Octopus Overlords

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

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.

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.

CNN did a bit that I thought was a little compelling, which was that EVERYONE says this about the administration. Omarosa? Disgruntled ex-employee. Wolff? Sketchy hack with no actual access. Wall Street Journal? Fake news. New York Times? Fake news. CNN? Fake news. Woodward? Anonymous sources.

Except they all say the same thing. It's either a global conspiracy against Drumpf like he believes, or all these separate, disparate sources all witness the same thing and then talk about it.

There's zero chance that the WH is not a clown college run by John Wayne Gacy Jr.

While sure, some of Drumpf's staff are vipers, Kelly was brought in with approving nods from both sides of the aisle. Kelly was gonna clean up Barter Town, everyone agreed. Mattis' reputation was good. Etc etc.

They, at least prior to working for Drumpf, were not vipers going in. And we have sources saying they are attacking drumpf's competency in private. They deny it. Of course they deny it. Are they going to confirm it? Can you imagine any Chief of Staff confirming to reporters that he did in fact call the president an idiot? His denial means nothing. It's neither proof that he did nor proof that he didn't.

We witness on a daily basis Drumpf's complete incompetence and are frustrated. You think well educated, competent professionals with decades of experience under their belts that are around him constantly aren't going to get frustrated from time to time? Decide he's a moron on any specific issue?

I don't really need to believe any specific example. Because I see on a daily basis just how completely incompetent drumpf is every time he opens his mouth. Did Kelly call him an idiot or just that he was acting like an idiot, or that only an idiot would say such and such? I don't really care. Except for salacious entertainment, any specific event is not particularly important.

What is important, is that evidence continues to pile up about just how terribly dangerous Drumpf is in the job he's hideously unqualified for. That's the message that needs to get out.

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.

Only the best and greatest vipers.

OF ALL TIME!

I’m with most everyone that would like to think that things aren’t that bad.

But, I believe that they actually are, and that there are people that are jumping on those grenades every day.

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...

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.

Jesus. Even Fox is saying "Hey, be glad we have adults around to stop this guy"

I know it's a quote from the last page, but I found it striking. Like a "slap in the face" striking, not a "that is an amazing sunset" striking.

And today Trump is accusing Woodward of being a “Dem operative”. I honestly can’t think of a more divisive president in our country’s history. He is tearing this country apart 280 characters at a time. He should be thrown out of office for that alone.

I tried to go to Trump's twitter feed to get a quote, but had to leave before I vomited. I tend to avoid it except the snippets I see here. I weep for America when I read through his tweets. Skimming down through them is like consuming concentrated bile.

He is the face we present to the world. The best of us.

He should be:


Instead we've got:


And people like that about him. Rip, em2naught, msduncan - and probably a few others here that remain silent for now. I can't understand it.

GreenGoo wrote: Tue Sep 04, 2018 10:56 pmThings

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.

I have no trouble believing that a number of people assume that Kelly thinks he is a fucking dullard and are willing to say that on deep background. I guess I will have to wait to see what Woodward has piled up as evidence, and to make a judgement on that.

As for Mattis violating direct orders from the CIC, I have a real hard time believing that he would do that so cavalierly.

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?

It only occurred to you today?

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?

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.

(this is re: Rmn9's post)

Sure. And yet I can imagine many ways this can be true, and I can imagine that my limited imagination comes up short for all the ways it could *actually* be true.

These people are being painted as heroes for specifically preventing the CiC from doing something stupid. With a normal president they're called advisors and they prevent the Bushes and Obamas of the world from doing stupid things by talking to them. When that tool is taken from them, what's left?

Kelly almost certainly took the job to protect the position of the president of the united states. He may even be on record to that effect from the time he was hired. I have no problem believing that many of these people are in place and keeping their jobs because they see the president as a threat to the US of A (imo he is, so obviously I can see it) and work in the WH to defend the US of A, not as an employee of the prez.

Why hasn't drumpf fired them? I don't know. Why does drumpf do/not do anything? He's not completely random in that his insanity exists along certain spectrums and can be predicted within those spectrums. My initial guess is that drumpf isn't aware of the name calling or doesn't believe it's true, or that Kelly is just not in Drumpf's sights because he is not besmirching his reputation in public. Hell, we might see Kelly disciplined or fired after the book comes out, if Kelly can't convince Drumpf that the book is a complete fabrication.

