Trump 12: Nevertheless, She Persisted (Let's do the same!)

[fraurosena]

Wut? Seriously, I have no better comment than that.

Report: Trump Says of Anti-Semitic Crimes, "Sometimes It's the Reverse"

Quote

President Donald Trump reportedly issued a bizarre statement Tuesday in response to the recent wave of anti-Semitic attacks around the country, in which dozens of Jewish community centers and cemeteries have been targeted by bomb threats and vandalism.

According to Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro (D), who was quoted by Buzzfeed, Trump said, "Sometimes it's the reverse, to make people—or to make others—look bad." Shapiro added that the president "used the word 'reverse' I would say two to three times in his comments."

"I really don't know what that means, or why he said that," Shapiro said.

 

[onekidanddone]

On 2/26/2017 at 7:47 PM, 47of74 said:

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

Wut? Seriously, I have no better comment than that.

Report: Trump Says of Anti-Semitic Crimes, "Sometimes It's the Reverse"

 

 

My take is he is getting this talking point from Bannon.  I think he is trying to imply Jews  and people of color do that two themselves to make the poor sad white supremacists look bad.  Poor things.  Notice how quiet he  has been about the shooting in Kansas City? 

[47of74]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

Wut? Seriously, I have no better comment than that.

Report: Trump Says of Anti-Semitic Crimes, "Sometimes It's the Reverse"

 

Yeah I was just coming here too to remark about how Agent Fuck Face is blaming the Jewish people for the spate of bomb threats and cemetery desecrations.  Fuck him, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Dark Lord Satan, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Force, Kahless, and the Great Bird of the Galaxy.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump's child care plan is gift to the rich, report says". No surprise here. The article begins:

Quote

President Donald Trump has vowed to make child care in America cheaper.

But Trump's current proposal, which he is expected to tout during his prime-time address to Congress Tuesday evening, will do little to help the working families who need the most relief. That's according to a new analysis from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center.

Making child care more affordable is one of Trump's signature promises to voters. It's listed in his contract with the American voter. His daughter Ivanka Trump played a large role in crafting the plan, which includes three new tax benefits.

Just about everyone agrees that child care costs in America are astronomical. It now costs more to put a kid in child care than college (if you get in-state tuition).

But an analysis by the Tax Policy Center finds that Trump's proposal is a gift to the rich. The tax experts at TPC say 70% of the benefits will go to families that make $100,000 or more. And 25% will go to people earning $200,000 or more.

"Trump has identified a real challenge affecting working families, but his proposal would do little or nothing to help them," Elaine Maag, an expert at the Tax Policy Center, told CNNMoney.

...

 

[Flossie]

Well, the big speech will be starting soon.  How many WTF's do you think we'll hear?  Any chance he'll go berserk and really give the world something to talk about?

[GreyhoundFan]

2 minutes ago, Flossie said:

Well, the big speech will be starting soon.  How many WTF's do you think we'll hear?  Any chance he'll go berserk and really give the world something to talk about?

It will be ssdd (same shit, different day). He knows nothing else. I can't watch. His voice grates on my nerves so much. I will review it via the WaPo, which will certainly do an annotated transcript.

 

A good article: "There are a few voices of sanity around Trump. They’re likely to be overwhelmed."

Quote

For years, Republicans have been telling us that the key to eradicating the threat of terrorism was to utter the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism.” More powerful than any spell taught at Hogwarts, once it was spoken by a president this magical incantation would emanate across the planet like a shock wave of righteousness and turn terrorists to dust where they stood.

Donald Trump didn’t invent this dumbest of all semantic obsessions. He inherited it from other Republicans. But with the zeal of the converted, he took up the critique of Barack Obama’s linguistic weakness and vowed that once he became president, he would wield the glorious phrase in America’s defense. So it was probably a surprise to him when he learned that his new national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, has the same position on “radical Islamic terrorism” that Obama did.

What happens now? Let’s see:

President Donald Trump’s new national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, advised him in a closed-door meeting last week to stop using a phrase that was a frequent refrain during the campaign: “radical Islamic terrorism.”

But the phrase will be in the president’s speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night, according to a senior White House aide — even though McMaster reviewed drafts and his staff pressed the president’s chief speechwriter and senior policy adviser, Stephen Miller, not to use it.

