Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

06-02-2017 , 07:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive
"I was elected to serve the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris." got honorable mention by a CNN Trumpeter yesterday as stupid Trump's best quote of the speech. Believe it or not.
06-02-2017 , 07:17 AM
To be fair, it's about time Parisians stopped receiving those Paris Agreement payments and paid for their own damn croissants.
06-02-2017 , 07:42 AM
So the Paris accord withdrawal helped Russia a bunch. I brought that up yesterday and just wanted to expand on it.

BIGGEST WINNERS
1. Saudi Arabiaa
2. Russia
3. China

Russia is still a freaking mysterious bastard. Never even a verbal attack, and they continue to taunt us militarily, politically and psychologically on a regular basis, while Trump takes pro-Russia actions over and over for nothing in return, except for Trump personally. And we WILL figure out exactly what those benefits are.

As for the others, let's keep in mind that Trump gunned hard for both China and SA during the campaign and for a lot of his private life. Then he has the "most productive meetings of his presidency with each of their leaders recently, yet was barely able to cite benefits to the US. It looks like he and Ivanka got a good amount out of the meetings though. Either way, Trump did full 180s on both countries right after each meeting.

BIGGEST LOSERS
1. Earth
2. America
3. Europe, particularly Germany and France.

Aside from the planet, which comes and goes from speeches depending on Trump's whims and opportunities, #2 is (accidentally?) the steady loser. #3 is a spite loser.

I hope some important people in the right places are keeping accurate track of all this mess. We can't count on GOP to get it right, or admit any of the events even occurred. They keep tripping over their own memories for some random reason.
06-02-2017 , 07:53 AM
WH asking Supreme Court to hear Muslim ban case. Thoughts? The Republican appointees on the Fourth Circuit case voted in favor of Trump, so it doesn't bode well for America. I have to imagine Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito are stone locks to vote in favor of the ban.
06-02-2017 , 08:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperUberBob
The Russians I know want the sanctions removed because it hurts them but not any rich people. The sanctions also offer Putin a convenient scapegoat on why the Russian economy is ****. That scapegoat allows he and his cronies to bleed the country dry without taking any responsibility for it. It also creates anti-American sentiment in Russia which can be used to further solidify his base.
Did this thing get posted yet?...

How the Trump administration’s secret efforts to ease Russia sanctions fell short

Basically, there was a lot of hidden pressure in January to get rid of sanctions on Russia. Nothing new, just more of the same boring unimpeachable stuff I guess.

Quote:
In the early weeks of the Trump administration, former Obama administration officials and State Department staffers fought an intense, behind-the-scenes battle to head off efforts by incoming officials to normalize relations with Russia, according to multiple sources familiar with the events.

Unknown to the public at the time, top Trump administration officials, almost as soon as they took office, tasked State Department staffers with developing proposals for the lifting of economic sanctions, the return of diplomatic compounds and other steps to relieve tensions with Moscow.

These efforts to relax or remove punitive measures imposed by President Obama in retaliation for Russia’s intervention in Ukraine and meddling in the 2016 election alarmed some State Department officials, who immediately began lobbying congressional leaders to quickly pass legislation to block the move, the sources said.
The biggest difference in this article however was that the 2 anonymous sources that Trump wants to attack were actually NAMED sources. Now he has to work even harder to discredit a couple more career professionals.
06-02-2017 , 08:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplicitus
What is complex here? Should they have just refused the initial appointment?
Yes? Like, everyone here in politardia could have told you Trump would be a disaster for the environment and they should have told his to **** off from the get-go. Amazing that these captains of industry fell for his shtick like Trump U students.
06-02-2017 , 08:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllTheCheese
WH asking Supreme Court to hear Muslim ban case. Thoughts? The Republican appointees on the Fourth Circuit case voted in favor of Trump, so it doesn't bode well for America. I have to imagine Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito are stone locks to vote in favor of the ban.
If it turns out that Gorsuch is proven beyond doubt to be a rubber stamp after it's also proven beyond doubt that 45* illegally stole the election while a private citizen last year, is there any path to Gorsuch removal? In other (best) words, who or what keeps SCOTUS Justices in check? (please for the love of God don't say Jefferson Beau****** Sessions)
06-02-2017 , 08:18 AM
Roberts won't vote for Muslim ban. He knows it will be seen as badly as Dredd Scott or Korematsu. Daddy sure can count on Alito though. What a POS.
06-02-2017 , 08:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplicitus
Falls for what? They got put on big commisssions, thought they could do some good for their country or their company. See that the president isn't rational, say "smell you later."

