Red_Dragon wrote:
Saw a tweet tonight suggesting that a sympathetic Congressperson could hire McCabe for a few days and thus fulfill his federal service requirement for his full pension.
He has other potential remedies to save his full pension, too.

But, the level of gratuitous disregard and vindictiveness shown by a Friday night firing (this"finding" was known for weeks), is unconscionable. 
Tillerson....crikey.  As you sow, so shall...

This administration is criminal; imo, and on so many levels.  My primary problem with Trump is not a partisan dispute about policy or politics.  My problem is with the utter vulgarity with which Trump (and seemingly most of his staff) governs.

So, Trump Fired Rex Tillerson via Twitter. Then various members of his horrible administration spent the day bragging about how John Kelly called Tillerson on the toilet, because har dee har har and ain't that a hilarious anecdote?

Then, tonight, he fired Andrew McCabe — literally two days before McCabe's retirement, solely in order to deprive McCabe of his pension. Because that's just the kind of vindictive, petty son of a bitch Trump is.

Honestly, conservatives, why would you ever work for this shitlord?

~Jim Wright

At long last...
Stormy Daniels is crushing President Trump at his own game

 miamizsun wrote: 
Esp. Pres. Bait-and-Switch

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 

i'm sure there's some sort of legal look back (didn't the mule just go back over a decade on manwithfork?)

i'd also bet the farm that as much legal shyte this outfit has been in they've probably got some stuff sheltered somewhere

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Crap. I didn't think of that.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

 kurtster wrote: 

I think you may need a little help in drawing your deductions as I wasn't actually making the inference that the program itself is racist. I would imagine that this office would also support immigrant victims of crimes committed by other immigrants but my inclination there would be to think that those instances would not be given much of a priority. I was merely supporting the point that (given the creation of a program such as this) you can easily see why Trump is motivated to tweet out his outrage when there are crimes where immigrants are the perpetrators and remaining mum when it is the other way around.

FYI, I have gone to the (VOICE) website and read over the material there and defy anyone to do the same and come back with any solid idea of what that agency really does on behalf of victims (https://www.ice.gov/voice#wcm-survey-target-id).
 
 
Please!... enlighten me on the meaning and usage of rhetoric (or what you perceive it to be) as it appears you have crowned yourself the expert.
 
I would be happy to learn at the feet of the master. You have a nine year start on this earth before me so you must have amassed nine years worth of knowledge more than me. BTW, is there a charge for these lessons as I'm on a pretty tight budget? Do you accept Paypal?

 kurtster wrote: 
Beaker wrote:  

Birds of an (ad hominem) feather???

Seth Meyers: '"I lied because I’m stupid" is the truest thing Trump has ever said'

John Kiriakou says there's a "sick irony" to the fact that he went to prison for exposing the CIA's use of waterboarding, while a woman who oversaw the practice is up for promotion.

 VV wrote: 
No you didn't. 

My post was not a direct reply to you. 

It was a comment on a chain of posts, that you were part of where racism was heavily infered at the beginning and you validated with your mention of the program in the last part of the chain.

I was just showing how the program you mentioned was not racist.

But I don't fault you for misunderstanding. 

You're still trying to grasp the meaning and usage of rhetoric, right ?

 Beaker wrote: 


You're funny.

 kurtster wrote: 
Ahh, the spin doctor is busy I see. I didn't mention the word racism in my post.
 
Many people thought the creation of such an office was unnecessary as it is still not clear what gaps this agency fills that weren't filled by the FBI and state or local law enforcement. What professional services were those victims not getting before that they are getting now? My guess is that the office is staffed by a few people who really don't know what it is that they should be doing... kinda like the EPA but on a much smaller scale. Would love to get some solid answers on this... but that is neither here nor there.

Bottom line is that Trump has a blind-spot when it comes to crimes committed by non-immigrants but he has laser-focus and a hair-trigger response when it comes to crimes committed by immigrants or children of immigrants (legal or otherwise). Why? Because it suits his agenda and anything not part of his agenda is just noise to be ignored. I think that much is clear to everyone (Trumpers and Anti-Trumpers alike).

 Lazy8 wrote: 
You have to get pretty far down into the blogosphere/tinfoil realm before you find a writer who doesn't stop to think whether or not anyone will read/watch the end result.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

You are visitor




Since July 12, 1998

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

Gotta disagree on a key (implied) point: all O'Keefe was able to imply was that CNN (as an institution) had a low opinion of Trump and the electorate. He also got the guy to admit that ratings drive the topics they emphasize.

He didn't get him to admit that their biases/agenda drove the actual news, just that they picked stories based on how interested people were in them. He didn't get him to admit to fabricating stories or even accuse him of it.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
 ScottFromWyoming wrote:   
In trying to be amusing, I was simply unclear. But everything you said is {implied} in what I said.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
When you take someone's words out of context (as O'Keefe did in the ACORN sting) you are misrepresenting that person's views. That's dishonest.

If you haven't watched the video you should. Are the CNN exec's words out of context? Do they not paint an accurate picture of his views?

I'll take it a step further: are those views out of line with what you or any rational being thinks of Donald Trump?

People who work in news organizations are entitled to have opinions. No one with two neurons to rub together can look at politics and not have an opinion. They can even have an agenda to go with that opinion, they just have an obligation to be honest about it and to honestly represent the facts of the day.

CNN frequently fails at those last two points and it's fair to call them on it, even if your own reporting comes with an opinion and an agenda.

O'Keefe has been dishonest in the way he has portrayed some of his subjects. That warrants skepticism but not dismissal.

CNN has been dishonest in the way he has portrayed some of its subjects. Same caveat applies.