[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Mixtape Culture Club - miamizsun - Sep 18, 2020 - 2:05pm
 
2020 Elections - miamizsun - Sep 18, 2020 - 2:04pm
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - miamizsun - Sep 18, 2020 - 1:59pm
 
China - miamizsun - Sep 18, 2020 - 1:43pm
 
Radio Paradise Comments - katzendogs - Sep 18, 2020 - 1:36pm
 
Trump - Red_Dragon - Sep 18, 2020 - 1:34pm
 
COVID-19 - R_P - Sep 18, 2020 - 12:32pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - black321 - Sep 18, 2020 - 11:45am
 
Bad Poetry - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2020 - 11:05am
 
Private messages in a public forum - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2020 - 10:21am
 
honk if you think manbird and OV are one and the same ent... - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2020 - 10:14am
 
Buddy's Haven - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2020 - 9:14am
 
What The Hell Buddy? - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2020 - 8:10am
 
Drop the Puck! NHL Lockout Ends! - black321 - Sep 18, 2020 - 6:06am
 
Things You Thought Today - miamizsun - Sep 18, 2020 - 5:43am
 
Today in History - Ohmsen - Sep 18, 2020 - 5:26am
 
Climate Change - kcar - Sep 18, 2020 - 3:40am
 
Anti-War - Ohmsen - Sep 18, 2020 - 12:11am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - gtufano - Sep 17, 2020 - 11:36pm
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 9:04pm
 
Signs o' the Apocalypse in the news... - Steely_D - Sep 17, 2020 - 6:57pm
 
Soliciting ideas to bring about a more humane world - miamizsun - Sep 17, 2020 - 5:06pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - Red_Dragon - Sep 17, 2020 - 4:36pm
 
Rock Movies/Documentaries - Steely_D - Sep 17, 2020 - 1:39pm
 
Favorite Quotes - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 12:06pm
 
HALF A WORLD - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 11:57am
 
What are you listening to now? - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 11:53am
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 11:49am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 11:43am
 
Name My Band - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 11:39am
 
Women in the World - miamizsun - Sep 17, 2020 - 11:02am
 
More Stuff Schlabby Doesn't Do - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 9:57am
 
Nina Simone... - Proclivities - Sep 17, 2020 - 8:42am
 
Brass Against? - jamesat43 - Sep 17, 2020 - 8:13am
 
Helpful emergency signs - Proclivities - Sep 17, 2020 - 7:38am
 
Counting with Pictures - Proclivities - Sep 17, 2020 - 6:59am
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - Proclivities - Sep 17, 2020 - 6:39am
 
Breaking Bad - sirdroseph - Sep 17, 2020 - 5:55am
 
Economix - R_P - Sep 16, 2020 - 11:56pm
 
Trump Lies - R_P - Sep 16, 2020 - 9:05pm
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - oldviolin - Sep 16, 2020 - 8:22pm
 
Environment - R_P - Sep 16, 2020 - 5:33pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - kcar - Sep 16, 2020 - 5:29pm
 
Fires - haresfur - Sep 16, 2020 - 5:07pm
 
Those Lovable Policemen - Steely_D - Sep 16, 2020 - 5:01pm
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - Steely_D - Sep 16, 2020 - 12:47pm
 
Facebook Tips - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 16, 2020 - 9:32am
 
Silence? - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 16, 2020 - 9:28am
 
Regarding cats - sirdroseph - Sep 16, 2020 - 8:42am
 
Is there any GOOD news out there? - kcar - Sep 16, 2020 - 4:24am
 
Trade War - R_P - Sep 15, 2020 - 8:13pm
 
Outstanding Covers - Ohmsen - Sep 15, 2020 - 2:20pm
 
• • • What Makes You Happy? • • •  - Antigone - Sep 15, 2020 - 11:46am
 
Play the Blues - sirdroseph - Sep 15, 2020 - 5:47am
 
Strange signs, marquees, billboards, etc. - haresfur - Sep 14, 2020 - 6:51pm
 
punk? hip-hop? metal? noise? garage? - rhahl - Sep 14, 2020 - 2:02pm
 
Geeky Jokes - Proclivities - Sep 14, 2020 - 1:11pm
 
Guns - R_P - Sep 14, 2020 - 12:44pm
 
Help Wanted! - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 14, 2020 - 9:57am
 
hurricane relief - miamizsun - Sep 14, 2020 - 9:31am
 
You really put butter on the hot dog? - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 14, 2020 - 8:56am
 