As Fret says, do I believe there are people jumping on grenades on a nearly daily basis? Absolutely. And that's not the hard part. Jumping on a grenade while not bringing down the wrath of the president because when he says assassinate an enemy head of state, he means it is, you disloyal, diaper wearing man-baby. Not being fired is the hard part.

Hell, I've witnessed, agreed with and even done it myself in my own microcosm. My boss in his wrath and stupid insanity has looked me in the eye and given me a direct order that was beyond damaging. I looked him in the eye and said absolutely, I'm on it. I then did nothing and waiting for the insanity to die down, and that's without nuclear weapons at our finger tips. You can be damn sure that me and my co-workers gossiped about how effing stupid the boss was being when it happened too. Eventually, because the boss was angry and not thinking straight he would become less angry and more thinking straight. Whether he forgot about his order or was embarrassed and realized his mistake, I have no idea. The order was never done and there were no consequences.

Ok, long anecdote aside, I can totally imagine reasonable scenarios for why Kelly is still the chief of staff, even if all of woodward's excerpts are true. And they aren't complicated conspiracies either. Just normal, even healthy motivations.

Trump thinks it's "embarrassing that we allow protesters".

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'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.

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 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.

Skinypupy wrote: Wed Sep 05, 2018 9:09 am Trump thinks it's "embarrassing that we allow protesters".

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'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.

I thought they did throw a lot of the more disruptive protestors out yesterday. Does he mean sending in dogs and riot cops?

Yet more "protest anywhere that I can see or hear it, or that it's in any way disruptive to me is disrespectful and shouldn't be allowed to happen." Amber Ruffin has some ideas about how to deal with that attitude:

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?

I'm going to go with yes. Yes he does.

I was under the impression that he just wants to round up dissidents and send them to camps somewhere.

Trump Detention Camps. Daddy needs his vig.

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.

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.

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.

I'm surprised by anyone surprised by the lack of Republican push back. You can't generate pushing force without a spine.

Not to mention that you only push back if you believe that it's wrong in the first place.

I'm not willing to accept that Republicans have completely surrendered any semblance of what it means to be an American.

Ahhhhhh, there it is.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 9199177728

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.

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.

stessier wrote: Wed Sep 05, 2018 10:08 am Ahhhhhh, there it is.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 9199177728

Spoiler:

Donald J. Trump
‏
Verified account

@realDonaldTrump
Follow Follow @realDonaldTrump
More
Isn’t it a shame that someone can write an article or book, totally make up stories and form a picture of a person that is literally the exact opposite of the fact, and get away with it without retribution or cost. Don’t know why Washington politicians don’t change libel laws?

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.

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.

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 10:11 am

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.

Let's pretend it is is only 50% surrendered - is that any better?

Yes, of course it's better. It's like, 50% better.

Drumpf has been after the libel laws for decades. This is just drumpf being drumpf from *before* he became the most powerful bicycle bell in the world.

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?

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 not so sure he is aware.

See: Someone should sue Drumpf comments above.

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.

GungHo wrote: Tue Sep 04, 2018 7:16 pm
EDIT:

https://twitter.com/brithume/status/1037027289224146945

He says it better (worse?) than I could...

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.

LordMortis wrote: Wed Sep 05, 2018 11:11 am

GungHo wrote: Tue Sep 04, 2018 7:16 pm
EDIT:

https://twitter.com/brithume/status/1037027289224146945

He says it better (worse?) than I could...

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.

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.

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.

That's where my heart is.

We can start over with the Muzzlegumps and the Swangerfroods for all I care, we just need to wipe the slate.

If you're talking parties then I agree but I'm sure what the price is to get there at this point.

The tree of liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time

That's the fear...

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.

The next breed will be straight-up wearing their corporate sponsorships on their jackets.

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.

Holman wrote: Wed Sep 05, 2018 2:32 pm

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.

The next breed will be straight-up wearing their corporate sponsorships on their jackets.

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.

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.

The NY Times just ran an anonymous op-ed from "a senior official in the Trump administration". It is absolutely horrifying.

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.

It only gets worse - far worse - from there.

I'm sure this will be decried as more "fake news", but it seems very consistent with everything we've heard from the clown show in charge. How this is acceptable to anyone - regardless of party affiliation - is entirely beyond me.

I'm guessing someone got a conscience after McCain passed.