Trump Administration Meltdown Thread...

EnochRoot · Post by **EnochRoot** » Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:14 pm

Let me put it another way in regards to what Trump did to that poor widow last night.

He rode her hard and put her away wet. Until, as a society we get the balls to call out presidents for this kind of crap (though Trump put his own special brand of huckster-ism on it), then it'll just always happen. Extrapolate the manna of the populace by parading the grieving widow out there for much needed sympathy.

Fuck that bullshit.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:22 pm

Brontoburglar wrote:
degenerasian wrote:
Steve of phpBB wrote:
degenerasian wrote:
mister d wrote:Sure they are. There are plenty of racists who either allow individual exemptions or really liked that restaurant.
hmmm then they're not really racists? i don't know.
Sure they are. I think "racist" is itself a bad term - I think we are all racist to some degree. But I think one definition of racism would be a belief that people of a certain racial or ethnic group are generally inferior to, or less worthy of consideration than, people of another racial or ethnic group.

There is nothing inconsistent between having that belief, which I think shows racial prejudice, and also believing that a few particular individuals of that minority group are good people.
hmmm the definition is definitely getting broader. To me I don't think racists even consider a few 'good apples'.

are you literally defending the "I have a black friend" reasoning?

no, those black friends are pawns, not friends

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:28 pm

So if a racist dude makes a friend and a year later finds out that friend has one black parent, to remain racist he'd have to dump the friend but to keep the friend would mean he's not racist after all? Its not binary, man.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:50 pm

degenerasian wrote:hmmm the definition is definitely getting broader. To me I don't think racists even consider a few 'good apples'.

It's possible to have that be your definition, of course, but I think that definition would be so narrow as to be useless. There were plenty of racists in Chicago who cheered for Ernie Banks or Minnie Minoso.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:56 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote:
degenerasian wrote:hmmm the definition is definitely getting broader. To me I don't think racists even consider a few 'good apples'.
It's possible to have that be your definition, of course, but I think that definition would be so narrow as to be useless. There were plenty of racists in Chicago who cheered for Ernie Banks or Minnie Minoso.

Exactly.

Christ, we could extend this all the way back to Mississippi in the 50s or Germany in the 20s. Racists can enjoy Mexican food or cheer for Bama or trust their Jew accountant. But push comes to shove and you know what happens.

Ryan · Post by **Ryan** » Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:00 pm

Pruitt wrote:Racists can enjoy Mexican food or cheer for Bama or trust their Jew accountant

Or let them touch their crops

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:07 pm

degenerasian wrote:
Pruitt wrote:Charlie Pierce in Fine Form

Not having any of the "let's try to understand Trump voter" narrative.

In Kansas, you could have declined to re-elect Sam Brownback, who'd already turned your state into a dismal Randian basket case. In Wisconsin, you had three chances to turn out Scott Walker, and several chances to get the state legislature out of his clammy hands. And, now that the teeth of this new administration are becoming plain to see, it's a good time to remind all of you that you didn't have to hand the entire federal government over to Republican vandalism, and the presidency over to an abject loon on whom Russia may well hold the paper.

You all had the same choices we all had. You saddled the rest of us with misrule and disaster. Own it. I empathize, but I will not sympathize.

i don't think the people writing in letters to save the Mexican guy are part of the 70% who voted in Trump.

Sure, many of them are. They have a singular view on illegal immigrants. They are all bad, a drain on society and need to get the fuck out of my country. Now that their buddy Jose is affected by the deportation rollout, they have some context, color and nuance thrown in. Jose is a great guy, a valued member of the community, we are better for having him here. Now the other 12 million, fuck them, but this wasn't supposed to remove my buddy Jose! They don't look at the other 12 million as individuals with personalities, friends, jobs, families, they are a faceless "they" who are bad.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:08 pm

Well, I don't think there's been a day since the 20th of January where my jaw hasn't dropped. The streak continues.

rass · Post by **rass** » Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:22 pm

He really just wants to be loved. Seriously.

Rex · Post by **Rex** » Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:32 pm

Nonlinear FC · Post by **Nonlinear FC** » Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:46 pm

I just made a limbo joke regarding low bars on Facebook. And I'm not sorry.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Wed Mar 01, 2017 3:29 pm

rass wrote:
DaveInSeattle wrote:Ok....I'm probably the bad guy here...but am I the only one who has a real issue with Trump's stunt with the Spec Ops Widow moment?
Just saw this, and nope.

And THIS is why America is failing. The media can go fuck themselves.

As a military dude, I cannot give my two cents on anything political until I'm out of it for good. Our perspectives on issues are just fundamentally different from this exalted lot of people ready to trip over themselves to suck Donald's dick.

Fuck, can you imagine an interview of a well read military member giving some actual perspective here?

