• Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal
Destiny

Trump 21: Tweeting Us Into the Apocalypse

502 posts in this topic

Continued from here:

Someone needs to take the fucking twitter account away. 

Also, @formergothardite, I’m still not over my Power Rangers obsession. LOL. (And I’m still way more mature than our president.)

8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Continued from here:
Someone needs to take the fucking twitter account away. 
Also, [mention=11620]formergothardite[/mention], I’m still not over my Power Rangers obsession. LOL. (And I’m still way more mature than our president.)


Twitter should step up to the plate and ban his ass
11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Twitter should step up to the plate and ban his ass

I reported a few of his tweets. I know it will do nothing, but it made me feel better. They really should apply their abuse policy to him - TOS applies to everyone!
11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read a times' article and they were basically like we will never ban Trump.

Also slightly off topic but I always loved to celebrate the 4th of July and now I'm just so over it because of all that has happened especially from 11/9/2016.

12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, dear, god, now he's figured out how to tweet videos of himself. And that wrestling thing wasn't violent, was it? He seems to be working himself into a frenzy. I feel a bit bad for Twitter, what can they do? Actually cancel the President's account? But he would sure be lost without it.

As for the voter shenanigans, my state will probably go along with it, which pisses me off. The one good thing is that in South Carolina you don't register as affiliated with a particular party so they won't know whether I am Republican or Democrat. Until they demand to know. I wonder how far they will get with this, it doesn't seem to be going over well. Like all of his ideas.

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawmakers blast Trump’s ‘crude, false, and unpresidential’ CNN tweet

Spoiler

Another bizarre tweet from the president of the United States.

Another round of outrage and condemnation from lawmakers.

President Trump on Sunday morning posted to Twitter a doctored video clip that showed him slamming a man — with “CNN” superimposed on his head — to the ground. In the video, Trump then throws punches at the man’s head, before walking away.

Trump appended the tweet with two hashtags: “#FraudNewsCNN” and “#FNN.”

The video, which reportedly originated on Reddit last week, was quickly blasted on social media as not befitting of the office of the president and appearing to promote violence against CNN’s journalists. Trump has long had an antagonistic relationship with the news network, often accusing it of being “Fake News.”

On ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, homeland security adviser Tom Bossert pursed his lips when shown the tweet on air, then defended Trump, saying he was communicating directly in a “genuine” way to Americans.

“I think that no one would perceive that as a threat,” Bossert told “This Week” host Martha Raddatz. “I hope they don’t.”

Lawmakers felt otherwise, taking to Twitter to blast Trump for, again, tweeting “crude, false, and unpresidential content.” Many defended the free press as critical to the nation’s democracy, especially with Independence Day on the horizon.

[a veritable barrage of tweets]

CNN struck back at the president, saying in a statement that Trump had engaged in “juvenile behavior far below the dignity of his office” when he should have been preparing for an upcoming overseas trip.

“It is a sad day when the President of the United States encourages violence against reporters,” the statement read. ” … We will keep doing our jobs. He should start doing his.”

Trump’s latest outrage-inducing tweet came just days after he attacked the hosts of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Twitter with shocking and graphic language that was widely condemned by both Republican and Democratic lawmakers. The following day, “Morning Joe” hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough responded in a guest column that questioned whether Trump was fit to be president.

“Obviously, I don’t see that as an appropriate comment,” House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said Thursday. “What we’re trying to do around here is improve the civility and tone of the debate, and this obviously does not do that.”

Trump has long had a contentious relationship with the media. Throughout his campaign, he regularly lashed out at the press, singling out news outlets as being “dishonest” and at one point barring The Washington Post from covering his events. Since his election, he has accused, without providing evidence or deeper arguments, certain media outlets of publishing “fake news.” Earlier this year, Trump dubbed the media “the enemy of the American People!” and broke with recent presidential tradition in skipping the White House correspondents’ dinner. Instead, he held a Pennsylvania rally that day — where he railed against the media.

The Post’s Fact Checker recently compiled a timeline of every Russia story that Trump alleged was a hoax by Democrats and found that Trump often contradicted his own past statements or statements from members of his administration.

CNN has been a frequent target in Trump’s tweets, which have described the network as everything from “unwatchable” to “the worst.”

The best tweet in the article is this one:

 

18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I found an interesting article posted on Psychology Today. It's from two months ago, but still very relevant.

Shrinks define dangers of Trump presidency

Spoiler

Donald Trump may or may not be mentally ill. He may or may not have an organic brain disease. Despite those unknowns, a group of prominent mental health professionals today agreed that they have an ethical obligation to expose to the public every instance of reality distortion, impulsive decision-making, and violation of presidential norms of behavior that singularize the Trump presidency.

At a conference held at Yale University Medical School and led by Bandy Lee, assistant clinical professor in law and psychiatry, mental health experts met to discuss whether their professional responsibility includes a duty to warn the public of dangers posed by President Trump’s behavior. For them the issue is no longer what psychiatric diagnosis Donald Trump merits or not. It is how to avert the "malignant normality"—as psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton called it—now threatening American democracy.

But the conference itself exemplified the unusual problems created by the 45th president. Even in organizing the gathering, Lee said, she encountered “a sudden wave of fear" that led to withdrawal of official support from the school of public health and the department of psychiatry, where she specializes in studying and treating violent offenders and preventing violence. "Colleagues are concerned about the repercussions of speaking,” she observed, because they lack legal protections from a president who has demonstrated his willingness to publicly target those who say something he doesn't like.

Further, ever since 1973, mental health experts have been professionally restrained by the Goldwater Rule from commenting on the mental fitness of any person they have not personally examined. Although the rule was established by the American Psychiatric Association and psychologists are not expressly forbidden from making public pronouncements about the mental health of public figures, the American Psychological Association has affirmed the rule and psychologists generally abide by it.

In recent years, however, mental health experts have begun speaking out against the rule. For psychologist John Gartner, who has garnered over 41,000 professional signatures to a Facebook petition stating that mental health experts have a duty to warn the public of the dangers posed by Trump’s behavior, the rule is obsolete, established before diagnostic criteria abandoned Freudian interpretation in favor of observable behavior. “It’s fighting an old war,” says Gartner, whose petition was a stimulus for the conference.

Nevertheless, John Krystal, chairman of Yale’s psychiatry department, cited the Goldwater Rule in explaining why he “would not support holding this conference under the auspices of the department of psychiatry.” Lee says she was moved to action because the restrictions the rule places on psychiatry make it a medical oddity. “Why is mental illness exceptional to other medical illnesses?”