What is complex here? Should they have just refused the initial appointment? I mean that's not unreasonable, but there could have been potential benefits to being a member (like being able to influence Trump on climate change).
Of course they should have refused. Their names lent legitimacy to a mean spirited, ignorant piece of **** who was never, ever going to be anything less than a disaster on everything.
06-02-2017 , 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Our House
So the Paris accord withdrawal helped Russia a bunch. I brought that up yesterday and just wanted to expand on it.

BIGGEST WINNERS
1. Saudi Arabiaa
2. Russia
3. China

Russia is still a freaking mysterious bastard. Never even a verbal attack, and they continue to taunt us militarily, politically and psychologically on a regular basis, while Trump takes pro-Russia actions over and over for nothing in return, except for Trump personally. And we WILL figure out exactly what those benefits are.

As for the others, let's keep in mind that Trump gunned hard for both China and SA during the campaign and for a lot of his private life. Then he has the "most productive meetings of his presidency with each of their leaders recently, yet was barely able to cite benefits to the US. It looks like he and Ivanka got a good amount out of the meetings though. Either way, Trump did full 180s on both countries right after each meeting.

BIGGEST LOSERS
1. Earth
2. America
3. Europe, particularly Germany and France.

Aside from the planet, which comes and goes from speeches depending on Trump's whims and opportunities, #2 is (accidentally?) the steady loser. #3 is a spite loser.

I hope some important people in the right places are keeping accurate track of all this mess. We can't count on GOP to get it right, or admit any of the events even occurred. They keep tripping over their own memories for some random reason.
Not so sure that France/Germany are losers here (or if so, there is a HUGE gap between loser #2 and loser #3). They're going to be looked at as the new "leaders of the free world" now.
06-02-2017 , 09:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperUberBob
What would it take for Trump to get the majority of America's support?
False flag or real major terrorist attack (100+ dead) or getting assassinated.
06-02-2017 , 09:25 AM


https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/stat...30964107644929

Sounds about right. Doesn't matter what actual positions are taken or the wisdom of doing something or not doing something, it's all about what the libs do.
06-02-2017 , 09:31 AM
138k jobs added in May. 180k had been projected.

2017's Feb-May jobs added number the lowest of any year since 2009. April and May still noted as "Preliminary", though.
06-02-2017 , 09:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl


https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/stat...30964107644929

Sounds about right. Doesn't matter what actual positions are taken or the wisdom of doing something or not doing something, it's all about what the libs do.
Same sort of idea, but I thought this was a better approximation:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-change-denier

Quote:
Officials say they don’t know president’s personal views or what changes to the Paris agreement he is looking for
Quote:
One official replied: “So I think the fact that the president in his speech today said he wants to come back and renegotiate a better deal for the United States and for the world I think speaks for itself.”

The journalist shot back: “So is that a yes? It’s a yes or no question.”

The official said: “Again, I think that speaks for itself.”

The journalist pressed: “It doesn’t speak for itself, so is that a yes? Does he believe human activity contributes to climate change?”

The official said: “I have not talked to the president about his personal views on whether – I was not with the president on his trip. I did not talk to the president about his personal views on what is contributing to climate change.”