Bear! - Ohmsen - Sep 14, 2020 - 7:37am
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - R_P - Sep 13, 2020 - 9:53pm
 
Calling DIY'ers... in re: electrical wiring... - kcar - Sep 13, 2020 - 5:49pm
 
Commercializing Facebook - Ohmsen - Sep 13, 2020 - 11:14am
 
All Dogs Go To Heaven - Dog Pix - Coaxial - Sep 13, 2020 - 10:29am
 
The Obituary Page - islander - Sep 13, 2020 - 8:51am
 
Movie rental suggestions & reviews - Netflix or Blockbuster - Ohmsen - Sep 13, 2020 - 7:45am
 
TV shows you watch - Ohmsen - Sep 13, 2020 - 6:23am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Sep 12, 2020 - 10:14pm
 
RP in the uk - BillG - Sep 12, 2020 - 6:53pm
 
RightWingNutZ - R_P - Sep 12, 2020 - 12:29pm
 
TMI - Steely_D - Sep 12, 2020 - 11:10am
 
Reinstock '05 Link Repository - KurtfromLaQuinta - Sep 12, 2020 - 8:58am
 
The American Dream - Red_Dragon - Sep 12, 2020 - 6:04am
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Trump Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 890, 891, 892  Next
Post to this Topic
black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 17, 2020 - 6:38am



 steeler wrote:


 Lazy8 wrote:
steeler wrote:
The context was suspect or subpar nominations/appointments to the Supreme Court.

Do you, or did you, consider the Bill Clinton appointments of Bader Ginsburg and Breyer to be bad appointments, nominations that were up for sale?

When a public official has behaved corruptly it's reasonable to expect further corruption.

I  disapprove of Bill Clinton's Supreme Court appointments on their own merits, but that's not relevant here.
 
It is relevant from my viewpoint. The politicization of Supreme Court nominations has hit its zenith, to the detriment of all. Ordinary citizens, with little or no knowledge of jurisprudence, claim to know what makes a good judge or justice. Have they read opinions of those judges or otherwise researched them? Almost always, the answer is no. Yet they are thoroughly convinced they do know. How absurd is that?  It has become so surreal that Trump supporters and Trump himself tout his judicial appointments as among his most significant accomplishments. And Trump releases a list from which he says he will select a Supreme Court nominee because he believes it to be an election issue â€” which, unfortunately  and as you have acknowledged, it has become. If a vacancy arises in the Supreme Court or the lower federal courts, a President is empowered and charged with filling it. Just filling a vacancy is not an accomplishment in and of itself.  Evaluating whether a judicial appointment turns out to be a great one, an average one, or a subpar one, plays out over years. That Trump nominated a judge or justice and the Federalist Society approved of him or her does not make it a great appointment anymore than Bill Clinton or Barack Obama nominated a judge or justice and he or she was rated highly qualified by the American Bar Association.

This has become an obsession among conservatives and Republicans. Mitch McConnell has made judicial appointments his highest priority. They want “conservative” judges and justices. And what makes a judge or justice “conservative?” Almost always, the response I get is one who “follows the  Constitution.” Ok, then, thanks for clearing that up. And this is putting aside the obvious: someone who sees himself or herself as a conservative wants a so-called conservative Judge or justice, and someone who sees himself as liberal wants a so-called liberal judge or justice. See how this smacks of seeking to politicize the branch of government that the Framers attempted to insulate from politics? Of course you do.

Suffice it to say that giants of the Supreme Court would have a hard time getting on the Supreme Court today.