Charles Dike, professor of law and psychiatry at Yale, believes the Goldwater Rule is still relevant today, and the evidence to determine the mental fitness of a public figure can be obtained only through personal examination. What’s more, he says, the primary responsibility of a psychiatrist is to a patient, not to the public: “We are not police.”

For Harvard psychiatrist Judith Herman, the signs of Trump’s mental instability are so visible professional expertise is not even needed to recognize them. Still, last fall, she wrote a letter to then-President Obama expressing alarm over the mental health of the president-elect and requesting he undergo a full neuropsychiatric and medical evaluation. She, too, found colleagues unwilling to sign the letter because of ethical restraints and/or fear of being targeted. But she also noted that many in the mental health community have principled concerns about the political use and potential for misuse of psychiatry.

“This issue is not whether Donald Trump is mentally ill but whether he’s dangerous,” James Gilligan told the conference. “Nothing is more important today.”

Currently professor of psychiatry at New York University and longtime director of mental health for the Massachusetts prison system, Gilligan contends that a private interview is not necessary to assess Trump’s dangerousness: “He publicly boasts of violence and has threatened violence. He has urged followers to beat up protestors. He approves of torture. He has boasted of his ability to commit and get away with sexual assault.” The danger is visible to everyone, but for professionals, he says, it is “irresponsible” to remain passive in the face of it.

“Professional ethics matter,” Lifton told the conference. The question is how the ethics are framed— “technicized” as in the Goldwater Rule or seen as a larger obligation. Mental health experts, he says, have an ethical requirement to expose “malignant normality,” the adaptation to and normalization of dangerous behavior that occurs in the absence of speaking up. “It’s important for professionals to point out Trump’s assault on reality and his attempts to impose it on the rest of us.”

An audible gasp of understanding rose from the audience when he ended his remarks with a line from poet Theodore Roethke: “In a dark time, the eye begins to see.”

I would like to see these psychiatrists also give their professional opinions on the repugliklans. It's every bit as important to understand those supporting this "malignant normality", supporting this dangerous president. Because without support, it wouldn't be able to exist at all.

Edited by fraurosena
adding link to text
5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, GrumpyGran said:

Oh, dear, god, now he's figured out how to tweet videos of himself.

I think he had help with this.

From the WaPo article @fraurosena posted above:

Quote

The video, which reportedly originated on Reddit last week, was quickly blasted on social media as not befitting of the office of the president and appearing to promote violence against CNN’s journalists. 

Trump is below average in terms of computer skills.  I think one of his people saw the video, brought it to his attention, and then helped him use it in a tweet. 

 Is there a version of this with the Morning Joe logo getting pummeled? Trump is tone deaf enough to want to tweet that one out as well. :doh:

10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, candygirl200413 said:

I read a times' article and they were basically like we will never ban Trump.

Also slightly off topic but I always loved to celebrate the 4th of July and now I'm just so over it because of all that has happened especially from 11/9/2016.

I'm not sure if I mentioned this or not before, but I'm boycotting the 4th as a holiday as long as fornicate head is in office.   I think the country whose Independence we celebrated on the 4th is gone.  Maybe it'll come back once fornicate head has left office, but maybe not.  I'm not going to dignify him or the people who voted for him by celebrating the 4th anymore. 

And as far as I'm concerned any Republicans not liking that are hereby invited to go and perform a sex act upon themselves. 

14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maureen Dowd's latest, a good op-ed: "Cruella de Trump"

Spoiler

WASHINGTON — So, with this latest toad jumping from our president’s mouth, is Donald Trump acting like a sexist pig or simply a pig?

I proffer, a pig.

I have no doubt that he would attack a man’s appearance in the same breathtakingly below-the-belt way if he felt humiliated by that man and had the ammunition.

In his vile tweet about Mika Brzezinski, he called her crazy. He often tweets that women journalists — including me — are crazy. Yet in that same tweet about Mika, he called Joe Scarborough “psycho.” And he told the Russians in May that James Comey was “a nut job.”

Some, including Scarborough, think Trump goes after women harder. Certainly, it resonates more with women because of Trump’s history of sexist remarks, his taped boasting about assaulting women and his habit of rating women’s looks on a 1-to-10 scale. (He did once tell me, though, that he considered women “tougher” and that he related to them better.)

There is also the historical context: It is a more sensitive matter for women because for centuries, they relied on their looks for economic security, and they continue to be judged more on physical traits and clothing choices.

But as some women anchoring cable shows call for the women in the Trump administration to rise up in protest, I say: Let’s not narrow it to sexism.

It’s even more troubling than that. It’s cruelty on a Grand Guignol scale, both in Trump’s heartless tweets and in his mindless salesmanship of the Republicans’ heartless budget. When Trump called the House health care bill mean, he knows whereof he speaks. He’s the King of Mean. Pathetically, Trump mistakes cruelty for strength.

The 71-year-old president’s pathological inability to let go of slights; his strongman reflex to be the aggressor and bite back like a cornered animal, without regard for societal norms; his lack of self-awareness about the power he commands and the proportionality of his responses; his grotesque hunger for flattery and taste for Tony Soprano tactics; his Pravda partnership with David Pecker, the head honcho at The National Enquirer, which has been giving Trump the Il Duce treatment while sliming his political opponents, the “Morning Joe” anchors and Megyn Kelly — these are all matters that should alarm men and women equally.

Trump has moved his shallow kiddie wading pool of gossip and ridicule from Trump Tower to the White House, where it is so outlandishly out of place that it often feels like we have a Page Six reporter as our president.

Trump is isolated in the White House, out of his milieu, unable to shape the story, forced to interact with people he doesn’t own. Even the staffers folding his clothes aren’t on his payroll.

Before he got to D.C., Trump was used to media that could be bought, sold and bartered with. He is not built for this hostile environment and it shows in his deteriorating psychological state. Even though he’s in the safest space of all, he’s not in a safe space.

Trump has always been obsessed with looks — his own, men’s and women’s. One of his favorite phrases is “Here’s the beauty of me.” He walks through life as though he’s the judge in an ’80s swimsuit contest — even with his own wives and older daughter. “She’s got the best body,” was his typical refrain about Ivanka.

I was at The Times in New York in 1999 when Trump, talking to an editor, commented admiringly on a sexy, buff picture of Anna Wintour in a white wife-beater on the cover of New York magazine. “She will never look this good again,” Trump bro-claimed to the male editor. (He was wrong.)

Trump blasted his way up in the 2016 campaign by mocking his opponents’ looks — male and female.