This is a relatively minor disagreement, but it’s a demonstration of a larger dynamic we’re likely to see in the Trump administration’s foreign policy. There are a few voices of sanity in the administration, people who actually have the experience and knowledge to do their jobs well and aren’t pursuing some maniacal vision of a global clash of civilizations — particularly McMaster and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. But they’re likely to be overcome by a trio of forces working against reason, caution and thoughtfulness.

The first force is the other power centers in the White House, including Miller but particularly Stephen K. Bannon, who arrived in the White House with a vision of a clash of civilizations between the West and Islam.

...

The second force aligned against the voices of sanity is the Republican Party; not just Republicans on Capitol Hill, but the party more broadly. While there are a few members of Congress (such as Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina) who may be willing to criticize the administration, in foreign policy the party and its base are going to be pressing for the most aggressive action in every situation, at least when it comes to the Middle East. For the past two years, Trump has promoted and then fed off the fears and hatreds of the GOP base in a feedback loop of anger. With his daily diet of Fox News shows, Trump is intensely attuned to what the base is saying and is always eager to give them what they want — which is not even to mention that he is in regular communication with people like lunatic conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. That puts those advocating restraint and appreciating nuance at a disadvantage.

The final force working against the sane members of the administration is, of course, the president himself. We know that Trump is impulsive and ill-informed, which dramatically increases the risk of terrible decision-making in a crisis. We also know that his natural inclinations move him in the direction of simplistic thinking, bellicosity and overreaction. While much was made during the campaign of his disinterest in the kind of nation-building the George W. Bush administration advocated, it would be a mistake to believe that Trump is less militaristic than other Republicans. As he said himself, “I am the most militaristic person you will ever meet” — he just doesn’t want to stay around and clean up after dropping the bombs. This is someone who has advocated stealing oil from Iraq and murdering the families of suspected terrorists, and whose “plan” for combating the Islamic State consisted of “I would bomb the s— out of them.”

...

Trump is obsessed with appearances, and frequently mentions his appointees’ appearance as evidence of their qualifications. “I see my generals,” he said at one event on Inauguration Day, pointing to Mattis. “They’re going to have a lot of problems, the other side. They’re gonna look at, they’re gonna look at, a couple of ’em, these are Central Casting. If I’m doing a movie, I pick you, General.”

By some accounts, Trump asked Mattis to be defense secretary in no small part because Mattis has a cool nickname (“Mad Dog”). So Trump was shocked when Mattis told him that torture doesn’t work. “I was surprised,” Trump said, “because he’s known as being like the toughest guy.” He may have been equally surprised when McMaster told him to cool it with the “radical Islamic terrorism.” But in neither case did he really change his mind.

So in a moment of crisis, when a few people around Trump are advising careful restraint and others are urging him to go off half-cocked, what’s going to happen? We don’t yet know. But there’s little reason to be reassured.

Oh yeah, that's the reason to appoint someone, their freaking nickname. You couldn't make this up.

[iweartanktops]

I can't watch. Can't give him ratings to talk about for the next 6 months . Also, I'm on muscle relaxers, so it's not wise to drink. 

[Ali]

I don't want to watch it either. I would rather read the Washington Post's annotated transcript.

[JMarie]

18 minutes ago, iweartanktops said:

I can't watch. Can't give him ratings to talk about for the next 6 months . Also, I'm on muscle relaxers, so it's not wise to drink. 

But his ratings will be HUGE!  Bigger than all the other shows COMBINED!  Plus all the television stations in every single foreign country will be watching!  HUUUUUUUGE!

[iweartanktops]

Well, now I'm going to have an anxiety attack. I just saw a few seconds on Facebook where he pointed out a black woman who was the first to graduate from high school or college in her family... After she failed 3rd grade. Something tells me it's a good thing I turned that off before I heard any more. I hate Donald. 

[onekidanddone]

25 minutes ago, iweartanktops said:

I can't watch. Can't give him ratings to talk about for the next 6 months . Also, I'm on muscle relaxers, so it's not wise to drink. 