On a lesser note, I believe history will view Bader Ginsburg as a significant Justice. I would venture to say that she and Breyer will stack up just fine when compared to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh (of course, it is way too early to evaluate the 2 Trump appointees). If Bill Clinton did not make appointments via a corrupt process, that would seem to be relevant to your assumption — I assume you do agree it is an assumption — that Hillary Clinton would have done so. 

But, as you should be able to see, I am much more concerned with the exponentially larger issue — the increasing politicization of our federal judiciary — than I am on responding to speculation whether Hillary Clinton would have “sold” a seat on the Supreme Court, and got a suspect and subpar candidate through Senate confirmation. 

 

sorry for jumping in, but...why not have term limits for judges, and a schedule that allows each president to nominate a judge or two. The current life terms and "lottery" system seems inadequate.
rgio

rgio Avatar

Location: West Jersey
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 17, 2020 - 5:25am



 kcar wrote:


 R_P wrote:
It’s of course important to remember that health experts have reiterated that a vaccine on Trump’s timeline is highly unlikely. Just today, head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Robert Redfield told a Senate panel, while a vaccine may be available for first responders by November or December, it will likely not be available until the “secord of third quarter” of 2021. Dr. Moncef Slaoui, head of Operation Warp Speed, the White House’s vaccination development initiative, said that a vaccine in by early November is “highly unlikely.”

 

And yet Trump will not let go of his fantasy. He stated publicly that Redfield made a mistake in his estimate.
...

“I think he made a mistake when he said that,” Mr. Trump told reporters. “It’s just incorrect information.” A vaccine would go “to the general public immediately,” the president insisted, and “under no circumstance will it be as late as the doctor said.”

Mr. Trump also said Dr. Redfield “made a mistake” when he told senators that masks were so vital in fighting the disease caused by the coronavirus, Covid-19, that they might be even more important than a vaccine. “The mask is not as important as the vaccine,” Mr. Trump said.

The president has repeatedly claimed that a vaccine could be available before Election Day on Nov. 3, a timeline that most health experts say is unrealistic, prompting concerns that the Food and Drug Administration might give emergency authorization to a vaccine before it has been fully vetted for safety and effectiveness. Nine pharmaceutical companies have pledged to “stand with science” and to not push through any product that didn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny.
 
Rough timeline....

- Over the weekend, Woodward book says "I downplayed it...didn't want to cause a panic"

- Monday...Trump and WH staff... "He didn't want to scare anyone"

- Tuesday...in response to the question "why did you put us at risk by downplaying"?.... "In some ways I up-played it, I didn't downplay it".

- Wednesday....in response to "Masks work, and a vaccine will take months to distribute".... "He's wrong...."

ADDED WEDNESDAY BONUS... His ever-loyal AG compares the lock-downs to slavery!!!

He is incapable of appealing to anyone not already in the camp.  For all of the stupidity and a serial lack of interest in managing anything real on behalf of the country, he probably could have gotten himself re-elected if he would have just said: "wear a mask, and protect one another".    In 75 years people will look back at this time with the same bewilderment as we do Nazi Germany, and Trump will have the same number statues, buildings, and streets bearing his name as Mr. Hitler does in Germany today. 

kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Sep 17, 2020 - 1:06am



 R_P wrote:
It’s of course important to remember that health experts have reiterated that a vaccine on Trump’s timeline is highly unlikely. Just today, head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Robert Redfield told a Senate panel, while a vaccine may be available for first responders by November or December, it will likely not be available until the “secord of third quarter” of 2021. Dr. Moncef Slaoui, head of Operation Warp Speed, the White House’s vaccination development initiative, said that a vaccine in by early November is “highly unlikely.”

 

And yet Trump will not let go of his fantasy. He stated publicly that Redfield made a mistake in his estimate.

President Trump on Wednesday rejected the professional scientific conclusions of his own government about the prospects for a widely available coronavirus vaccine and the effectiveness of masks in curbing the spread of the virus as the death toll in the United States from the disease neared 200,000.

