Octopus Overlords

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!”

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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