At a New Jersey fund-raiser, Trump teased Chris Christie, “No more Oreos.” He made fun of Jeb for ditching glasses for contacts and Rick Perry when he put glasses on. He belittled Little Marco for sweating.

He famously and viciously mocked Times reporter Serge Kovaleski for his disability. And his aides think John Bolton lost his shot at secretary of state due to his yeti mustache.

“He is mean to men as well as women,” says Trump biographer Michael D’Antonio. “When he was planning to run for president in 2014, he required males and females in his organization to get in shape, and back in the ’90s Donald would hand out tubes of Rogaine to male executives and say the worst thing in the world is for a male executive to go bald.”

Certainly, Trump is squeamish about bodily functions. He once bragged to Howard Stern that Melania seemed impervious to bathroom needs and he weirdly found it “disgusting” that Hillary took a bathroom break during a debate.

“Bodily fluids bother him,” D’Antonio says. The famous germaphobe once complained to me about the time a man came out of a New York restaurant bathroom with wet hands and shook his hand. Trump said he couldn’t eat after that.

I gave Trump the benefit of the doubt after his comment on Megyn Kelly about “blood coming out of her wherever” when he claimed he meant her nose. But later, a longtime Trump associate told me that Trump had practiced that line before he said it on CNN and that it was meant to evoke an image of Kelly as hormonal.

Of course, since Trump and some of those close to him have such an elastic relationship with the truth, and since some staffers have been known to feed journalists false details just to mess with them, you can never be sure of anything that comes out of this White House.

Except the cruelty.

"...grotesque hunger for flattery..." Yup, that's the creature who inhabits (at least from Monday-Thursday), the White House.

9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A Definitive Guide to the G.O.P. Insiders Enabling Donald Trump"

Spoiler

Blame for the ongoing destruction wrought by the Trump administration will always attach to Donald Trump. But Trump cannot help himself. He is a pathogen, doing what pathogens do, and as surprised as anyone to have found himself replicating in the nation’s bloodstream. Equal blame will attach to a small group of experienced and seemingly rational politicians who knew exactly what Trump was like; who had cause to loathe and distrust him; who understood firsthand that he knew nothing about government and did not care to know anything; who could see clearly that he was dangerous, brutal, and corrupt; and who nonetheless decided, after occasional protests, to help him achieve and hold power. These are people who have been repeatedly belittled and mocked by Trump, who have sometimes been forced to voice their disgust at his words and actions, and who—for reasons that range from ambition and fear to denial and moral blindness—not only have declined to stand in his way but continue to prop him up. One or more of them may ultimately decide to defy him, but nothing will absolve them of the damage already done.

I. The Opportunist

The first time Donald Trump publicly criticized Paul Ryan was in March of 2012, shortly after Trump had decided not to run for president. Ryan had unveiled a Republican budget before Obama released the Democratic version. Trump thought it was a strategic mistake. “Whether @RepPaulRyan’s plan is sound fiscal policy is not the relevant issue,” Trump tweeted. “The issue is strategic timing. Why release it now?” The two men met personally early on during the next presidential campaign, and the relationship had already begun to curdle. Speaking in New Hampshire, and as a Republican presidential candidate, Trump let his disdain for Ryan be known. “When I heard Paul Ryan, and I like Paul Ryan as a person, but when I heard Mitt Romney chose Paul Ryan—I mean, what he’s known for is killing entitlements—I said that election is over.” In July 2015, after Trump made his first comments about Mexicans’ sending “their rapists” to the U.S., Ryan said, “He doesn’t speak for the Republican Party, and I think his comments were extremely disrespectful, and I don’t think that’s the way to have an immigration conversation.” When Trump leveled an accusation of bias against Judge Gonzalo Curiel because Curiel’s ancestors were Mexican, Ryan was quick to repudiate the comments: “Claiming a person can’t do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment.” (At the time, Curiel was presiding over a lawsuit which alleged fraud by Trump University, and which Trump eventually settled for $25 million.) When Trump first suggested a ban on Muslims’ entering the United States—unconstitutional on its face—Ryan said, “What was proposed yesterday is not what this party stands for. And, more importantly, it’s not what this country stands for.” After the Access Hollywood tape was made public—in which Trump bragged to host Billy Bush that he could do anything he wanted to women, including “grab them by the pussy,” because he was famous—Ryan maintained that he was “sickened by what I heard today.” Add all this up and you have a man who has said in public what he surely believes in private: that by every measure Trump is unfit for high office. And yet Ryan—whom Trump has called “weak and ineffective”—gave Trump his endorsement and has covered for him repeatedly. After the election, at a meeting of the House Republican caucus, Ryan responded to the assertion by one member that Trump was on the Russian payroll with a warning to everyone in the room: “No leaks,” he said, according to a recording of the exchange obtained by The Washington Post. “This is how we know we’re a real family here.” After former F.B.I. director James Comey described what he said was a request by Trump to drop a criminal investigation into former national-security adviser Michael Flynn’s Russia contacts, Ryan excused Trump’s alleged behavior by noting simply, “He’s just new to this.” The bargain Ryan has made is clear—it’s the one spelled out by Grover Norquist back in 2012, when Norquist defended the choice of Mitt Romney by saying he’d also have endorsed a monkey, a plate of lasagna, or a potted plant. All Norquist wanted was “a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen” to sign legislation. Ryan wants to gut the safety net for the poor and cut taxes for the wealthy, and believes that with Trump he can do that. He said recently that he had dreamed of cutting Medicaid since his keg-drinking days. Having Trump’s digits on the Resolute Desk—whatever the existential risk to the principles of the country as a whole—is a small price to pay.

II. The Cynic

Mitch McConnell, a deft and mercurial Republican senator and the majority leader since 2015, is a creature of Washington. As Alec MacGillis has documented in his shrewd and doggedly reported book The Cynic, McConnell has never had any longstanding political values. He has allowed himself to be filled—initially by hired consultants—with whatever positions would keep money rolling in and ensure his continual election and, now, his supremacy in the Senate. That is his enduring principle. Maintaining this status requires fealty to die-hard Trump voters who make up the most active portion of the Republican base. So be it.

McConnell’s track record of disagreeing with Trump but continuing to support him is impressive. In 2015, when Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” McConnell told CNN’s Jake Tapper, “We’re not going to follow that suggestion that this particular candidate made. It would prevent the president of Afghanistan from coming to the United States. The King of Jordan couldn’t come to the United States.” In early 2016, McConnell reportedly laid out a plan for congressional lawmakers to break with Trump—if he became the nominee—in the general election. That effort failed, and McConnell quickly came around, arguing that Trump wouldn’t have much impact one way or the other. “Trump is not going to change the institution,” McConnell said on Hugh Hewitt’s morning radio show, referring to the Republicans. “He’s not going to change the basic philosophy of the party.” When Trump hesitated before rejecting the support of former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, McConnell stated that “Senate Republicans condemn David Duke, the K.K.K., and his racism”—but he didn’t mention Trump by name. In July, when Trump attacked the Gold Star parents of Captain Humayun Khan, who had been killed in the line of duty, McConnell called Captain Khan an “American hero”—but again didn’t mention Trump.