In a remarkable display even for him, Mr. Trump publicly slapped down Dr. Robert R. Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as the president promised that a vaccine could be available in weeks and go “immediately” to the general public while diminishing the usefulness of wearing masks despite evidence to the contrary.

The president’s comments put him at odds with the C.D.C., the world’s premier public health agency, over the course of a pandemic that he keeps insisting is “rounding the corner” to an end. Mr. Trump lashed out just hours after Dr. Redfield told a Senate committee that a vaccine would not be widely available until the middle of next year.

“I think he made a mistake when he said that,” Mr. Trump told reporters. “It’s just incorrect information.” A vaccine would go “to the general public immediately,” the president insisted, and “under no circumstance will it be as late as the doctor said.”

Mr. Trump also said Dr. Redfield “made a mistake” when he told senators that masks were so vital in fighting the disease caused by the coronavirus, Covid-19, that they might be even more important than a vaccine. “The mask is not as important as the vaccine,” Mr. Trump said.

The president has repeatedly claimed that a vaccine could be available before Election Day on Nov. 3, a timeline that most health experts say is unrealistic, prompting concerns that the Food and Drug Administration might give emergency authorization to a vaccine before it has been fully vetted for safety and effectiveness. Nine pharmaceutical companies have pledged to “stand with science” and to not push through any product that didn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny.


R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Sep 16, 2020 - 6:38pm

It’s of course important to remember that health experts have reiterated that a vaccine on Trump’s timeline is highly unlikely. Just today, head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Robert Redfield told a Senate panel, while a vaccine may be available for first responders by November or December, it will likely not be available until the “secord of third quarter” of 2021. Dr. Moncef Slaoui, head of Operation Warp Speed, the White House’s vaccination development initiative, said that a vaccine in by early November is “highly unlikely.”

Steely_D

Steely_D Avatar

Location: Biscayne Bay
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 16, 2020 - 5:57pm


R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Sep 16, 2020 - 3:02pm

 Red_Dragon wrote:
 
He took 60 days off to build a bunker...
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Sep 16, 2020 - 2:39pm

Health official on leave amid political interference furor
Steely_D

Steely_D Avatar

Location: Biscayne Bay
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 16, 2020 - 12:52pm



 R_P wrote:
“You’ll develop herd — like a herd mentality. It’s going to be — it’s going to be herd-developed, and that’s going to happen. That will all happen.”
 

 I began to participate in a drinking game: whenever Trump addresses a concern with a prediction that never happens, and that he's not held accountable for, I take a drink.

Haven't been sober since 2015.


kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Sep 16, 2020 - 10:03am



 KarmaKarma wrote:


 VV wrote:
Watching Trump on TV with George S. tonight. He appears to have a significant comprehension problem. Appears not to be able to answer most questions asked and answer and expound on questions that were never asked. I guess that is just par for the course for a stable genius.
 
Trump v Biden in the debates will be one for the ages.

Whatever Biden's polling numbers are before the debates - they're certain to be lower after.

 

You should review the history of presidential and VP debates. Lots of pre-debate hype and talk of one guy mopping the floor with the other but they’re rarely game-changing. Lloyd Bentsen telling Dan Quayle “You’re no John Kennedy” and Ron Reagan saying to Jimmy Carter “There you go again” were exceptions to the rule but you rarely see knockout moments like that.

Are you going to celebrate when we hit the mark of 200,000 dead Americans? I know you like to trumpet Donnie’s accomplishments and that one has to be the biggest.
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Sep 16, 2020 - 9:50am

“You’ll develop herd — like a herd mentality. It’s going to be — it’s going to be herd-developed, and that’s going to happen. That will all happen.”
KarmaKarma

KarmaKarma Avatar



Posted: Sep 16, 2020 - 8:45am



 VV wrote:
Watching Trump on TV with George S. tonight. He appears to have a significant comprehension problem. Appears not to be able to answer most questions asked and answer and expound on questions that were never asked. I guess that is just par for the course for a stable genius.
 
