ProSys posted:

From a Salon article:

Always impulsive, the president increasingly believes he does not need advisers, according to people close to him.  He is on his third chief of staff, third national security adviser, sixth communications director, second secretary of state, second attorney general and soon his second defense secretary.  Turnover at the top has reached 65 percent, according to the Brookings Institution.

Some left in a cloud of corruption allegations, including his health and human services secretary, his Environmental Protection Agency chief and, most recently, his interior secretary.  Others left after clashing with Mr. Trump.  Mr. Mattis was the last of the so-called axis of adults seen by some as tempering a volatile president, following the ouster of Rex W. Tillerson as secretary of state, H.R. McMaster as national security adviser and John F. Kelly as chief of staff.

 
Definitely the hall marks of a self-described "very stable genius"..... 
 

I know how to fix things. Let me hire a Secretary of Defense with zero military experience. Genius!

No doubt Napa and his ilk are very proud and I can only hope Napa is one of those not getting paid during the orange dumps childish temper tantrum. 

wineart 2 posted:
g-man posted:

we should make it a panel of 19 supreme court judges.

If they're there for life, then they can be there arguing for life!

🙃... The Supreme Court with its lifetime appointments and with no reasoning of when one gets appointed is a curious branch of our government. Look at the last 7 presidential elections. The Democratic presidential candidate has won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 elections, yet a democrat has only four current justices and with RBG’s health, it may very well be only 3 of 9 sooner than later. 

wineart 2 posted:
g-man posted:

we should make it a panel of 19 supreme court judges.

If they're there for life, then they can be there arguing for life!

🙃... The Supreme Court with its lifetime appointments and with no reasoning of when one gets appointed is a curious branch of our government. Look at the last 7 presidential elections. The Democratic presidential candidate has won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 elections, yet a democrat has only four current justices and with RBG’s health, it may very well be only 3 of 9 sooner than later. 

One can only hope.

wineart 2 posted:
jcocktosten posted:
wineart 2 posted:

Thank you, Chief Justice!

Perhaps we have a new swing vote to replace Kennedy.

Not remotely IMO.  An extremely conservative justice albeit one who has some respect for precedent and some intellectual honesty unlike Alito, Gorsuch and and Thomas.  That he is being viewed as a swing vote shows just how dramatically the Court has moved to the right 

He has clearly been the swing vote just like yesterday. Kennedy was too a very conservative judge, and in fact had an equal conservative rating as Roberts with one major exception, gay rights. Remove Kennedy’s correct view ( my opinion) on all things gay rights and he voted 23 out of 25 times with the extreme right judges over the past decades on major split vote issues.

Don’t forget Kennedy voted to overturn Obamacare and I’m not sure he would not have voted with the right yesterday based on his past. It was Roberts that saved Obamacare six years ago, not Kennedy. I guess my point is, “if” there is a swing vote, it will be Roberts as there seems to be a lock 4-4 vote almost guaranteed anymore all too often, IMO.  

I always appreciate hearing your opinion, JC. 

Roberts is sane and principled and very Conservative. He is the Conservative version of RBG or John Paul Stevens (R appointment). Sotomayor is probably more moderate than either. By most reasonable metrics, Kagan and Breyer are only Liberal by a hair. Souter (R appointment) and Merrick Garland were/are straight down the middle and Sandra Day O’Connor was Conservative, but not very. There simply is no modern SC Liberal equivalent to Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh. And there is no 21st century precedent for a Republican to appoint moderately Conservative justices*, despite at least 3 of the last five Democratic appointments being roughly moderate, with one straight down the middle.

*who are not the lunch lady. 

The reason I post this is the recent R insistence on elevating to the SC activist justices who are outside the mainstream has the very real (and intended) possible outcome of fundamentally altering our rights and usurping normal legislative functions. And people like to say, “both sides do X,” or, “both sides do X, just to varying degrees,” and it is often true. But that simply is not the case re: SC appointments since Souter’s appointment almost 30 years ago.  And the extreme-ifying of the Conservative side of the SC is causing politicization around it, generally (eg. McConnell’s Garland blockade). Which, in turn, is causing a general public skepticism regarding the most sacred of our institutions whose decisions are incredibly difficult to undo. 

in the first two years of his reign, President Trump had promised a border wall. The Republicans controlled the Senate. The Republicans controlled the House.  No border wall.

