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.

06-18-2017 , 10:32 PM
Let's also not forget how much Trump campaigned as "The Law & Order" candidate.

LMAO there's like 8 to 10 investigations into him and his campaign after only 5 months in office. What a douche.
06-18-2017 , 11:34 PM
Just another way we're killing off the State Dept. There's a special scholarship program that pays for grad school for talented people (mostly women and minorities) in exchange for their commitment to serve in the diplomatic core for at least 5 years after graduation (and assuming they can pass background checks and some other requirements). State just notified this year's class that their job offers have been rescinded due to a department wide hiring freeze. They were offered some other, less prestigious positions that don't carry the same prospects for career development and advancement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/ampht...b98_story.html
06-18-2017 , 11:58 PM
Quote:
Many were shocked when they received a letter telling them they had one week to decide if they wanted to take a much less appealing job — stamping passports in a foreign embassy for two years — with the prospect but no guarantee of becoming a Foreign Service officer even after that.
Quote:
"There’s a hiring freeze. But we are keeping our commitment to these fellows," she said. "Look, it’s not an ideal situation."
SMH
06-19-2017 , 12:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet
daaayum will

I'm lucky with no Trumpkins in my family, but I really have no problem just nodding my head and pretending I'm listening to whatever my mom is talking about.
Some good advice here among lots of bad responses.

Don't know his father, but gonna go out on a limb and say he wouldn't send will to any "camp" but some unhinged posters on this forum can't cope with reality. Always gonna be people that aren't gonna agree with you and to cut off family over political stuff is silly imo.
06-19-2017 , 12:17 AM
Sucks to hear the stories about loved ones and politics but it does seem like this stuff is going to become a dominant theme of American life. Politics is just way more dominant in culture right now than at any time since the 1960's.

It's just everywhere, the news networks are printing money, social media is all about politics now, everything has just exploded and it is hard to see it ending well.

Who you are as a person is more defined by your political views now than before it feels like. Feels like this is all just the beginning as well.

And Trump's really just given 1/2 the population the idea that acting like a complete ******* is OK but it's all in good fun and people just gotta chill out and stuff.
06-19-2017 , 12:22 AM
Trump has no business ties to Russia, but made sure to renew a number of trademarks in 2016 just to keep his options open for the future. SMART!

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/1...rademarks.html

Last edited by Bigoldnit; 06-19-2017 at 12:48 AM.
06-19-2017 , 12:27 AM
Also re: the trolling by Trumpkins.

I think they get so much of that from Fox News. Sometimes I'll check if Fox has any youtube clips I want to watch and it is never about policy and almost always about liberals, millennials, snowflakes. This stuff is just ingrained now. I think Fox knows that most of the GOP agenda isn't really that popular (cutting medicare/SS, healthcare, tax cuts for rich) so they just stick to that.

I don't even think most of these people give a **** about tax cuts or regulations or government spending. They just want a new sports team to root for and it is a lot of fun.

Last edited by Onlydo2days; 06-19-2017 at 12:32 AM.
06-19-2017 , 12:38 AM

https://twitter.com/ShakespearesTao/...48288986619905
06-19-2017 , 01:16 AM
Everyone talks about the social unrest that would come from Trump impeachment, but what about the economy? It's been growing for 8 years now and is due for a correction at some point.

If there was a real bubble bursting or Great Recession part 2 and 400k people were losing their jobs a month while trillions in wealth was going up in flames, then we might see some real social unrest.

I don't think this country could handle a 2008 type black swan right now. And it's going to happen eventually.
06-19-2017 , 01:25 AM
Sorta feels like a few thousand or maybe tens of thousands of people out of a few hundred million are really worked up enough to do much. Google tells me you need 3.5% of the population for a revolution, so over 10 million.
06-19-2017 , 01:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by .Alex.
If I was employed by CNN or the New York Times, I'd be pretty tilted that 40% of the country couldn't differentiate me from a 19 year old eastern european writing articles out of his mom's basement.
Lol, I never thought about it like that. That does say something about the quality of the media.
06-19-2017 , 01:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet
Sorta feels like a few thousand or maybe tens of thousands of people out of a few hundred million are really worked up enough to do much. Google tells me you need 3.5% of the population for a revolution, so over 10 million.
Agree for the most part.

People likely just get angrier on social media and family/social gatherings are more unpleasant.

But more acts of rage could happen as well.
06-19-2017 , 01:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onlydo2days
Everyone talks about the social unrest that would come from Trump impeachment, but what about the economy? It's been growing for 8 years now and is due for a correction at some point.

If there was a real bubble bursting or Great Recession part 2 and 400k people were losing their jobs a month while trillions in wealth was going up in flames, then we might see some real social unrest.

I don't think this country could handle a 2008 type black swan right now. And it's going to happen eventually.
The Trump Era has definitely been an exception to most political rules but the state of the economy isn't likely to be bumped off as the #1 issue to voters. I don't know what you have in mind when you say "social unrest" exactly. A major recession like we had isn't something the GOP can weather at the polls either way.
06-19-2017 , 01:47 AM
Chris Wallace desperate to get fired from Fox News.
06-19-2017 , 02:08 AM
I actually kind of side with the lawyer there over Wallace. Lawyer was speaking hypothetically and Wallace jumped on him. Awkward because there's plenty to go after Trump legitimately on.
06-19-2017 , 02:27 AM
Well, for one the lawyer can't know whether Trump is being investigated. Either he knows he is or he doesn't know either way. Going all over tv saying he isn't is just a lie that Trump wants him to spread.

