Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)
Options
Comments
-
He's latest tweet? calling Adam Schiff Adam Schitt.
This, after he called for "decorum".0 -
His latest masterpiece.
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
So funny to see little Adam Schitt (D-CA) talking about the fact that Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker was not approved by the Senate, but not mentioning the fact that Bob Mueller (who is highly conflicted) was not approved by the Senate!
6:01 PM · Nov 18, 2018 · Twitter for iPhone
Think he's a little confused over the positions held by Whitaker and Mueller and who needs senate approval.0 -
I have seen that phrase a few times from him - what does he mean when he says Mueller is 'highly conflicted'?0
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
The cluelessness of Trump knows no end.
Visiting the forest fire area in California, he came up with this marvellous idea to avoid forest fires:
https://twitter.com/TheContemptor/status/1063888277516820480/video/1
Oh the Finns, that happy nation! Spending a lot of time on raking and cleaning the forest floors!
Actually, it sounds like the 5yo of my neighbours'. He comes up with a lot of such ideas.
Reminds me however, I need to clean the kitchen floor and do things and stuff...
As usual, Trump makes a completely idiotic statement, which actually does touch upon a legitimate problem. Which lots of folks are going to ignore, instead focusing a lot of attention looking at Trump’s aforementioned idiotic statement.
But fundamentally, he is not wrong. California’s forests have been badly mismanaged, both by the State and Federal levels.
The San Francisco Chronicle, hardly a supporter of Trump, leads off with this paragraph this morning.
A century of mismanaging Sierra Nevada forests has brought an unprecedented environmental catastrophe that impacts all Californians.” That’s not a tweet from President Trump, but the opening line of a February report by California’s Little Hoover Commission investigating fire danger in the state.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Trump-s-claim-of-poor-California-forest-13400503.php#photo-16515923
Some of it is well intentioned, but destructive in the long term. For example, some local governments limit controlled burns in order to limit air pollution, or other areas are placed off-limits due to the discovery of new endangered species. Similarly, with the restrictions on logging, forests don’t get thinned down, and the logging trails which made inherent fire breaks no longer exist. Such things can be countered somewhat by greater expenditure on fire prevention measures such as deliberate construction of fire trails or enforcement of the defensible space laws but California routinely raids the fire prevention budget to pay for the fire suppression budget, the logical conclusion being that California needs to increase its expenditure on CDF.
Ordinarily, a Presidential remark on such things is supposed to call attention to a matter which needs addressing. But instead of asking why California and US Forestry Service have been failing by the numbers, people are instead googling whether Finland rakes its forests. Pity, really.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »But fundamentally, he is not wrong. California’s forests have been badly mismanaged, both by the State and Federal levels.
The SoCal fire was not because of forestry issues.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »
Remember: Trump is a pathological liar. It doesn't matter what he means.
This. By now (or actually since forever) I think it's pretty moot to try to interpret what he might mean with his ramblings. There is no meaning whatsoever.
He truly reminds me of the 5yo I mentioned above. That little boy though is still exploring the world and can't do big words yet. It's sometimes hilarious what he comes up with, but at least he has no power (and no intention) to potentially destroy the world.
He (Trump) doesn't understand anything. And there is no point anymore to analyse politically why he is president in the first place and why he has still a following.
My only thought about it is that it's the last hurrah of a dying world order that doesn't work anymore and is ultimately doomed (same or similar applies to Brexit).
My only hope is, though, that there is a soft transition and not fire and destruction before we come out with a brand new society. I know, hope dies last.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »As usual, Trump makes a completely idiotic statement, which actually does touch upon a legitimate problem. Which lots of folks are going to ignore, instead focusing a lot of attention looking at Trump’s aforementioned idiotic statement.
But fundamentally, he is not wrong. California’s forests have been badly mismanaged, both by the State and Federal levels.
The San Francisco Chronicle, hardly a supporter of Trump, leads off with this paragraph this morning.