So, why now? Why when the Dems control the House (shortly) and there will not be funding for a wall?  It's pure distraction.  Border wall + shut down on the front burner; Mueller investigation on the back burner.

 

I want to point out, that, throughout history, there has been a particular country that has built a gigantic border wall.

And it failed, miserably.  The mongols had no trouble invading the country even with a massive wall.

Also, in modern times, more foreigners, now cross, step on, across, take pieces off the wall than ever before.

g-man posted:

I want to point out, that, throughout history, there has been a particular country that has built a gigantic border wall.

And it failed, miserably.  The mongols had no trouble invading the country even with a massive wall.

Also, in modern times, more foreigners, now cross, step on, across, take pieces off the wall than ever before.

I think you've hit on a great idea, G-Man.  We build the wall.  It becomes a great tourist attraction.  We make it a national monument. We charge admission for people to touch it, kick it, etc.  We recoup the $5 Billion.  If we charge $5 per person, and we get 10,000 visitors per year, that would be $50,000 per year, and it would only take..................never mind.

irwin posted:
g-man posted:

I want to point out, that, throughout history, there has been a particular country that has built a gigantic border wall.

And it failed, miserably.  The mongols had no trouble invading the country even with a massive wall.

Also, in modern times, more foreigners, now cross, step on, across, take pieces off the wall than ever before.

I think you've hit on a great idea, G-Man.  We build the wall.  It becomes a great tourist attraction.  We make it a national monument. We charge admission for people to touch it, kick it, etc.  We recoup the $5 Billion.  If we charge $5 per person, and we get 10,000 visitors per year, that would be $50,000 per year, and it would only take..................never mind.

Irwin, but it would offer a wonderful canvas for graffiti artist! 

The facts are we have a willfully ignorant president who has averaged over 10 lies per day, 10! That can’t be easy.

The POS wants $5B. That would allow enough money for between 150 and 200 miles of wall for a 1900 mile border. Now that would not include any annual or long term maintenance, additional  personnel required to monitor forever, additional technologies required, just some dumbass wall that would only be 1700 miles short of the entire border. The fact is the overwhelming numbers of illegals enter through border crossings, not some remote location.

The facts are only half of illegal immigrants are from Mexico and half of those came here legally and have overstayed their visa due to outdated work visa laws. A wall does nothing to address these issues. 

The president knows that the 1/3 of the voting Americans that support him are also willfully ignorant and incapable of critical thinking ( see Napa and the other troll here) so it doesn’t matter what BS comes out of his mouth. Plus, we all know Mexico is going to pay for it, trust me Trump says. 

Every time I think the orange dump has hit the bottom, he proves me wrong. 

The very man who’s father paid a doctor to create a false diagnosis of the worlds worse bone spur that took the longest in history to heal now stands in front of the men and women of our armed forces and blatantly lies his fat ass off. Trump is truly clinically ill.

Trump says they have not had a pay raise in over 10 years. What a liar. They have received pay increases for over 30 straight years. He says they were only going to get a 2% raise, or a 4% and Trump said NO, give them a 10% raise which he said they got. Again, just your trash liar known as Trump. They received the 2.4 - 2.6% as it has been for sometime. 

It was funny seeing a Trump supporter on a national news show this morning. He was asked if he was disturbed that Trump has told over 7500 lies in his first 700 days. Of coarse he said no. He then said why didn’t the fact checkers count Obama’s lies? The interviewer then said that in fact his lies were counted. He told 18 in 8 years. Trump is on pace for nearly 16,000! I have no doubt Napa and his ilk are so very proud. 

mneeley490 posted:

Now we have John Kelly's exit interview, saying that he hopes he is remembered for what he DIDN'T let Trump do. That scares the bejezus out of me.