McConnell’s wife, Elaine Chao, is the secretary of transportation in the Trump administration, a prize that undoubtedly tilts McConnell in Trump’s direction. But McConnell believes most fervently in his own longevity, nothing else. Channeling McConnell’s view of himself with respect to Trump, one Republican strategist, who knows McConnell well, put it this way: “ ‘I was here long before he got here, and I’ll be here long after. I’m majority leader. Why do I give a damn about a president?’ “ McConnell has proven his worth in one key move, by holding off a vote on the Obama Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland until Trump was elected. That allowed Trump to nominate Neil Gorsuch, whose confirmation represents the sole clear achievement of the Trump presidency thus far. For someone who doesn’t care about presidents, Gorsuch alone makes Trump worth it. Like Ryan, McConnell seems to regard Trump as a man who he hopes can be manipulated—signing the bills that others put before him. Nothing so far suggests the correctness of this view. But a Republican Senate—and McConnell’s tenure—is now inextricably yoked to Trump’s fortunes, so McConnell plays along.

III. The Stooge

Speaking recently with another Republican strategist, I raised the subject of Reince Priebus, now the White House chief of staff, and was advised to think of him as “not in the same category” as a Ryan or McConnell. Nor is Priebus, the strategist went on, “anyone who is ever going to stand up to Donald Trump.” Priebus is a perfect symbol of the Republican Party as a whole, never imagining he would find himself where he is today. Throughout the primaries, the role he played was to keep the Republican Party together at any cost—thwarting defections by the “Never Trump” movement and delivering the party more or less intact to the ultimate nominee.

Priebus, a Wisconsin political apparatchik who had become head of the Republican National Committee, oversaw a G.O.P. election “autopsy” after Mitt Romney’s defeat in 2012. The report concluded that it would be “increasingly difficult for the Republicans to win another presidential election in the near future” if the party did not reach out to ethnic minorities, women, and immigrants. When Trump—in the speech announcing his candidacy for president—made his comment about Mexican rapists, Priebus, after conferring with Republican donors about the possible damage to Latino outreach, privately urged Trump to “tone it down,” according to The Washington Post. Trump responded publicly after the Post story ran. “Totally false reporting,” he tweeted, even though a day later he conceded the main points of the story in an interview with The New York Times. Priebus, he said in that interview, “knows better than to lecture me.” He added that Priebus could be ignored because he was unworthy of respect: “We’re not dealing with a five-star Army general.”

In September 2015, partly because of all the attention Trump had received over the summer, Priebus began asking Republican presidential candidates to sign a loyalty pledge—agreeing to support whoever the nominee might be. He visited Trump Tower in person to get Trump to sign. In April 2016, after Trump announced that he would abandon the loyalty pledge he had signed in September, Priebus responded lamely that actions like Trump’s “have consequences.” When Trump criticized Judge Curiel, Priebus reportedly called Trump family members to try to make him stop. He did not. When Trump criticized the Khan family, Priebus told CNN the Khans “should be off limits.” He did not criticize or demand an apology from Trump.

A campaign staffer who worked for John Kasich told Politico, “Every time Trump would do something dumb, Reince would be up in New York shining his shoes.” Republicans inundated Priebus with requests to say something—anything—to deter the bully who was clearing the field. Priebus did nothing. He later explained his strategy to The New York Times: “I have encouraged him to constantly offer grace to people that he doesn’t think are deserving of grace.” Playing the grace card was a novel approach. It did not work.

By October, Priebus was justifying Trump at every turn, calling him a “winner” and acknowledging he could be considered a role model—because “everyone is a role model in different ways”—just days before the release of the Access Hollywood tape. In response to that episode, Priebus told Trump privately that he should consider dropping out of the race, a conversation Trump has never forgotten. He did not ask Trump to apologize for his comments, and he assured R.N.C. members on a conference call that he was coordinating with the Trump campaign and “we have a great relationship with them.” As Election Day neared, he told colleagues that if Trump lost the R.N.C. should not be blamed. And he was right: more than anyone else, Priebus held the G.O.P. together as a vehicle for Donald Trump. After Trump’s victory, the president-elect named Priebus chief of staff. In that job, for which no previous experience had prepared him, and designed explicitly to be as weak as its occupant, Priebus must defend himself against both his White House colleagues and his boss. His role remains what it has been for years: to assuage differences, to keep as many people on board as he can, and to allow Trump to continue to be viable.

IV. The Accomplice

Perhaps no one has enabled Trump in his presidency more than Trump’s vice president, former Indiana governor Mike Pence, and perhaps no one has paid a greater price in terms of personal humiliation. Pence’s role has been to serve as the genial presenter of what are already known to be lies or what are soon to be revealed as lies. “How much can you look yourself in the mirror when your boss sends you out to say something in the media and within 24 hours he undercuts you?” one of the Republican strategists noted. Pence’s personal agenda is a vaulting ambition somewhat masked by a placid half-smile and a demeanor of practiced sincerity. In his native Indiana he was seen by some as a rung climber.

Despite heavy wooing by Trump, Pence had endorsed Ted Cruz in Indiana’s 2016 Republican primary—in a radio interview with a local host he heaped so much praise on Trump that options were clearly being left open. Cruz lost and dropped out of the race. In early July, Pence and his wife visited Trump at his Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club. Trump had said he wanted a vice president who could navigate the corridors of power in Congress. In Pence—a former congressman who once, back when he was a conservative radio host, described himself as “Rush Limbaugh on decaf”—he saw a reliable link to conservative and evangelical Republicans: a dicey demographic for a thrice-married former Democrat and alleged serial harasser of women who faced ongoing allegations of fraud.

During the vice-presidential debate in October 2016, Pence’s cool demeanor carried the day. He shook his head sadly throughout but especially when Tim Kaine repeated Trump’s most outrageous statements, including the bigoted and sexist remarks, responding that these were things Trump had never really meant or said. He dismissed Trump’s comments about Mexicans’ being rapists as “that Mexican thing.” He calmly denied statements by Trump that were a matter of public record. When the Access Hollywood video became public, Pence professed himself to have been “offended by the words and actions described by Donald Trump.” But he got over it. When more women came forward to allege sexual harassment and assault by Trump—a dozen, all told—Pence said he believed Trump, not the women.