Oh, what did I think about the moment itself? You mean the president exploiting a grieving widow over a failed raid? That moment? He threw his generals under the bus and blamed the prior administration for the failure. Yet now it's a success when presented to Congress and everyone watching at home? It's bullshit. And you can't bullshit a bullshitter. What do you think I learned through my years of military experience?

It's nice to know that my service to the country, if abruptly ended by death, amounts to nothing more than propaganda transacted for political capital. Thank you for wearing yellow ribbons and giving me a free meal on November 11th while the VA crumbles and we can't hire any civilians federally. Appreciate your thanks for my service!

Something like that with better verbiage, I'd think.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Wed Mar 01, 2017 4:05 pm

Johnnie - in your experience, are your opinions widespread among military personnel?

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Wed Mar 01, 2017 4:05 pm

Johnnie wrote:It's nice to know that my service to the country, if abruptly ended by death, amounts to nothing more than propaganda transacted for political capital.

If Trump gives the swamp 50 seats to try to pull the same bullshit, I promise we'll turn the tables.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Wed Mar 01, 2017 4:10 pm

Johnnie wrote:She's wearing them:

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Wed Mar 01, 2017 4:34 pm

Pruitt wrote:Johnnie - in your experience, are your opinions widespread among military personnel?

I had the same question. Knowing servicemen are overwhelmingly Republican, do most approve of Trump? I haven't seen the speech yet, but from what I've read, Trump blamed "the Generals" just before announcing the widow. I also read the military brass in attendance looked pissed. Without hearing or reading Trumpers respond to the criticism, I'm assuming they are shitting on whiny Liberals for managing to find a way to bash Trump for honoring the widow of a hero, when even the Trump hating Liberal Media praised Trump.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Wed Mar 01, 2017 6:52 pm

Pruitt wrote:
Johnnie wrote:She's wearing them:

Combined:

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Wed Mar 01, 2017 7:14 pm

The Sybian wrote:
Pruitt wrote:Johnnie - in your experience, are your opinions widespread among military personnel?
I had the same question. Knowing servicemen are overwhelmingly Republican, do most approve of Trump? I haven't seen the speech yet, but from what I've read, Trump blamed "the Generals" just before announcing the widow. I also read the military brass in attendance looked pissed. Without hearing or reading Trumpers respond to the criticism, I'm assuming they are shitting on whiny Liberals for managing to find a way to bash Trump for honoring the widow of a hero, when even the Trump hating Liberal Media praised Trump.

My honest answer is: I don't know. In my 15.5 years the majority of the attitudes I've seen have been right slanted. But there has been a lot more openness over the last 8 years. It seems to have shifted. The younger folks coming in seem to have both more education and a "millennial" attitude. So they grew up with technology, around all types of people, and liked higher learning. That inherently seems like a more liberal position.

I am no longer working around a lot of people and cannot gauge a general sense of the military's attitude either. When I am around a bunch of people, it's for things like squadron pt or a going away lunch for someone. So we're all there in a cheery celebratory fashion.

Everyone here seems to be going along as if the presidential change is transparent. There isn't a real mission here - It's just in a support capacity. So there's a complacent, Sleepy Hollow feel. And there is a 4.5-to-1 civilian to military ratio at Kirtland. Fundamentally I'll be around less military people. The only real concerns seemed to be when I did my 3 day seminar learning about nuclear things at DTRA, the folks there seemed apprehensive. Here they are teaching the complexity of what, in theory, a response to a nuclear accident would look like and there's President Tweetledumbfuck looming overhead.

So I don't know what to think. I'm just tired from my regular day-to-day job and don't have the energy to worry. I'm just very, very let down that there can never be a better bridging of the civilian/military divide because the military always has to be above politics every time. I just wish we'd get a courtesy reacharound every once in a while when the government fucks us in the ass. (Hat tip, R. Lee Ermey) I can't defend myself in times like this, but I can be used as a political prop. It sucks.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Wed Mar 01, 2017 8:46 pm

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:04 pm

Twitter is going batshit right now:

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:55 pm

So what should be the consequences for Sessions? He obviously lied. I'm no expert on perjury or how these things work.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Thu Mar 02, 2017 12:07 am

degenerasian wrote:So what should be the consequences for Sessions? He obviously lied. I'm no expert on perjury or how these things work.

It's up to the Attorney General to make the decision to bring perjury charges. Sessions is the AG? Well then, Sessions should recuse himself to allow an impartial investigation. But he won't. Congress could appoint an independent counsel to investigate, but so far the GOP Congress refuses to hold the Trump admin accountable for anything, so that's not going to happen. So then it falls on the media to pressure Congress to act, but that will just get chalked up to "fake news," and the mean old media attacking poor little Donald and his admin. So unfair, why don't they just let him do whatever he wants, because he just wants to make America great again! Then it is up to The People to protest and send a message to their representatives to take action. But that will be blown off as whiny snowflake Liberals refusing to accept their team lost. Get over it already, you lost!

