192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
Debra Law
 
  3  
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 10:42 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
. . . I doubt seriously that at any time until the final days of the campaign that many Democrat leaders expected or wanted Hillary to lose. Indeed their behavior as and after the results came in very strongly suggests the opposite.


Really? You found the feigned disappointment of party leaders to be convincing? Nancy Pelosi simply said it was the other side's turn to be in power: "When President Clinton was elected, Republicans came in big the next election. When President Bush was president, we came in big in the subsequent election. When President Obama became president, the Republicans came in big in the next election."

http://nypost.com/2016/12/04/nancy-pelosi-i-dont-think-democrats-want-a-new-direction/

Both the Democratic and Republican Parties are corrupt, and the people are the sacrificial pawns on their board game.


RABEL222
 
  3  
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 10:49 pm
@Debra Law,
Quote:
but almost everyone else can see the swamp is becoming swampier.


The swamp is becoming a bog. He said he would change Washington and he will.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 10:49 pm
@Debra Law,

Revealing link, that, sho nuff:

Quote:
WASHINGTON — Nancy Pelosi just gave Republicans another reason for celebration.

The newly elected House minority leader insisted Sunday that Dems aren’t looking for a “new direction” even after the bruising Election Day defeats and a GOP monopoly in Washington.

A defiant — and possibly delusional — Pelosi stood firm about her party’s future when pressed on what she’ll do differently to deal with Democratic discontent.

Challenger Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, argued Dems must do more to speak to working-class voters in the Rust Belt and not just coastal liberal elites. Pelosi batted back the threat to her reign with a 134-63 win, and has since downplayed the dire straits for the Democratic Party...

“I don’t think people want a new direction,” Pelosi told CBS’s “Face the Nation.”


Heh, the chumps, them.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -2  
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 11:27 pm
Quote:
Justice Department opinion backs Trump on hiring of son-in-law

President Trump’s decision to appoint his son-in-law as a senior adviser did not violate a federal anti-nepotism law, the Justice Department found in a formal legal opinion issued Saturday....

Trump’s team said, “Kushner has chosen to forego his salary while serving in the administration.”

The 14-page opinion, written by a more-than-20-year veteran of the department who had been honored by former attorney general Eric H. Holder Jr., concluded that....no law could prohibit the president from taking informal advice from his relatives.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-department-opinion-backs-trump-on-hiring-of-son-in-law/2017/01/21/6f0f2324-dff4-11e6-acdf-14da832ae861_story.html?utm_term=.cac389d7d8c4

What!? The opposing party can't dictate who the president takes advice from!? Like, who knew, eh?

I guess Billy-boy Clinton knew...

Quote:
Bill Clinton appointed wife Hillary to lead his administration’s health care reform.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -3  
Sun 22 Jan, 2017 12:16 am
Well, I, for one, have done been inspired by Trump's victory. I figure that if he can become president, anyone can.

So I am undertaking plans to have my twin brother run, next time around. While he is in the public eye, campaigning, and ****, I will be trolling wayside roadhouses, pickin up women by the truck load. Women love fame and power, and I will just say I'm him, see?

I can see it now...groupies by the dozens....sex orgies lasting days, weeks, even months at a time.

It's gunna ROCK, I tellya!
layman
 
  -2  
Sun 22 Jan, 2017 03:12 am
Can somebody tell me what these guys are laughing about? Aint nuthin funny here, is there?

blatham
 
  5  
Sun 22 Jan, 2017 04:11 am
@McGentrix,
That didn't come up in my google news search. Thanks for finding it. Was that your source? Or another?

But as the CT piece clarifies and as the victim himself says, it wasn't a politically motivated incident. That makes it a much different phenomenon with different consequences. Right?
blatham
 
  2  
Sun 22 Jan, 2017 04:14 am
@Leadfoot,
Who would you like to see in the WH? There must be some individuals you think might do the job right.
roger
 
  4  
Sun 22 Jan, 2017 04:19 am
@blatham,
I had maybe two cheerful days after Sanders dropped out when I thought Biden might make a run. I mean, he's a Democrat, a politician, and all that stuff, but I always had the feeling he was interested in what was best for our country. Our visions differed, but I would have taken him over any other viable candidates at that time.
Olivier5
 
  3  
Sun 22 Jan, 2017 04:35 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
It's going to be a very long four years if he keeps obsessing about the sizes of his crowds and how many times he's been on the cover of Time Magazine every time he gets on a podium.


LOL... What did you expect?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Sun 22 Jan, 2017 04:38 am
Holy mackerals. Take a look, this will knock your socks off.