In January 2017, Pence was called on to defend the national-security adviser, Michael Flynn, saying in interviews that the allegation, reported by The Washington Post, that Flynn had discussed sanctions with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, was false. Pence said he had spoken with Flynn, who had told him the subject of sanctions had never come up. Flynn’s account turned out to be untrue, as Trump and senior White House aides soon learned. But it was another 15 days before Pence himself was so informed, and he got the news not from his colleagues but from another story in the Post, according to Axios. When Flynn was fired, Trump and his surrogates used the fact that Flynn had misled Pence as the reason. But senior staff had left Pence in the dark for two weeks. Pence absorbed the disrespect and moved on.

In May, Trump fired F.B.I. director James Comey. The next day, Pence was sent out to defend his boss—arguing, as he had been told, that the president was merely “accepting the recommendation of the deputy attorney general” and that the firing had nothing to do with the bureau’s investigation of possible ties between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. The next day, in an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt, Trump flatly contradicted Pence, stating that he had been planning to fire Comey regardless of any recommendation and that the Russia investigation was the reason he did it. Again, Pence was silent.

As William Saletan has pointed out in Slate, Pence’s behavior shows a pattern of being willing to vouch for people who say what is not true. Because Trump is a liar, he urgently needs a sidekick who possesses this genial capacity—it has virtually become Pence’s job description. The payoff for Pence will come when Trump leaves office, whatever the circumstances.

V. The Institutionalist

In July 2015, after Donald Trump attacked Senator John McCain’s war record and insulted him as a non-hero for having been captured, his Senate colleague from South Carolina Lindsey Graham—a presidential candidate and one of the most respected voices on foreign policy on Capitol Hill—called Trump a “jackass” and declared that he “shouldn’t be commander in chief.” The following day, during a rally in South Carolina, Trump claimed that Graham had called him three or four years earlier, “begging” Trump to put in a good word for him with the Fox News morning show Fox & Friends. Trump called Graham a “lightweight” and an “idiot.” In October of that year, when Graham was interviewed on CNN’s New Day, he said of Trump, “He’s the most unprepared person in the entire field to be commander in chief, and over time I think that will matter. Americans better wake up.” In December 2015, Graham, again on CNN, called Trump a “race-baiting, xenophobic religious bigot.” As the primary season wore on, Graham’s warnings grew more desperate. He said on MSNBC, “I think Donald Trump is a con man. I think he would destroy the Republican Party.”

In the end, as Trump’s nomination became inevitable, Graham began to soften. He made a conciliatory call to Trump, who tweeted about the conversation: “Senator Lindsey Graham called me yesterday, very much to my surprise, and we had a very interesting talk about national security, and more!” On Election Day, Graham couldn’t bring himself to pull the lever for his party’s nominee, but the softening continued. Five days later, Graham conveyed his congratulations to the new president-elect on his choice of Reince Priebus as chief of staff, tweeting that the choice “shows me he is serious about governing.” In January 2017, after Trump needled Graham for how poorly he had done in the primaries, Graham responded, “Let it go.” He added, adopting Trump’s campaign slogan in what seemed like a pep talk to himself, “Let’s move on. We’re going to make America great again.”

Lindsey Graham is what is known as an “institutionalist.” He cherishes his role as an éminence grise in the Senate—he has said that he intended to stay long enough to make Strom Thurmond the second-longest-serving member of that body. (Thurmond served for 48 years, dying at the age of 100.) He has criticized President Trump on certain matters—the travel ban, for instance. He favors a robust investigation into Russian interference in the presidential election. But he also promotes the projection of U.S. military might, as Trump does, and he has a deep-seated respect for the office of the president. Graham, along with John and Cindy McCain, had dinner with Trump at the White House in April. Graham still sometimes critiques Trump, but it is for his style or lack of organization, rather than his basic character, as used to be the case. “The President has a hard time colluding with his staff,” Graham commented after Comey’s testimony, “so he couldn’t have been colluding with the Russians.” After Trump lashed out at Comey on Twitter, calling him a “leaker” and describing his actions as “cowardly,” Graham appeared on CBS’s Face the Nation and addressed Trump directly from the set: “You may be the first president in history to go down because you can’t stop inappropriately talking about an investigation that if you just were quiet, would clear you.” Graham said Trump’s continued outbursts were “frustrating” because he thought that Trump, if he didn’t sabotage himself, might “deliver us from a broken immigration system.” Recalling Graham’s earlier view of Trump—“racist,” “jackass,” “bigot,” “con man”—some have looked to Graham as a figure who might lead a form of opposition to Trump on Capitol Hill. Not a chance: Graham continues to protect Trump’s foreign-policy flank, recently banishing hopes of rebellion with the blanket affirmation to Fox & Friends, “I’m all in. Keep it up, Donald.”

Gone is the Lindsey Graham who, during the campaign, attacked Ted Cruz on CNN for not condemning Donald Trump and his lack of integrity: “So what Ted Cruz did is ignore the moral imperative here to speak out . . . .This doesn’t cut it for me. This is not a policy debate, Ted. This is about you and us and our character as a party. Up your game. Condemn it because it needs to be condemned.” He concluded, “You know how you make America great again? Tell Donald Trump to go to hell.”

VI. The Gambler

When Donald Trump descended the escalator in Trump Tower to announce his candidacy—and, in the course of that speech, to declare Mexican immigrants to the United States to be rapists—McCain called the comment offensive but added that Trump was “entitled to say what he wants to say.” Trump responded with an insult: “Graduated last in his class at Annapolis—dummy!” Not long afterward, Trump encouraged a primary challenge to McCain, saying to conservative pollster Frank Luntz at the Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa, “Somebody should run against John McCain, who’s been, in my opinion, not so hot. And I supported him for president. I raised a million dollars for him—that’s a lot of money. I supported him. He lost; he let us down. But he lost and I never liked him much after that ‘cause I don’t like losers . . . . He’s not a war hero.” Trump then both managed to reverse himself and double down: “He’s a war hero—he’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured, O.K.?”