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Thu Mar 02, 2017 9:56 am

People in the Trump cabinet and former Trump campaign sure lie a lot with regard to Russia.

Still innocuous, JoeK?

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Thu Mar 02, 2017 9:59 am

The Sybian wrote:
Pruitt wrote:Johnnie - in your experience, are your opinions widespread among military personnel?
I had the same question. Knowing servicemen are overwhelmingly Republican, do most approve of Trump? I haven't seen the speech yet, but from what I've read, Trump blamed "the Generals" just before announcing the widow. I also read the military brass in attendance looked pissed. Without hearing or reading Trumpers respond to the criticism, I'm assuming they are shitting on whiny Liberals for managing to find a way to bash Trump for honoring the widow of a hero, when even the Trump hating Liberal Media praised Trump.

Party of personal responsibility! They should take it for once, on anything, ever.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Thu Mar 02, 2017 10:01 am

Also, Trump deflecting blame makes it look like there is blame to be deflected. It really conflicts with the "job well done!" sentiment that they are putting out elsewhere.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Thu Mar 02, 2017 10:35 am

Even GOP Weasels Think Sessions Should Recuse Himself

Chaffetz and McCarthy.

So how does Fox News play this one?

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Thu Mar 02, 2017 10:44 am

tennbengal wrote:People in the Trump cabinet and former Trump campaign sure lie a lot with regard to Russia.

Still innocuous, JoeK?

Since for some reason you want to keep calling me out, as if my message board posts affect federal investigations, I'll bite. I certainly hope that this leads to Sessions's resignation, but that's more because I hate the idea of a racist Confederate sympathizer as AG than because I'm convinced that Trump coopted him into a treasonous conspiracy. As for the other stuff, some of it certainly smells bad, but there's still no evidence that rises to the level where a GOP Congress will take action. If there is a true smoking gun out there, why hasn't it been leaked by the intelligence community yet? There have been a lot of drips but nothing that rises anywhere near impeachment level. And why didn't Obama do more before leaving office? Obama was so ready to go party with Richard Branson that he decided to let the conspiracy slide?

More generally, as I pointed out months ago, much of the reporting on Russia has been remarkably shoddy (e.g., the "Russian server" story and the "Russia hacked the power grid" story, both of which were debunked as total nonsense.) Also, I follow Mark Ames and Taibbi on Twitter -- although they're both very liberal, they've been and still are consistent skeptics. Since those guys actually lived in Russia for years, worked in journalism there, and personally dealt with Putin's authoritarianism, I find their skepticism a helpful balance to the MSNBC types.

But if makes you feel better, I can write an letter to Claire McCaskill or something -- maybe that'll turn the tide!

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Thu Mar 02, 2017 10:46 am

I'll just wait for you to defend Comey's actions again re: HRC emails in October while sitting on Russia stuff with more "if only she had gone to Wisconsin" weirdness.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Thu Mar 02, 2017 10:52 am

I have no doubt that we will never know the full story (or maybe any of it, really) but the actions of the Trump campaign, a fair number of his cabinet, the majority leader of the US Senate, and the Republicans themselves in changing their platform out of nowhere, for instance, prior to RNC, point to collaboration as a starting point with the Russians in swinging the campaign. And, really, I suspect it goes deeper than that with Trump and others like Tillerson with potential either financial interests in Russia or, in Trump's case, owing money, say.

In any event, if there were only pieces of that, fine, but it's all of that. The entire behavior of the Republican party has been weird and beholden to Russia for almost a year now, and Republican officials can't seem to stop lying about it.

There's something there, and has been, for awhile. Period.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Thu Mar 02, 2017 10:54 am

I'm at the point now where I'm deciding if I think Bannon is evil genius enough to intentionally have Sessions and others compromise themselves in the same way Trump was compromised to tighten everything up.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Thu Mar 02, 2017 10:56 am

By the way, if the Republicans had actually laid out their case to the American people as part of the campaign for changing American foreign policy as to Russia, that would have been above board and interesting. A contrast with Clinton, if you will, in approach. And the American people could have weighed it and we could have listened to that debate. But that isn't what happened. At all. We have what appears to be a shift in American approach to Russia with no one articulating why, just a lot of Republican officials lying about contacts. There are not a lot of leigitmate explanations for that, frankly.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:02 am

tennbengal wrote:I'll just wait for you to defend Comey's actions again re: HRC emails in October while sitting on Russia stuff with more "if only she had gone to Wisconsin" weirdness.