Trump v Biden in the debates will be one for the ages.

Whatever Biden's polling numbers are before the debates - they're certain to be lower after.

miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 16, 2020 - 6:14am

 VV wrote:
Watching Trump on TV with George S. tonight. He appears to have a significant comprehension problem. Appears not to be able to answer most questions asked and answer and expound on questions that were never asked. I guess that is just par for the course for a stable genius.
 

i didn't see it but what were you expecting?

his story-telling skills need more polish?

and nothing rhymes with orange...
rgio

rgio Avatar

Location: West Jersey
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 16, 2020 - 5:26am



 VV wrote:
Watching Trump on TV with George S. tonight. He appears to have a significant comprehension problem. Appears not to be able to answer most questions asked and answer and expound on questions that were never asked. I guess that is just par for the course for a stable genius.
 
The young woman who challenged him on "playing it down" was a scary preview of the debates for the right.  He is going to be crushed by his own words, and his inability to keep a position or as you note to stay on point.  Joe may not win any awards, but Bob Woodward has likely eliminated Trump's reelection possibilities.  He is one of the few people that the "fake news" label bounces off of, and his rigor and professionalism set the trap that Trump's ego and mouth couldn't resist.  Trump called him to put on tape his weakness.

I just read something about Woodward's book that, as I read it, basically felt like the summary of the past 3 and a half years I never quite put a handle on:

There is, however, a revealing scene early in Woodward’s interviews with Trump, in which the journalist tells the President, “I want to do policy. Because having done nine presidents, the policy is what matters. It’s the spine and definition.” Trump says he agrees and then adds,  “Policy can change, also, though, you know? I like flexibility.” In the moment, Woodward doesn’t respond, but in the epilogue, he makes the confession that all of his central characters have made. Woodward writes,“But now, I’ve come to the conclusion that the ‘dynamite behind the door’ was in plain sight. It was Trump himself. The oversized personality. The failure to organize. The lack of discipline. The lack of trust in others he had picked, in experts. The undermining or attempted undermining of so many American institutions. The failure to be a calming, healing voice. The unwillingness to acknowledge error. The failure to do his homework. To extend the olive branch. To listen carefully to others. To craft a plan.”


That's it.  Those few sentences sum up what's so frustrating about this administration.  It's not tax cuts or racism or China or North Korea or the WHO or the Paris accord or NATO or healthcare or even Russia, it's that there is no plan or discipline or organization for any of it.  

With regard to all of the SCOTUS discussion below... voters have taken up a position on abortion and guns. They believe the SCOTUS will sway one way or the other based on the majority.  Neither issue is really in play much anymore, but as pointed out people don't know enough to know better.  Abortion and guns...which side are you on?  Politicians then scare the voters against the other side....they never actually talk about why they believe anything (because it changes so often).

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 15, 2020 - 9:41pm

steeler wrote:
It is relevant from my viewpoint. The politicization of Supreme Court nominations has hit its zenith, to the detriment of all. Ordinary citizens, with little or no knowledge of jurisprudence, claim to know what makes a good judge or justice. Have they read opinions of those judges or otherwise researched them? Almost always, the answer is no. Yet they are thoroughly convinced they do know. How absurd is that?  It has become so surreal that Trump supporters and Trump himself tout his judicial appointments as among his most significant accomplishments. And Trump releases a list from which he says he will select a Supreme Court nominee because he believes it to be an election issue â€” which, unfortunately  and as you have acknowledged, it has become. If a vacancy arises in the Supreme Court or the lower federal courts, a President is empowered and charged with filling it. Just filling a vacancy is not an accomplishment in and of itself.  Evaluating whether a judicial appointment turns out to be a great one, an average one, or a subpar one, plays out over years. That Trump nominated a judge or justice and the Federalist Society approved of him or her does not make it a great appointment anymore than Bill Clinton or Barack Obama nominated a judge or justice and he or she was rated highly qualified by the American Bar Association.