I dont see Trump's gameplan. Either Trump plans to intercede in the investigation or he should just quiet down, as it will be at least a year before he's exonerated (if he's implicated it could be less, but probably not). No reason to have his flack appear on 4 Sunday shows unless he wants to fire Rosenstien/Mueller, as it's otherwise only a potentially refutable talking point that may last a day or two and lacks any practical significance. As Comey noted, he didn't want to publicly state Trump wasn't under investigation because he may have to publicly retract later. So, why does Trump want to push this line?
06-19-2017 , 02:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OmgGlutten!
Chris Wallace desperate to get fired from Fox News.
I can't imagine a 70-something Chris Wallace would care if he did. He's made a career of doing it mostly the right way since
forever and it's worked out just fine for him. Some find him abrasive but I can live with it if it gets the job done.



EDIT: And check out Sam Donaldson right after.

Last edited by Minirra; 06-19-2017 at 02:34 AM.
06-19-2017 , 02:40 AM
While Trump's razor wisely counsels that the stupidist explanation is likely correct, it's important to know that Trump and his team are stategic thinkers. They're terrible at it because they are dumb and don't know anything, but they are at least trying to think one move ahead and develop a strategy for a desirable outcome.

So, what is their strategy here? Are they trying to get Mueller to leak he is under investigation so he can fire him? Does he just want to 'clear' his name? I mean Trump being under investigation barely makes the list of serious PR issues he has. What about healthcare or the upcoming budget issues, or the fake tax reform stuff, etc. Trump's got 99 problems and an investigation is only one. (Unless he's trying to set up Mueller's firing, in which case he'll have 100 problems.)


Hell, if Ossof wins, it will be 5 days of coverage about how the Trump presidency has ended in failure. If Trump wants something to worry about, that would be a good start.

Last edited by simplicitus; 06-19-2017 at 02:50 AM.
06-19-2017 , 02:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet
Sorta feels like a few thousand or maybe tens of thousands of people out of a few hundred million are really worked up enough to do much. Google tells me you need 3.5% of the population for a revolution, so over 10 million.
7% of the adult population of the US believe chocolate milk comes from brown cows, fwiw.
06-19-2017 , 02:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainierWolfcastle
I actually kind of side with the lawyer there over Wallace. Lawyer was speaking hypothetically and Wallace jumped on him. Awkward because there's plenty to go after Trump legitimately on.
lol, no.

Here is a transcript.

Quote:
It was put forward in a memorandum by the Dep AG and AG requesting the removal of James Comey. So here's the constitutional question. The President takes action based on numerous events including recommendations from his AG. He takes the action they also recommended and now he is being investigated by the DOJ. This is special counsel under special counsel regulations reporting still to the DOJ, not independent counsel. So he is being investigated for taking the action recommended by the agency who recommended the termination. So that's the constitutional question.
Where are the words "if," "would," "supposed to," "alleged," that signal that we're in any way deviating from real facts? Or how about the word "hypothetically" for this supposed hypothetical? The fact that he said "question" without ever asking a question does not signal hypothetical, only that he sucks at words.

Wallace follows up very correctly with this.

Quote:
What's the "question"? You stated some facts.
Like maybe in this guy's Trump-addled ****** brain he thinks he put forward a hypothetical, even though he obviously did not, but you know, if your one job is to spread the misinformation that Trump is not being investigated, then you probably shouldn't say "he is being investigated" twice on national television. Just a thought. Hypothetically.
06-19-2017 , 02:48 AM
Holy **** that's actually true:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.0d3227ad054d
06-19-2017 , 02:52 AM
Lying is almost always harder work than telling the truth.
06-19-2017 , 03:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stinkubus
It's hard to know what to make of that without more information about the poll. Granted some folks are just that clueless but how do you account for trolling?

I can pretty much guarantee you that I'd answer "brown cows" to the question if it were one of the options. And obviously if anyone calls about what candidate I'm supporting, I'm auto-selecting Deez Nuts.
06-19-2017 , 04:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplicitus
Well, for one the lawyer can't know whether Trump is being investigated. Either he knows he is or he doesn't know either way. Going all over tv saying he isn't is just a lie that Trump wants him to spread.

I dont see Trump's gameplan. Either Trump plans to intercede in the investigation or he should just quiet down, as it will be at least a year before he's exonerated (if he's implicated it could be less, but probably not). No reason to have his flack appear on 4 Sunday shows unless he wants to fire Rosenstien/Mueller, as it's otherwise only a potentially refutable talking point that may last a day or two and lacks any practical significance. As Comey noted, he didn't want to publicly state Trump wasn't under investigation because he may have to publicly retract later. So, why does Trump want to push this line?

Because Trump is a F'ing idiot.

It keeps needing to be repeated over and over again. Trump is a moron. There is no game plan. There is no critical thought on his part. It is 100% reaction to whatever his amygdala tells him.

The guy has spent his entire life threatening his "enemies" w/ lawyers. That is not going to change just because he's POTUS.
06-19-2017 , 05:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RV Life
The guy has spent his entire life threatening his "enemies" w/ lawyers. That is not going to change just because he's POTUS.
He also spent his whole life using those lawyers to fight against really disparaging fake news stories, but decided to stop when these fake stories could result in impeachment or criminal charges?

Another bridge he's trying to sell us.

Well, not us. If you look at the infrastructure plan, it's really another bridge he's trying to sell to Saudi Arabia up to 9 years from now, while he and GOP split up 200 billion in tax cuts taken from the poor and Middle class.

      
m