Kelly and several others have said the same thing; i.e., protect the nation from an imbecile.

Napa and his ilk must be so very proud....

purplehaze posted:

I think I woulda been a good general... but who knows.  

PH

I would have been a terrible soldier.  I hate taking orders from anyone, but in particular, I hate taking orders from people who are dumber than I am.  I am also bad at delegating tasks to others, and thus, I would have been a lousy general.  Fortunately, we have people in our country who are willing to do both of these types of tasks, and many are good at it.

 

purplehaze posted:

I think I woulda been a good general... but who knows.  

PH

Just think, he could of been the first general with a personal hairdresser, and many others could have learned about back- combing, hair weaves and orange spray tans. I’m not sure the military could afford a can of hairspray used everyday. 

I have no doubt he has GI Joe pajamas. 😎

wineart 2 posted:
purplehaze posted:

I think I woulda been a good general... but who knows.  

PH

Just think, he could of been the first general with a personal hairdresser, and many others could have learned about back- combing, hair weaves and orange spray tans. I’m not sure the military could afford a can of hairspray used everyday. 

I have no doubt he has GI Joe pajamas. 😎

..not to mention the cost of orange spray tan!

 

Thank you to Chris Wallace of Fox News for calling out Sarah Sanders and her BS lies as she tried to spread the lies from the Orange Dump. As Wallace corrected her BS, there have not been some 4000 terrorist caught crossing at the Southern border. Complete and total lie.

Truth is as Fox News and Wallace pointed out, these people were questioned and vetted at airports for often having similar or same names as people on the watch list, or having unusual credentials. AIRPORTS, what a novel thought....

Napa and his ilk have zero use for facts or truth and Trump knows it. 

bman posted:
flwino posted:
bman posted:

Last time I checked.....

We and most other countries also valued life!

Sarah is losing her touch or, perhaps, as the article suggests, she's out of practice after avoiding any serious questioning from the media for the past few weeks.

How can you sleep knowing you told lies all day?

It's why she makes the big money!

when I grew up, if a lie was told, parents would wash out your mouth with soap.  They way this group goes, II better by more stock in a soap company

The President addresses the country tonight.  I've been watching these presidential addresses for many years.  I've watched LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama.    On the one hand, I think it is important to know what the President says and to think about it critically yourself, rather than rely on news media to select the highlights and feed commentary to you.  But, on the other hand, I have no anti-nausea medication on hand, and I don't think I could get through the first sentence or two tonight without it.

I don't know if all of the networks will cover this.  But, we can stream something. 

irwin posted:

The President addresses the country tonight.  I've been watching these presidential addresses for many years.  I've watched LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama.    On the one hand, I think it is important to know what the President says and to think about it critically yourself, rather than rely on news media to select the highlights and feed commentary to you.  But, on the other hand, I have no anti-nausea medication on hand, and I don't think I could get through the first sentence or two tonight without it.

I don't know if all of the networks will cover this.  But, we can stream something. 

Serious question, what would the over/under be on how many verifiable lies Trump will tell tonight? 

wineart 2 posted:
irwin posted:

The President addresses the country tonight.  I've been watching these presidential addresses for many years.  I've watched LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama.    On the one hand, I think it is important to know what the President says and to think about it critically yourself, rather than rely on news media to select the highlights and feed commentary to you.  But, on the other hand, I have no anti-nausea medication on hand, and I don't think I could get through the first sentence or two tonight without it.

I don't know if all of the networks will cover this.  But, we can stream something. 

Serious question, what would the over/under be on how many verifiable lies Trump will tell tonight? 

I think it might need to be judged per minute. 

But... realistically over the course of the speech I would think 12-14 fully distinct and verifiably false claims with another +/-10 distinct claims wholly unsupported by evidence. Most claims repeated multiple times. I would also suggest at least 2 pairs of mutually refuting claims and 23 instances of claiming personal victimization at the hands of “the media” or Democrats. 

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×