This has become an obsession among conservatives and Republicans. Mitch McConnell has made judicial appointments his highest priority. They want “conservative” judges and justices. And what makes a judge or justice “conservative?” Almost always, the response I get is one who “follows the  Constitution.” Ok, then, thanks for clearing that up. And this is putting aside the obvious: someone who sees himself or herself as a conservative wants a so-called conservative Judge or justice, and someone who sees himself as liberal wants a so-called liberal judge or justice. See how this smacks of seeking to politicize the branch of government that the Framers attempted to insulate from politics? Of course you do.

Suffice it to say that giants of the Supreme Court would have a hard time getting on the Supreme Court today.

On a lesser note, I believe history will view Bader Ginsburg as a significant Justice. I would venture to say that she and Breyer will stack up just fine when compared to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh (of course, it is way too early to evaluate the 2 Trump appointees). If Bill Clinton did not make appointments via a corrupt process, that would seem to be relevant to your assumption — I assume you do agree it is an assumption — that Hillary Clinton would have done so. 

But, as you should be able to see, I am much more concerned with the exponentially larger issue — the increasing politicization of our federal judiciary — than I am on responding to speculation whether Hillary Clinton would have “sold” a seat on the Supreme Court, and got a suspect and subpar candidate through Senate confirmation.

It's really hard to carry on a conversation where I'm expected to defend points I never made. As I did point out, Bill Clinton's appointments to the Supreme Court aren't at issue here; he wasn't running for president against Donald Trump. His wife was. I doubt she had much to do with his appointments, and if I had more time I'd be happy to debate their merits but they have nothing—nada, zip, zero—to do with who she would have appointed.

Even Ordinary citizens can read. We can read decisions, dissents, and we can read the rhetoric of political campaigns. In this matter both Republicans and Democrats (at least those I pay attention to) agree—the single longest-lasting legacy of an administration is the judges it appoints. Because of that it makes perfect sense to focus on that issue.

In the world I wish we lived in—one where judges decide cases based on the law and constitution as written—the politics of a  judge wouldn't matter a lick. The criteria I use to assess a judge is how willing s/he is to ignore those politics and stick to the law. That is not a fashionable view in either the left or right corners of our politics; John Roberts (for instance) is derided among conservatives as disloyal for things like his opinion on the constitutionality of the individual insurance mandate in Obamacare. But his loyalty shouldn't be to those who appointed him, it should be to the oath he took to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. Not the one his political faction wishes we had, but the one we actually have.

Judges like Roberts and Gorsuch—judges willing to bite the hand that appointed them—are the kind the Federalist Society favors, and the kind Trump promised to appoint in 2016. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is not that kind of judge. The American Bar Association has its own criteria for evaluating judges, and it makes sense to listen to them. They don't get a veto, they are just a party with a vested interest in the outcome.  But here I am arguing about the merits of Bill Clinton's appointments to the court, which I don't have time to do, and which (again) isn't the point I'm trying to make.

My comment on Hillary Clinton selling seats on the court was half flippant; she would probably only use donations to her foundation as a tie-breaker among candidates loyal to her political tribe. She absolutely would not appoint anyone who would challenge her agenda. Donald Trump promised to do that, and carried thru on it. Yes, I am actually giving Donald Trump credit for something, something rather important. And in contrast to Hillary Clinton it was the deciding factor in the votes of quite a few people who find Donal Trump the man utterly abhorrent. As I pointed out a few posts back the list Trump released a few days ago undercut that advantage.

I share at least the text of your concern about the politicization of the court, but I suspect we differ substantially on what that means. To me it means I would rather have judges frustrate my political agenda if it preserves the rule of law. What does it mean to you?
VV

VV Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 15, 2020 - 7:32pm

Watching Trump on TV with George S. tonight. He appears to have a significant comprehension problem. Appears not to be able to answer most questions asked and answer and expound on questions that were never asked. I guess that is just par for the course for a stable genius.
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Sep 15, 2020 - 6:15pm



 Antigone wrote:
119229685_10223314694846243_7581083766924534306_n
 


ikr?