The official insisted his own views were irrelevant, while a White House staff member interjected: “Can we stay on topic please?” The official echoed: “Can we stay on topic please?” – implying that Trump’s views on the causes of climate change were irrelevant to the Paris decision.
Journalist: You just left a climate change agreement. Do you have any position on whether humans cause climate change?
Trump Admin: no idea, let's stay on topic


The ultimate in post-policy politics.
06-02-2017 , 09:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by amoeba
Musk got a lot of crap from dumb liberals when he was on the council. Besides, if Ivanka can't convince Trump, what good is staying on? It's a lose lose. Get nothing accomplished and get blamed for it.
Lord haw-haw says hi.

Last edited by Clovis8; 06-02-2017 at 09:47 AM.
06-02-2017 , 09:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheatrich
so I'll be that guy

To be fair to trump, we really didn't give a **** about climate change so the outrage over an agreement that's probably about worthless on that front anyway has gotta be totally ****ing with his mind.

Not that I mind, but boy is there some overlevel of outrage over a weak at best agreement.

I obv agree we really need to stop ****ing up the planet, but we needed to start that awhile ago. Trump's problem on this is simply he might be the end of the last chance at mitigating the carnage and lol us.
You have no idea what you are talking about. This was an historic accord on the level with the creation of NATO and historians of the future will judge this withdrawal as one of the worst political decisions of all time.
06-02-2017 , 09:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFeelNothin
I was thinking while listening to the "speech" today hiw obvious it was that Trump comes to conclusions about what he should do first then looks for "evidence" to support.

Nice of Conway to confirm.
Wilbur Ross (Commerce Secretary) gave an interview on NPR this morning and cited millions and millions of job losses if we stayed in. He said those numbers weren't from the "administration," but rather, "a third party." Of course the utter ****ing hack interviewing him didn't bother to ask the name of this "third party," which I'd bet blind was some trash org like Heritage Foundation.
06-02-2017 , 09:46 AM
It's because Trump has no views on virtually anything. He doesn't like Obama. He was rude to the Europeans and they responded in kind. All those people are in favor of the Paris deal....which means he opposes it.
06-02-2017 , 09:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Namath12
Wilbur Ross (Commerce Secretary) gave an interview on NPR this morning and cited millions and millions of job losses if we stayed in. He said those numbers weren't from the "administration," but rather, "a third party." Of course the utter ****ing hack interviewing him didn't bother to ask the name of this "third party," which I'd bet blind was some trash org like Heritage Foundation.
It was the Heritage Foundation.
06-02-2017 , 09:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by synth_floyd
It's because Trump has no views on virtually anything. He doesn't like Obama. He was rude to the Europeans and they responded in kind. All those people are in favor of the Paris deal....which means he opposes it.
Right. It's pretty indicative of the entire right wing who have turned over the entire movement to Milo, Breitbart, and an assortment of radio DJs and celebrity gossip columnists turned political radio and cable show hosts. What are their 'views' on really anything?

The whole movement is down to three things: don't tax me, resentfulness at everything that isn't part of the old fat white guy cultural gestalt, and nothing. Literally nothing else.
06-02-2017 , 09:49 AM
06-02-2017 , 09:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BABARtheELEPHANT
Macron's statement in English
https://www.pscp.tv/w/1jMKgoodLyqKL

the poaching has begun. Soon all america will be full of mouth breathers.
A good ole fashioned brain drain

Trump's one of a kind
06-02-2017 , 09:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Namath12
A good ole fashioned brain drain

Trump's one of a kind
Pol Pot was known for indiscriminately killing intellectuals.
06-02-2017 , 09:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive
If you can't describe the ****ing difference between weather and climate you should not be allowed within 100 miles of any decisions referring to the Paris Accord.

Americans love and revere stupidity like no other culture in history. It's so pathetic.
06-02-2017 , 09:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by raradevils
It is subsidized in different forms but compared to other industries not so much:

https://thinkprogress.org/top-three-...t-a11e3f39d48b
As your link points out the externalities are huge. And they're huge even if you don't count climate change.

      
m