It doesn't matter to him what the real ratings are. I think he will pontificate on how huge they are. I just wonder of the Democrats are going to sit on their hands when the "applause " light goes on.  The Republicans sure did when Obama spoke.  That were that one Congressman who yelled out " You Lie" during Obama's SOTU address. The best reaction to give at an Agent Orange SOTU  campaign rally is stone cold silence. 

3 minutes ago, iweartanktops said:

Well, now I'm going to have an anxiety attack. I just saw a few seconds on Facebook where he pointed out a black woman who was the first to graduate from high school or college in her family... After she failed 3rd grade. Something tells me it's a good thing I turned that off before I heard any more. I hate Donald. 

What the actual fuck?  I am so glad I am not watching. What is it with him and people of color.  Like he needs to go out of his way to say.."Look everybody I'm talking to a black person".  Every time I think I can't hate him any more it simmers and boils over again.  I'm not watching and I need to take some of my Xanax.

19 minutes ago, Ali said:

I don't want to watch it either. I would rather read the Washington Post's annotated transcript.

Not even sure I can do that. 

[Flossie]

OK, who was that man and what did they do to Donald Trump?  That speech was obviously written by others, but I don't understand how they got him to stick to the script.  Was there a sniper trained on Ivanka?

But even though that speech was intended to rebrand Trump as thoughtful and a peacemaker between the Republicans and the Democrats, a few things crept through.  He's the same ass he's always been, but somehow someone got him to behave for an hour.

[47of74]

I had a school study group this evening so I didn't watch der Fuckenführer blasting hot air at Congress.

Plus I wrapped up most of my homework for one class this evening.  I'll get to the others in the next couple days.

 

[RoseWilder]

Palmer Report has an interesting theory about this Russian scandal: 

http://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/reince-priebus-panic-move-suggests-trump-russia-scandal-runs-even-deeper-imagined/1664/

Quote

But until two days ago, I believed that Trump-Russia was contained entirely to Trump’s own people. This new Reince Priebus panic move, however, suggests something else.

Despite his current status as Donald Trump’s White HouseChief of Staff, Reince Priebus is not a Trump loyalist. He never has been. During the campaign, while he was RNC Chair, he acted completely neutral as to whether Trump became the nominee or not. He’s not someone who’s willing to take a fall for Trump now. In addition, Priebus is one of the few power players in the Trump White House who seems to understand how anything in government works.

So when Priebus asked the FBI to help him scuttle the Russia scandal, he wasn’t acting on a naive whim. In fact he started off as RNC general counsel before he was RNC Chair, so he knows political law better than most. He knew he was committing Watergate-level obstruction of justice. He knew the risk he was taking. Yet he was willing to break the law in a last ditch effort to try to make the Russia scandal go away. This suggests that Priebus himself, or someone else he’s deeply loyal to, was involved in the Russia scandal to begin with.

If Priebus was indeed involved in the conspiracy to work with Russia to rig the election, he had to have been doing so back while he was RNC Chair. When you look at how early on Vladimir Putin began trying to set the stage for Hillary Clinton to lose the 2016 election, including bringing Republican operatives like Michael Flynn and Sheriff David Clarke and even Green Party candidate Jill Stein to Moscow in December of 2015, long before Putin could have known that Trump would be the nominee, it raises the question of just whom Putin may have been conspiring with in those early days.

Was the effort to rig the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton originally a conspiracy between Russia and Republican Party leaders? Is that why Reince Priebus, who was Chair of the Republican National Committee at the time, is now going to such desperate lengths to keep the remaining details from coming out? If so, which other Republican Party leaders may have been involved at the start, even if they didn’t continue to pursue it after Trump hijacked the party? Is there enough dirt to take down the entire GOP leadership?

I really hope this does take down the entire GOP leadership. I want the party to be so destroyed that the remaining sane members will be forced to rebuild and make a more sane, less hateful, less corrupt party. But this Russian stuff needs to hurry up and come out. I'm getting impatient. 

[JMarie]

I liked the Democratic response.  Steve Beshear was to the point and non-fluffy.  He didn't stutter like Bobby Jindal, and didn't compulsively gulp water like Marco Rubio.

[RoseWilder]

The Republicans have gotten their talking points about why they're opposing the Trump-Russia investigation. Investigating the Trump-Russia ties has now been labeled as a "witch hunt" and is being compared to McCarthyism. What a load of bullshit. 