Antigone

Antigone Avatar

Location: A house, in a Virginian Valley
Gender: Female


Posted: Sep 15, 2020 - 4:30pm

119229685_10223314694846243_7581083766924534306_n
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Sep 15, 2020 - 4:02pm



 kcar wrote:


JFC this is stupider than the Gargoyle King plot in "Riverdale." And that's a lowlow bar. 



Michael R. Caputo, the assistant secretary of public affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services, accused the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of harboring a “resistance unit” determined to undermine President Trump, even if that opposition bolsters the Covid-19 death toll.

Mr. Caputo, who has faced intense criticism for leading efforts to warp C.D.C. weekly bulletins to fit Mr. Trump’s pandemic narrative, suggested that he personally could be in danger from opponents of the administration. “If you carry guns, buy ammunition, ladies and gentlemen, because it’s going to be hard to get,” he urged his followers.

He went further, saying his physical health was in question, and his “mental health has definitely failed.”



No foolin'! 



“I don’t like being alone in Washington,” Mr. Caputo said, describing “shadows on the ceiling in my apartment, there alone, shadows are so long.” He also said the mounting number of Covid-19 deaths was taking a toll on him, telling his viewers, “You are not waking up every morning and talking about dead Americans.” The United States has lost more than 194,200 people to the virus. Mr. Caputo urged people to attend Trump rallies, but only with masks.



Only the best people...       

 

Given today's reports, I am in total agreement with his claim to have lost his mental health. jfc
kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Sep 15, 2020 - 3:50pm



Pandemic? Collapsed economy? Wildfires in the West? Trump doesn't care! He wants to hang out with his buddies at Fox and Friends for ~45 minutes! EVERY WEEK. 


They're not so keen...



President Donald Trump’s latest marathon phone chat with his favorite morning television show ended awkwardly when Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy rejected the president’s claim that he’d agreed to make weekly appearances on the show through the election. The president kicked off his Tuesday morning interview by saying it was “great to be with my friends” before surprising Doocy with his announcement that he’d be doing weekly appearances on the show going forward, just “like the old days.” (Trump had a weekly F&F guest spot prior to his presidential run.) “I haven’t heard that. Well, that’s an exclusive right there,” Doocy responded.

At the conclusion of the nearly hour-long call, Trump reiterated that he looked forward to “doing it every week” and that he believed the arrangement was for every Monday. “Sounds good,” an excited co-host Brian Kilmeade replied before Doocy stepped in with a clarification. “You may want to do it every week, but Fox is not committed to that. We’ll take it on a case-by-case basis, and Joe Biden as well, is always welcome to join us for 47 minutes, like we just did with the president,” Doocy declared as Kilmeade’s face noticeably dropped.


https://www.thedailybeast.com/...
VV

VV Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 15, 2020 - 1:14pm



 rgio wrote:


 VV wrote:


 kurtster wrote:
I have no idea why Trump even bothered to go to California today.  Nobody there wants him there. 

In fact, everyone there is blaming the fires on him.  Biden certainly is, too, calling Trump an "arsonist"

It doesn't even qualify as a photo op because he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning California.
 

Call me crazy but my guess it would be that he's the president and is expected to show up when natural disasters occur to try and show support. 

Personally I'm energized by his encouragement... so much so that me and my rake are headed to our nearest public park so that I can begin tidying up by raking up all those dead branches and leaves. Should be able to knock that out in a couple hours I'm guessing. Hope to see you all there too.
 
He was going West anyway for more pep rallies, and astutely (maybe someone on his staff....maybe him) knew that not going would create the debate moment about "not going" to a blue-state disaster after heading to the gulf for hurricanes.   You can't have that be a discussion topic at the debates.

 

Agreed, but whether or not he is going to carry California in the upcoming election is immaterial to the bigger picture. I would expect that that is not even a consideration but even his own supporters now view his presence at natural disasters through the lens of whether or not the natural disaster is happening within a sympathetic or swing State. Could our collective priorities be that warped? Rhetorical question btw. 

Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 890, 891, 892  Next