In March of 2016, McCain said he shared the concerns of Mitt Romney about Trump—Romney had delivered a blistering denunciation—and he also put out a statement urging Republican voters to “pay close attention to” the open letter from Republican national-security leaders, which stated that Trump’s “vision of American influence and power in the world is wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle.” In April, McCain said he was not going to attend the Republican convention. In August, after Trump insulted the Khan family, McCain issued a statement: “It is time for Donald Trump to set the example for our country and the future of the Republican Party.” Trump eventually endorsed McCain in his Senate race, and McCain eventually endorsed Trump—but pulled the endorsement after the Access Hollywood tape surfaced. Trump responded on Twitter, “The very foul mouthed Sen. John McCain begged for my support during his primary (I gave, he won), then dropped me over locker room remarks!” After Trump was elected, McCain said he would show deference to the president, but “I am not a rubber stamp.”

In February, when Trump called a deadly military strike in Yemen “a success,” McCain took issue with that characterization. In May, The New York Times reported that Trump had asked F.B.I. director James Comey to drop his investigation into N.S.C. director Michael Flynn, and McCain said on Face the Nation, “I think we have seen this movie before. I think it’s reaching a point where it’s of Watergate size and scale.” Yet when McCain had the opportunity to question Comey directly, despite his obvious confusion, he displayed a knee-jerk defense of Trump. McCain has not been a rubber stamp. What he has been is a gambler—his default persona. McCain showed in 2008, when he selected Sarah Palin as his running mate, that he was willing to overlook deficiencies of character and stability in order to achieve his own ends. Taking dangerous risks has marked McCain throughout his career.

One Republican political strategist explained to me that what made Trump palatable to McCain—despite everything McCain dislikes about the man—is that Trump lacks any true convictions of his own, making McCain feel Trump can be swayed. McCain, with Graham, respects the generals who make up the national-security apparatus in the Trump administration. According to a White House adviser who has spoken to McCain and Graham, both men are “fired up” about the tax reform that Trump promises. After Graham and the McCains’ dinner with Trump, the Daily Beast reported that Cindy McCain was set to join Trump’s State Department as a U.S. ambassador-at-large for human rights. Like Paul Ryan, McCain seems willing to tolerate almost anything in return for the working digits that hold a pen.

VII. The Verdict

The Trump administration may last for months or it may last for years. There will be crises and catastrophes. A corrosion of values and spirit has already set in. The outside world pulls away. John Boehner, the Republican former Speaker of the House, now retired and fortified with tobacco and Merlot, has called Trump “a disaster.” Donald Trump will suffer his own grim fate in the eyes of historians, but it will come with an asterisk: he is a profoundly damaged human being with no true understanding of his capacities, his emotions, his ignorance, his job, or the fundamentals of human decency.

His enablers will get no asterisk. They will be treated with the special contempt reserved for those who acted knowingly and cravenly, with eyes wide open.

There's a photo gallery of the moment each of the enablers their souls.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ex-Trump campaign official called ‘danger to the community’ over charges he raped 17 women and girls

Spoiler

President Donald Trump’s former top campaign official in the state of Kentucky is behind bars facing a long list of sex abuse charges against women and minor girls, who he reportedly coerced into performing sex acts against their will by using “money, drugs, housing, threats to call the probation office, and violent acts.”

The Associated Press reported Sunday that former Judge Tim Nolan’s bond was set high at $750,000 by Judge Elizabeth Chandler, who looked at the extensive list of charges against Nolan and deemed him “a danger to the community.”

Yeah, sex offenders of a feather flock together.

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(I have posted this before). I never like John Boehner - who is from my district. I even refused to vote for the position when Boehner was unopposed on the ballot.

I now feel like I kind of owe Boehner an apology. (And BTW, Boehner was about 1000 times better than the current representative from our district - who is a complete Trump boot-licker).

9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, not happening. The TT doesn't take advice, or do the right thing: "What Trump should say when he meets Putin for the first time"

Spoiler

ALTHOUGH PRESIDENT TRUMP likes to rely on his instincts, this week’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Hamburg, Germany, calls for careful preparation and straight talk. Mr. Trump’s national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, told reporters that “we have no specific agenda” and “it’s whatever the president wants to talk about.” This is far too casual and risky.

While Mr. Putin’s actions at home and abroad are often objectionable, an exchange in person with him can help avoid mistrust and misperceptions, of which there are plenty. Mr. Trump should set aside his stated admiration for Mr. Putin’s strongman tendencies and instead confront the Russian president with difficult questions. This meeting is not about being friends but about urgent business. The agenda is rather full.

Mr. Trump simply cannot fail to admonish Mr. Putin for Russia’s attempts to meddle in the 2016 presidential election. He must make clear the United States will not tolerate it, period. Naturally, this is a difficult issue for Mr. Trump, who reaped the benefit of Russia’s intervention and now faces a special counsel’s investigation, but nonetheless, in his first session with Mr. Putin, the president must not hesitate to be blunt. He should not be overeager to give back the two Russian compounds used for espionage that were seized by the United States in December in President Barack Obama’s belated response to the election meddling.

On Ukraine, Mr. Trump must also display determination. Russia fomented an armed uprising and seized Crimea in violation of international norms, and it continues to instigate violence in the Donbas. Mr. Trump ought to make it unmistakably clear to Mr. Putin that the United States will not retreat from the sanctions imposed over Ukraine until the conditions of peace agreements are met.

The leaders ought to discuss the Syrian conflict with an eye toward avoiding direct hostilities, even as Washington and Moscow pursue dramatically different military goals. Mr. Trump should at least try to persuade Mr. Putin to acknowledge the need for a government not headed by Bashar al-Assad and a region not dominated by Iran. Mr. Trump might also fruitfully bring up an idea floated recently by former Democratic senator Sam Nunn and former Russian foreign minister Igor Ivanov, among others, to restart broader Russian-American military-to-military communication. It would also be in the interest of both countries to resume cooperation on nuclear nonproliferation and to resolve the standoff over the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

Even in the darkest days of the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union communicated with each other, and the need is no less today. A meeting will probably satisfy Mr. Putin’s desire to be seen as a global leader, and he will be probing Mr. Trump for signs of weakness. Mr. Putin suffers from long-standing misunderstandings about the West and the United States, and it can only help to speak to him directly, if the message is carefully prepared.

 

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Yeah, not happening. The TT doesn't take advice, or do the right thing: "What Trump should say when he meets Putin for the first time"

  Hide contents

ALTHOUGH PRESIDENT TRUMP likes to rely on his instincts, this week’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Hamburg, Germany, calls for careful preparation and straight talk. Mr. Trump’s national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, told reporters that “we have no specific agenda” and “it’s whatever the president wants to talk about.” This is far too casual and risky.

While Mr. Putin’s actions at home and abroad are often objectionable, an exchange in person with him can help avoid mistrust and misperceptions, of which there are plenty. Mr. Trump should set aside his stated admiration for Mr. Putin’s strongman tendencies and instead confront the Russian president with difficult questions. This meeting is not about being friends but about urgent business. The agenda is rather full.