A century of mismanaging Sierra Nevada forests has brought an unprecedented environmental catastrophe that impacts all Californians.” That’s not a tweet from President Trump, but the opening line of a February report by California’s Little Hoover Commission investigating fire danger in the state.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Trump-s-claim-of-poor-California-forest-13400503.php#photo-16515923
Some of it is well intentioned, but destructive in the long term. For example, some local governments limit controlled burns in order to limit air pollution, or other areas are placed off-limits due to the discovery of new endangered species. Similarly, with the restrictions on logging, forests don’t get thinned down, and the logging trails which made inherent fire breaks no longer exist. Such things can be countered somewhat by greater expenditure on fire prevention measures such as deliberate construction of fire trails or enforcement of the defensible space laws but California routinely raids the fire prevention budget to pay for the fire suppression budget, the logical conclusion being that California needs to increase its expenditure on CDF.
Ordinarily, a Presidential remark on such things is supposed to call attention to a matter which needs addressing. But instead of asking why California and US Forestry Service have been failing by the numbers, people are instead googling whether Finland rakes its forests. Pity, really.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-462562960 -
Sorry for the Californians and they're loss. The line 'Rake America Great Again' from that link is good.0
-
Advertisement
-
dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46243752
Trump says he answered all of Muller's questions by writing them down but he hasn't sent in his answers yet.
I'm sorry, I don't even know what to say to that. I presume the answers were written in crayon.
The excerpt at the end of Bob Woodward's book Fear: Trump in the White House where John Dowd advises Trump against testifying because he wouldn't be a good witness and his pathological lying would likely perjure himself was insightful to put it mildly.0 -
The SoCal fire was not because of forestry issues.
As this article in the Fresno Bee observes, perhaps "Wildland management" is a better term.
https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article221683150.html
Trump used the term forest management— it would be more precise, but also more cumbersome, if he had said forest management, chaparral management, oak woodland management, grass land management, and desert management (I left off riparian management because it tends to burn less). He could have said wildland management.
This would include the grassland areas of SoCal. Given that the Woolsley Fire is also an issue of urban interface (much like the Sonoma fires we had last year), this also reflects upon the other prevention issues I mentioned, such as the defensible space. The whole point of defensible space is that if there is a fire nearby, it becomes very difficult for the fire to spread from where it is to where the houses are. And California historically sucks at it.
For example.
http://www.calaverasenterprise.com/news/article_438f5896-d756-11e6-bd8a-3b021b3d4199.html
More than a decade ago, California law changed to require that homes in forested areas at high risk of fire have at least 100 feet of defensible space cleared around them. On Tuesday, Calaveras County elected leaders will consider bringing the county’s code into compliance with that rule.
Despite the fact that the county has had repeated large-scale wildfires, including the 2015 Butte Fire that destroyed more than 500 homes, current county code references to “defensible space” define it as a 30-foot setback.
Or
https://www.ocregister.com/2014/07/19/wildfire-citations-issued-unevenly-throughout-state/
Gary Bennett spent much of the last three decades preparing his property in Napa County for the day when a wildfire would sweep over the hill, including clearing brush and grass around his three-bedroom home in a scenic canyon 85 miles north of San Francisco.
That paid off when the 4,300-acre Butts Canyon fire roared through his property July 1, sounding like “five jet airplanes landing in my yard,” Bennett said. His home was spared while a neighbor’s cabin that had been surrounded by overhanging oak trees was destroyed.
If they lived elsewhere in California, the neighbors might have received stern warnings from local authorities, including fines and citations requiring them to clear their properties. A review by The Associated Press of state data revealed wide geographic discrepancies in how state and local fire officials apply fines and citations for failing to clear vegetation in areas prone to wildland blazes
And it's not as if Governor Brown, visiting the Woolsey fire (the SoCal one) is against saying better forestry management is needed.