You do know that both of these can be true, right? Comey handled the investigations poorly but Clinton's campaign also badly fucked up their Electoral College strategy.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:07 am

Joe K wrote:
tennbengal wrote:I'll just wait for you to defend Comey's actions again re: HRC emails in October while sitting on Russia stuff with more "if only she had gone to Wisconsin" weirdness.
You do know that both of these can be true, right? Comey handled the investigations poorly but Clinton's campaign also badly fucked up their Electoral College strategy.

I would submit he didn't handle it "poorly", I would submit he handled it "corruptly". And the corruption with regard to the 2016 campaign, from my view, as much as I was not a fan of HRC (Sanders voter in primary who donated to him etc.), exonerates that campaign a bit. At this point, it appears to me Comey was a part of the collaboration with Russia. This thing feels like it was thrown, and thrown by collaboration between the Republicans and Russia, so Paul Ryan could enact his Ayn Rand fantasies. I am having trouble thinking this is a democratic party fuck-up on the same level as the corruption that appears to have infused the campaign and its aftermath. That's my issue with it.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:19 am

tennbengal wrote:
Joe K wrote:
tennbengal wrote:I'll just wait for you to defend Comey's actions again re: HRC emails in October while sitting on Russia stuff with more "if only she had gone to Wisconsin" weirdness.
You do know that both of these can be true, right? Comey handled the investigations poorly but Clinton's campaign also badly fucked up their Electoral College strategy.
I would submit he didn't handle it "poorly", I would submit he handled it "corruptly". And the corruption with regard to the 2016 campaign, from my view, as much as I was not a fan of HRC (Sanders voter in primary who donated to him etc.), exonerates that campaign a bit. At this point, it appears to me Comey was a part of the collaboration with Russia. This thing feels like it was thrown, and thrown by collaboration between the Republicans and Russia, so Paul Ryan could enact his Ayn Rand fantasies. I am having trouble thinking this is a democratic party fuck-up on the same level as the corruption that appears to have infused the campaign and its aftermath. That's my issue with it.

On Comey, it's been well reported that there are factions within the FBI (which is already a pretty right-wing group to begin with) that have hated the Clintons for years, going back to the Mark Rich pardon. I think it's a lot more likely that any conscious effort by Comey to hurt Clinton is because he's part of that group. That seems a hell of a lot more plausible than than that he joined a treasonous Russian conspiracy while somehow evading detection from anyone else in the FBI or US intelligence.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:21 am

Is evading detection really a worry at this point? Who is left to detect and prosecute it if collaboration can be proven? Serious question. Not FBI, not DOJ, not Congress. What's left?

EnochRoot · Post by **EnochRoot** » Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:24 am

Fuck the facts. The Democrats need to go on a full-on advertising assault tying the GOP to Russia. Let the populace draw their own conclusions.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:41 am

tennbengal wrote:People in the Trump cabinet and former Trump campaign sure lie a lot with regard to Russia.

It's funny - I still don't think there was any actual collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia (for one reason, what would they need to collaborate on?). But these strange Russia connections and interactions just keep coming up, as do the lies about the contacts, the hysterical reaction to reports about the contacts, and the lack of any other explanation for how these Russia-connected folks just seem to keep popping up.

This is getting like that Onion article - http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/why-do ... cock-11150

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:44 am

Steve of phpBB wrote:
degenerasian wrote:hmmm the definition is definitely getting broader. To me I don't think racists even consider a few 'good apples'.
It's possible to have that be your definition, of course, but I think that definition would be so narrow as to be useless. There were plenty of racists in Chicago who cheered for Ernie Banks or Minnie Minoso.

getting back to this from yesterday.

I'm just very cautious of throwing the word racist around as a label for every little thing. For example those that watched the Oscars on Sunday will recall the tour group that was surprised. The Asian girl when asked what her name was said "Yulree" Kimmel looks at her funny. "Yulree, rhymes with Jewelry" she explains.
Kimmel then askes the fiances name. "Patrick". Now that's a REAL name"

Asian-American social media exploded. Kimmel is now the most racist jerk in the world. Kimmel also mocked the name Mahershala during the show so they piled on that as well.

I hate that shit. People who make observations are not racists.

P.D.X. · Post by **P.D.X.** » Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:54 am

degenerasian wrote:People who make observations are not racists.

Wrong.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:54 am

Steve of phpBB wrote:
tennbengal wrote:People in the Trump cabinet and former Trump campaign sure lie a lot with regard to Russia.
It's funny - I still don't think there was any actual collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia (for one reason, what would they need to collaborate on?). But these strange Russia connections and interactions just keep coming up, as do the lies about the contacts, the hysterical reaction to reports about the contacts, and the lack of any other explanation for how these Russia-connected folks just seem to keep popping up.

This is getting like that Onion article - http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/why-do ... cock-11150

Co-sign. Well said, Steve. You summarized my thoughts on this in a way I was having trouble articulating myself.