Mr. Trump simply cannot fail to admonish Mr. Putin for Russia’s attempts to meddle in the 2016 presidential election. He must make clear the United States will not tolerate it, period. Naturally, this is a difficult issue for Mr. Trump, who reaped the benefit of Russia’s intervention and now faces a special counsel’s investigation, but nonetheless, in his first session with Mr. Putin, the president must not hesitate to be blunt. He should not be overeager to give back the two Russian compounds used for espionage that were seized by the United States in December in President Barack Obama’s belated response to the election meddling.

On Ukraine, Mr. Trump must also display determination. Russia fomented an armed uprising and seized Crimea in violation of international norms, and it continues to instigate violence in the Donbas. Mr. Trump ought to make it unmistakably clear to Mr. Putin that the United States will not retreat from the sanctions imposed over Ukraine until the conditions of peace agreements are met.

The leaders ought to discuss the Syrian conflict with an eye toward avoiding direct hostilities, even as Washington and Moscow pursue dramatically different military goals. Mr. Trump should at least try to persuade Mr. Putin to acknowledge the need for a government not headed by Bashar al-Assad and a region not dominated by Iran. Mr. Trump might also fruitfully bring up an idea floated recently by former Democratic senator Sam Nunn and former Russian foreign minister Igor Ivanov, among others, to restart broader Russian-American military-to-military communication. It would also be in the interest of both countries to resume cooperation on nuclear nonproliferation and to resolve the standoff over the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

Even in the darkest days of the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union communicated with each other, and the need is no less today. A meeting will probably satisfy Mr. Putin’s desire to be seen as a global leader, and he will be probing Mr. Trump for signs of weakness. Mr. Putin suffers from long-standing misunderstandings about the West and the United States, and it can only help to speak to him directly, if the message is carefully prepared.

 

It will almost look something like this...

 

TheBigDate.png

11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All Putin has to do is whisper one word into Trump's ear: Kompromat

9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 47of74 said:

It will almost look something like this...

 

TheBigDate.png

We all know this is the presidunce's wet dream: being the man in this relationship...

It is nothing more than wishful thinking though. He will always be Putin's bitch.

12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Mike  is very much into space right now. That is why the living room is taken up by a cardboard box space ship and he is running around with a clear plastic bowl on his head.  At least he is finally over his Power Rangers obsession.

I have a 6yo boy. Hahaha. So much yes. Only instead of space, it's Titanic (ship and movie). And instead of Power Rangers, it's Thomas and Friends. 

Ok, back to the thread.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally meandered over here because wtf with this man boy? He needs to put on his big boy pants and get over himself. And he needs a timeout from his electronics. 4 years of this? 

8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, WiseGirl said:

Finally meandered over here because wtf with this man boy?

Welcome! Yeah, every day is WTF with the tangerine toddler.

 

"Trump brings up the war on Christmas — in July"

Spoiler

The war on Christmas came early this year.

That is, according to President Trump, who devoted a large portion of his speech at a Celebrate Freedom event at the Kennedy Center on Saturday to railing against those who might try to shy away from overt references to Christianity in American discourse.

“Our religious liberty is enshrined in the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights. The American founders invoked our Creator four times in the Declaration of Independence,” Trump said. “Benjamin Franklin reminded his colleague at the Constitutional Convention to begin by bowing their heads in prayer. I remind you that we’re going to start staying ‘Merry Christmas’ again.”

Though the rally was meant to honor military veterans, Trump opened his speech by attacking the media and boasting of his election win.

“The fake media tried to stop us from going to the White House,” he said, “but I’m president and they’re not.”

He then declared that he would fight any “bureaucrats” who “think they can run over your lives, overrule your values, meddle in your faith and tell you how to live, what to say and where to pray.” The mostly evangelical Christian crowd at the event — which was sponsored by the First Baptist Dallas megachurch and Salem Media Group — responded to Trump’s remarks with resounding applause.

“Politicians have tried — oh, have they tried — to centralize authority among the hands of a small few in our nation’s capital,” Trump said. “I see them all the time … But we know that parents, not bureaucrats, know best how to raise their children and create a thriving society. And we know that families and churches, not government officials, know best how to create a strong and loving community.”

After a pause, he added: “And, above all else, we know this: In America, we don’t worship government. We worship God.”

As cheers broke out after that line, Trump nodded his head and mouthed: “Thank you.” He then pumped his right fist as the crowd began chanting: “U-S-A! U-S-A!”

As The Washington Post’s Sarah Pulliam Bailey reported last year, one of Trump’s campaign promises was the assurance that Americans would see “Merry Christmas” being used more. It was a strategy that paid off come November:

Many of Trump’s promises, including his emphasis on “Merry Christmas,” included direct appeals to religious voters, especially to evangelical voters who came out and voted overwhelmingly in favor of him. His spiritual cabinet during the campaign was made up of conservative Christian leaders, many of whom identify with the prosperity gospel movement that links faith with wealth.

“When was the last time you saw ‘Merry Christmas’? You don’t see it anymore,” then-candidate Trump said in a campaign speech at Liberty University in January 2016. “They want to be politically correct. If I’m president, you will see ‘Merry Christmas’ in department stores, believe me, believe me.”

Though there has not been a Christmas yet since Trump took office, references to religious freedom during his presidency have centered on Christianity. For the first time in nearly two decades, the White House did not recognize Ramadan with an iftar dinner or an Eid al-Fitr celebration this year, which some viewed as a slight against Muslim American communities.

Trump’s campaign rhetoric — and speeches since becoming president — have extended a long argument between ideologues over holiday greetings. During his tenure, President Barack Obama was frequently accused by the right of being too politically correct in his annual holiday cards, even though he and Michelle Obama wished the nation “Merry Christmas” every year while in office in spoken and other addresses.

For years, retailers and politicians have found themselves at the center of the politicized debate over the use of the neutral greeting “Happy Holidays” — which has the potential to be even more offensive to some groups than “Merry Christmas,” according to a recent survey from Public Policy Polling.

The Post’s Christopher Ingraham parsed the survey results last year and surmised that those who were most offended by references to “Happy Holidays” included strong conservatives, Gary Johnson voters, Trump supporters and men.

“These are the same groups of people that tend to say there is too much political correctness in society, yielding a paradox,” Ingraham reported. “The folks who complain the most about political correctness are the ones who are the most offended by what they see as ‘incorrect’ speech.”

Um, he doesn't worship God. He worships himself, money, and Putin. In that order.