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Brown-Zinke-Assess-Woolsey-Fire-Devastation-500621981.html
And whether the Woolsey fire may or may not have been reduced by better forestry management, the Camp Fire up North certainly could have. As could a large number of the other fires we have been dealing with in California the last few years.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2018/11/16/californias-deadliest-fires-could-have-been-mitigated-by-prevention/#470dce08341b
CAL FIRE experts expanded on the problem by blaming decades of policy that discouraged controlled burns to reduce the fuel load in the now-burning forests in the north and hillsides in the south, creating tinderbox conditions.
Some of the needed prescribed burns in Southern California’s coastal chaparral and grasslands have been deterred by environmental lawsuits and air quality concerns.
The federal government controls 46 percent of California’s land, much of it managed by the U.S. Forest Service. In the three decades before 1990, foresters harvested 10-12 billion board feet of timber from national forests every year. By 2013, restrictive environmental policies cut that to 2.5 billion. While the harvest declined, so too did tree thinning and the clearing of brush and diseased trees. The Trump administration is reversing that trend with the biggest harvest of trees on federal land in 20 years, selling 3.4 billion board feet on some 3 million acres—still just a third of the typical pre-1990 harvest.
California has a forestry management/wildland management problem. Focusing on Trump's questionable statements, or the more unique issues of the second-largest fire burning right now does not detract from this problem which every expert acknowledges exists, even before one takes into account climate conditions.
My wife was confined to the house last week. Both by her choice (she had difficulty breathing) and then by the government issueing a shelter-in-place advisory. Of course, we got off far better than some, we still have our house.
We are well aware of the fire issues in California. And we are well aware that CA (and USFS) are not managing things well.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »As this article in the Fresno Bee observes, perhaps "Wildland management" is a better term.
https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article221683150.html
Trump used the term forest management— it would be more precise, but also more cumbersome, if he had said forest management, chaparral management, oak woodland management, grass land management, and desert management (I left off riparian management because it tends to burn less). He could have said wildland management.
This would include the grassland areas of SoCal. Given that the Woolsley Fire is also an issue of urban interface (much like the Sonoma fires we had last year), this also reflects upon the other prevention issues I mentioned, such as the defensible space. The whole point of defensible space is that if there is a fire nearby, it becomes very difficult for the fire to spread from where it is to where the houses are. And California historically sucks at it.
For example.
http://www.calaverasenterprise.com/news/article_438f5896-d756-11e6-bd8a-3b021b3d4199.html
More than a decade ago, California law changed to require that homes in forested areas at high risk of fire have at least 100 feet of defensible space cleared around them. On Tuesday, Calaveras County elected leaders will consider bringing the county’s code into compliance with that rule.
Despite the fact that the county has had repeated large-scale wildfires, including the 2015 Butte Fire that destroyed more than 500 homes, current county code references to “defensible space” define it as a 30-foot setback.
Or
https://www.ocregister.com/2014/07/19/wildfire-citations-issued-unevenly-throughout-state/
Gary Bennett spent much of the last three decades preparing his property in Napa County for the day when a wildfire would sweep over the hill, including clearing brush and grass around his three-bedroom home in a scenic canyon 85 miles north of San Francisco.
That paid off when the 4,300-acre Butts Canyon fire roared through his property July 1, sounding like “five jet airplanes landing in my yard,” Bennett said. His home was spared while a neighbor’s cabin that had been surrounded by overhanging oak trees was destroyed.
If they lived elsewhere in California, the neighbors might have received stern warnings from local authorities, including fines and citations requiring them to clear their properties. A review by The Associated Press of state data revealed wide geographic discrepancies in how state and local fire officials apply fines and citations for failing to clear vegetation in areas prone to wildland blazes
And it's not as if Governor Brown, visiting the Woolsey fire (the SoCal one) is against saying better forestry management is needed.