The NYT has a series of photos of the Womens' March around the US and all over the bloody world. That's a LOT of people in a lot of places. Here's Manhattan:
NYT

http://www168.lunapic.com/do-not-link-here-use-hosting-instead/148508133442220?1895258086
layman
 
  -2  
Sun 22 Jan, 2017 04:40 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:


But as the CT piece clarifies and as the victim himself says, it wasn't a politically motivated incident. That makes it a much different phenomenon with different consequences. Right?


Nice try, cheese-eater. That's not what he says at all. He says that when he got out of his car, after the accident, the first thing said was:

"That's one of those white-boy Trump voters."

The white boy asked: "What does that have to do with anything?"

The next thing said was: "Don't worry about it, we're gunna beat his ass."

Quote:
Four people have been charged after a man was punched and kicked as a crowd yelled, “Don’t vote Trump," a day after the presidential election, police said.


These cheese-eaters just make up any old "facts" as they go. Is there no sense of integrity at all with them?
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  2  
Sun 22 Jan, 2017 04:41 am
@blatham,
I recognize that one. After the fall of the Shah of Iran, right?
roger
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2017 04:42 am
@roger,
Just kidding, blatham.
blatham
 
  2  
Sun 22 Jan, 2017 04:53 am
@roger,
Quote:
I mean, [Biden's] a Democrat, a politician, and all that stuff, but I always had the feeling he was interested in what was best for our country.

You use "politician" in an interesting way, Roger. There seems to be a lurking cynicism in it. That's somewhat understandable of course but I don't think that framing gets us very far. In fact, I think it gets us to Trump.
blatham
 
  2  
Sun 22 Jan, 2017 04:55 am
@roger,
Quote:
Just kidding, blatham.

Actually, it's from the opening of my store on 78th Street.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Sun 22 Jan, 2017 04:59 am
Quote:
Republicans say the Affordable Care Act provides health insurance that manages to be both lousy and expensive. Whatever the flaws of these policies, the new Trump administration is trying to pull off a con by offering Americans coverage that is likely to be so much worse that it would barely deserve the name insurance. It would also leave many millions without the medical care they need.

This reality became increasingly clear when President Trump’s choice to run the Department of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, testified before a Senate committee last week. He looked pained as he described the terrible predicament of people who earned around $30,000 to $50,000 a year and had to deny “themselves the kind of care that they need” because they had Obamacare policies with deductibles of $6,000 to $12,000. Yet, earlier in the same hearing, Mr. Price extolled the virtues of policies that would be woefully inadequate — policies that cover medical treatment only in catastrophic cases. Such policies often have deductibles of around $14,000 for family coverage. This is simple hypocrisy. Condemn the policy you don’t like, propose something far worse as a replacement and claim that it is much better.
NYT
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  3  
Sun 22 Jan, 2017 05:08 am
@blatham,
What you mean, 'lurking'?
blatham
 
  3  
Sun 22 Jan, 2017 05:13 am
Quote:
President Trump used his first full day in office on Saturday to unleash a remarkably bitter attack on the news media, falsely accusing journalists of both inventing a rift between him and intelligence agencies and deliberately understating the size of his inauguration crowd.

In a visit to the Central Intelligence Agency intended to showcase his support for the intelligence community, Mr. Trump ignored his own repeated public statements criticizing the intelligence community, a group he compared to Nazis just over a week ago.

He also called journalists “among the most dishonest human beings on earth,” and he said that up to 1.5 million people had attended his inauguration, a claim that photographs disproved.

Later, at the White House, he dispatched Sean Spicer, the press secretary, to the briefing room in the West Wing, where Mr. Spicer scolded reporters and made a series of false statements.

He said news organizations had deliberately misstated the size of the crowd at Mr. Trump’s inauguration on Friday in an attempt to sow divisions at a time when Mr. Trump was trying to unify the country, warning that the new administration would hold them to account.

The statements from the new president and his spokesman came as hundreds of thousands of people protested against Mr. Trump, a crowd that appeared to dwarf the one that gathered the day before when he was sworn in. It was a striking display of invective and grievance at the dawn of a presidency, usually a time when the White House works to set a tone of national unity and to build confidence in a new leader.
NYT
When news coverage moves in some direction Trump doesn't want people to see or think about, he'll launch a flame-tweet or have spokespersons say outrageous stuff in an attempt to take over the media space. That's surely part of what happened here.

But his administration's war stance with the press/media will continue. It's the only way he's capable of dealing with opinions or coverage that he deems is profaning his majesty. He is an authoritarian and he'll continue to operate that way. He's also a congenital liar, so that will continue as well.
blatham
 
  2  
Sun 22 Jan, 2017 05:14 am
@roger,
Quote:
What you mean, 'lurking'?

Like a guy in a raincoat at a bus-stop.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.48 seconds on 03/30/2025 at 05:52:33