13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Downing Street ‘not aware’ of Trump drop-in plan"

Spoiler

LONDON — The U.K. government said it is “not aware” of any plans for Donald Trump to visit the country in the next few weeks amid reports that the U.S. president could drop in to see the British prime minister while he is in Europe.

The U.S. president might want to see Theresa May while on an unscheduled stop to one of his Scottish golf course, according to The Sunday Times, with the British newspaper suggested confirmation would come less than 24 hours before the visit to avoid protests.

Trump is traveling across the Atlantic to attend France’s Bastille Day celebrations on July 14.

But the prime minister’s official spokesperson said: “I am not aware of any plans for the president to visit the U.K. in the next few weeks.”

May extended an invitation for a state visit to the U.K. to the U.S. president during her visit to Washington — but a date has still not been confirmed.

The U.K. state visit was not mentioned in the queen’s speech, which is usually used to give details of upcoming visits to the U.K. by other heads of states, or details of any state visits the queen is making overseas.

It wouldn't surprise me if the TT decides to make an unscheduled stop in London. If he were a local person, I could see him being the annoying neighbor who shows up every other day to "borrow" tools that never get returned, and drinks half the beer in my fridge.

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is excellent: "The Declaration of Independence, as read by President Trump" (the sub-header is perfect -- "There's a very fine line between parody and reality in 2017.")

Spoiler

Thank you very much for coming, including the members of the horrible Fake News Media, to this tradition that I have started, another beautiful first for this administration, the reading of the very famous and well-known Declaration of Independence, one of the greatest declarations in the history of the world. Here we go:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one group of people to dissolve the political bands — really, bands? Is it “bands” or bonds”? Who knows? — which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, and our God, too, our wonderful and very Christian God, entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. That was a long sentence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, so much happiness, such tremendous amounts of happiness, we are doing so well with the happiness, aren’t we? — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, I, too, received the greatest consent of the governed, the most consent of any president in a long time, despite the unfair electoral college being rigged against a Republican.

There’s a lot of stuff on “Prudence” here that I’m skipping because prudence is what got this country into trouble in the first place. We need to be bold!

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. But you know, I have to say here, that King George III, say what you will about him, at least he was a tough leader. He fought very hard and very tough to keep the United States, you have to admire him.

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. I certainly hope these are real facts, not the fake facts that CNN, or, as I now call it, the Fraud News Network, has been reporting.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. You know, this fact sounds fake to me. A good leader needs to be tough and smart and get things done quickly.

Did you know that this part of the Declaration is just a long list of complaints? Not many people know that at all.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with Manly Firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. “Manly firmness,” I like that. I just came up with that phrase, I think it improves the Declaration. It was manly firmness that got me elected despite the whining of the failing New York Times and #AmazonWashingtonPost.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. Believe you me, the King was on the right track!! Why would the Colonies want so many disgusting migrants coming from non-English countries? George III was just looking out for the forgotten colonists who didn’t want the great unwashed to come to this country!!

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. Our courts are so horrible, except for my Supreme Court pick, Gorsuch, that I really can’t blame the King. He’s making a lot of sense and the colonists sound like crybabies. All they’re doing in this is complaining about a strong leader. Weak!

Skipping a few of these minor complaints.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. But we need a strong Military! Our Military was very weak when I became president, but now it is strong!

Skipping, skipping … boy, this is a corny list …

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world?! The Founders probably wanted free trade, but I bet the powerful George III wanted fair trade — that makes more sense.

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent. I’ll agree with the colonists on that one. But I have to say, so far the King seems to be winning this argument!

Let’s see what else is here … suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. I would love to do this, it would be so beautiful. Look at how slowly Congress moves on health care, and they won’t give it enough heart. I would give it heart! I alone can fix health care!!

More corny stuff here, I’m skipping it …

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is strong enough to rule a people if you ask me. George III moved very strongly against these colonists, just as I am moving strongly against all of America’s enemies, including ISIS and the Fake News Media.

I know what the fake news will say that my reading of this Declaration is not historically accurate. But it is MODERN-DAY ACCURATE! I am not being politically correct, like our Failing Founders, I’m just being with truth here: I think the colonists were too hasty in rejecting a strong King!!

Therefore, I, the Very Strong Leader of the united States of America, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People, but ONLY the good people, not the bad losers and haters of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That I should have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent Kings may of right do. And for the support of my wonderful Declaration, with a great reliance on the protection of divine Providence, my subjects mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor, our very sacred honor indeed.

My Declaration makes America Great Again. I am accomplishing so much. Tryanny!!!

 

 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was skimming through the Irish newspapers online today and saw a headline about Trump possibly coming to visit Ireland sometime in the next year.

Initial reaction: Rage. Full on and instant, like a red mist descending. That FUCKER thinking he's welcome here?? No way!!

Second reaction: It's probably just bullshit anyway. He's saving face because he knows he'll meet protests and ridicule if he tries to go to the UK, so he's turning his attention to Ireland instead. Although our bullshit spineless government will probably line up to kiss his arse.

Third reaction: If he comes, I'll march. I'll make a banner and dress up and wait/walk for miles, as long as it takes. Swearing it right here, right now. I don't do bibles but I'm swearing it on the bag of peanut M&Ms I'm currently eating.

And after going through the full range of emotion from fury right across to gleeful anticipation of a fun day out, I was EXHAUSTED!!

And you guys go through this every day........:my_cry:

 

20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw that article on the war on Christmas yesterday and got angry all over again. I’m not Christian, though I do celebrate Christmas as a cultural, not religious, holiday.
The pandering to the evangelicals makes me so god damned angry. I usually say Happy Yule at that time of year, but if someone says merry Christmas to me, I take it in the spirit it was meant and don’t have a fit about it. If I’m such a special liberal snowflake, why is it that I can let the serious offence of being told merry Christmas go and they can’t do the fucking same for happy holidays? ARGH!
*gets off soapbox* sorry, but this everyone’s Christian narrative he’s pushing makes me so fucking angry.

18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

“These are the same groups of people that tend to say there is too much political correctness in society, yielding a paradox,” Ingraham reported. “The folks who complain the most about political correctness are the ones who are the most offended by what they see as ‘incorrect’ speech.

 Yup. In my local newspaper, the folks who throw the biggest fits about political correctness are the same ones who are furious whenever someone criticizes or protests against Trump. We all know that it has nothing to do with preserving free speech for everyone, they are just mad that they can't use an assortment of slurs anymore in polite company. If Trump said that he'd come up with a plan to somehow restrict the 1st Amendment to only his supporters, they'd be totally on board with that. 

12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now