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/a-witch-hunt-against-the-american-people-gop-house-intel-chair-balks-at-investigating-trumps-russia-links/

Quote

The Republican head of the House Intelligence Committee dismissed calls for an investigation into ties between the Trump administration and Russian intelligence officials saying it would be a “witch hunt against the American people.”

Speaking at the California Republican Party’s spring convention in Sacramento, intel chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) compared accusations against the Trump White House to “McCarthyism,” reports Politico.

“This is almost like McCarthyism revisited,” Nunes told the attendees. “We’re going to go on a witch hunt against, against innocent Americans.”

 

[candygirl200413]

So I didn't see his speech, just read everyone recap on twitter and I just really hope people don't fall for what he sounded like. Such as speaking about the huge rise of antisemitism when he JUST told my state AG to blame the actual Jewish population. Plus he had ALL the time in the world since being elected that he could have done something about it.

Plus helping the environment? But just signing as an EA to dump nasty shit in the streams?! FOH.

Forgot: He also exploited the now widow of Navy Seal member about applause and I saw so many tweets explaining how Presidential that was of him. The bar has been set SO low for this man.

I'm so glad many dems from my area and surrounding made sure to note how it was just his campaign tour buta  tiny bit more polished. He is still a shitbag no matter how he's painted. I didn't even think my hate for him could grow even more until I saw the recaps. It just makes me mad how so much of the media is like "omg he's trying to come close with the other side!". Like nah, you show no actions, it just empty words.

[iweartanktops]

I feel dirty having watched the clip of 45 exploiting that Navy SEAL"s widow. I gagged at him saying Ryan must be happy now that they broke some kind of (standing ovation) record. WHAT? And people are actually saying that's so presidential? 45 couldn't even be bothered to watch the mission! 

[AlwaysExcited]

Trying to watch Trump's speech. Melania looks dead inside. Pence and Ryan are both staring at Trump like they're in love. 
I can only hope American public is not stupid enough to fall for Trump after one half-decent speech. Not after all of his bullshit actions. 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

9 minutes ago, AlwaysExcited said:

Trying to watch Trump's speech. Melania looks dead inside. Pence and Ryan are both staring at Trump like they're in love. 
I can only hope American public is not stupid enough to fall for Trump after one half-decent speech. Not after all of his bullshit actions. 

He is so bad that if he manages to avoid shouting and insulting for the duration of a speech our press fawns over him as if he did something truly special. 

[47of74]

10 hours ago, JMarie said:

I liked the Democratic response.  Steve Beshear was to the point and non-fluffy.  He didn't stutter like Bobby Jindal, and didn't compulsively gulp water like Marco Rubio.

Yeah he did a good job.

Still, glad it was him and not me. 

I would've been like this if I had to give the response...

And I'd be totally plastered by the time I had to give the response.

 

 

[AnywhereButHere]

I didn't watch the speech (can't listen to this fuckwit without gagging), but a friend of ours was group texting during saying that he sounded so reasonable, and he was our president now, we all should try to get along. Blah, blah, blah.

My husband's response: "No."

My Response: ..... crickets.....

[GreyhoundFan]

Here's a link to the WaPo annotated transcript.

 

This ticks me off royally. Van Jones, who has normally been an outspoken critic of Agent Orange, just fawned all over him.  The article begins:

Quote

CNN's Van Jones is a frequent Trump critic if there ever was one. But after the president's speech to the nation on Tuesday night, Jones got emotional and was clearly impressed by Trump's handling of one particular part of the speech.

Jones said Trump's tribute to Navy SEAL Ryan Owens, who died in a raid in Yemen, was “one of the most extraordinary moments you have ever seen in American politics, period” and that it was the moment Trump “became president of the United States.” He also said it's the kind of thing that could make Trump a two-term president.

...

 

[Childless]

25 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Here's a link to the WaPo annotated transcript.

 

This ticks me off royally. Van Jones, who has normally been an outspoken critic of Agent Orange, just fawned all over him.  The article begins:

 

So using a dead service member, who died because of his inept leadership, as political fodder makes him presidential?  Wow.  The bar has been set really low.

[AnywhereButHere]

Ooohhh. Fun game. How long can Caligula stay on message, off Twitter, and marginally sane.

The bar is so low, it's still on the ground.