it is just going to be wrong. Most people don't care about policy at this level. The GOP is going to lead the press into deep dark alleys about how he is a Democrat in disguise. They will lead them by the nose by talking about his contributions in the past and completely avoid the subjects that steal from Trump. In the end, the GOP is just way more effective at message discipline and their spin machine is just flat out better. In the end, my gut says that thinking that he will steal from Trump based on policy positions is magical thinking. Especially after seeing what happened in 2016.

The next election is going to be full out bullshit. For example, Russia is going to double down. They haven't been shy about continuing to use bots to sway opinion. I think Trump is going to scorch the earth. I expect dirty tricks. Heck I expect flat out illegality. As another example, somehow there is a jump ball still in play around the probable tainted election in NC-9. Plus, Trump wasn't in a position to manufacture crises leading up to an election in 2016. He has that power now. It didn't work out in 2018 but I expect they'll do better when more is on the line.

Although I think the most likely outcome is that his candidacy craters and he never gets much traction.

I agree. I don't think their is much appetite for this nonsense right now but who knows what'll happen over the year.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:45 pm

malchior wrote: Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:41 pm
El Guapo wrote: Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:21 pmHowever, if he does run, he'll be running as a billionaire white guy focused on the deficit and somewhat hostile to entitlement spending. How many Democratic votes is he really likely to take in 2020? The idea that he'll wind up taking more votes from Trump than from the Democratic nominee seems more likely than not.
I get what the CW says here but I think it is just going to be wrong. Most people don't care about policy at this level. The GOP is going to lead the press into deep dark alleys about how he is a Democrat in disguise. They will lead them by the nose by talking about his contributions in the past and completely avoid the subjects that steal from Trump. In the end, the GOP is just way more effective at message discipline and their spin machine is just flat out better. In the end, my gut says that thinking that he will steal from Trump based on policy positions is magical thinking. Especially after seeing what happened in 2016.

The next election is going to be full out bullshit. For example, Russia is going to double down. They haven't been shy about continuing to use bots to sway opinion. I think Trump is going to scorch the earth. I expect dirty tricks. Heck I expect flat out illegality. As another example, somehow there is a jump ball still in play around the probable tainted election in NC-9. Plus, Trump wasn't in a position to manufacture crises leading up to an election in 2016. He has that power now. It didn't work out in 2018 but I expect they'll do better when more is on the line.

Although I think the most likely outcome is that his candidacy craters and he never gets much traction.
I agree. I don't think their is much appetite for this nonsense right now but who knows what'll happen over the year.

I dunno. I think there's a tendency to attribute magical functioning to the GOP and Trump after 2016, which involved a lot of luck on their part. If they could spin straw into gold message wise, they wouldn't have lost the House (and by a lot). And if regardless of whether we're talking policies or identity / cultural issues, I really just don't think there's any significant appetite for Shultz among Democrats / leftists.

We'll see. Schultz potentially running makes me nervous, but not all that worried.

Paingod · Post by **Paingod** » Tue Jan 29, 2019 10:12 am

What we need is more Ranked Choice voting. It works in other countries, and worked in Maine recently. Pissed off the Republicans, sure, but anything that makes more votes count generally does.

I think it would really encourage more than two parties to run consistently and give independents a fighting chance to get more votes. We really need a third option, but can't afford to support one.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Tue Jan 29, 2019 10:21 am

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1090 ... 43045?s=19

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Jan 29, 2019 10:35 am

Michael Bloomberg wrote:Last fall I spent over $100 million of my own money to elect Democrats to the House...

That he leads with that and that it's supposedly a good thing is mind boggling.

"I single handedly bought several seats..."

Yay?