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Brown-Zinke-Assess-Woolsey-Fire-Devastation-500621981.html
And whether the Woolsey fire may or may not have been reduced by better forestry management, the Camp Fire up North certainly could have. As could a large number of the other fires we have been dealing with in California the last few years.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2018/11/16/californias-deadliest-fires-could-have-been-mitigated-by-prevention/#470dce08341b
CAL FIRE experts expanded on the problem by blaming decades of policy that discouraged controlled burns to reduce the fuel load in the now-burning forests in the north and hillsides in the south, creating tinderbox conditions.
Some of the needed prescribed burns in Southern California’s coastal chaparral and grasslands have been deterred by environmental lawsuits and air quality concerns.
The federal government controls 46 percent of California’s land, much of it managed by the U.S. Forest Service. In the three decades before 1990, foresters harvested 10-12 billion board feet of timber from national forests every year. By 2013, restrictive environmental policies cut that to 2.5 billion. While the harvest declined, so too did tree thinning and the clearing of brush and diseased trees. The Trump administration is reversing that trend with the biggest harvest of trees on federal land in 20 years, selling 3.4 billion board feet on some 3 million acres—still just a third of the typical pre-1990 harvest.
California has a forestry management/wildland management problem. Focusing on Trump's questionable statements, or the more unique issues of the second-largest fire burning right now does not detract from this problem which every expert acknowledges exists, even before one takes into account climate conditions.
My wife was confined to the house last week. Both by her choice (she had difficulty breathing) and then by the government issueing a shelter-in-place advisory. Of course, we got off far better than some, we still have our house.
We are well aware of the fire issues in California. And we are well aware that CA (and USFS) are not managing things well.
I'm left wondering if culpable homicide charges [dereliction of duty] could be brought against the state and federal authorities in respect of not reducing the build-up of flammable material in the urban and rural areas under their control, as there is a history of scrubland and forest fires in Cal. But that's beyond Don's area of expertise.0 -
I saw another story on F/B about U.S gun law [in Des Moines] & thought it was a wind-up, but no; its not. It seems that under two parts of U.S law, it may well be illegal to deny weapons permits to partially sighted citizens [blind is the word used in some sections of the article] in the De Moines Register and US Today. I can see the NRA & the Civil Rights people probably agreeing that the right exists but for differing reasons. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/08/iowa-grants-gun-permits-to-the-blind/2780303/0
-
This is far too much reinterpretation of Trump's statements. He said none of this. He said what "Finland" told him.Manic Moran wrote: »The SoCal fire was not because of forestry issues.
As this article in the Fresno Bee observes, perhaps "Wildland management" is a better term.
https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article221683150.html
Trump used the term forest management— it would be more precise, but also more cumbersome, if he had said forest management, chaparral management, oak woodland management, grass land management, and desert management (I left off riparian management because it tends to burn less). He could have said wildland management.
This would include the grassland areas of SoCal. Given that the Woolsley Fire is also an issue of urban interface (much like the Sonoma fires we had last year), this also reflects upon the other prevention issues I mentioned, such as the defensible space. The whole point of defensible space is that if there is a fire nearby, it becomes very difficult for the fire to spread from where it is to where the houses are. And California historically sucks at it.
For example.
http://www.calaverasenterprise.com/news/article_438f5896-d756-11e6-bd8a-3b021b3d4199.html
More than a decade ago, California law changed to require that homes in forested areas at high risk of fire have at least 100 feet of defensible space cleared around them. On Tuesday, Calaveras County elected leaders will consider bringing the county’s code into compliance with that rule.
Despite the fact that the county has had repeated large-scale wildfires, including the 2015 Butte Fire that destroyed more than 500 homes, current county code references to “defensible space” define it as a 30-foot setback.
Or
https://www.ocregister.com/2014/07/19/wildfire-citations-issued-unevenly-throughout-state/
Gary Bennett spent much of the last three decades preparing his property in Napa County for the day when a wildfire would sweep over the hill, including clearing brush and grass around his three-bedroom home in a scenic canyon 85 miles north of San Francisco.
That paid off when the 4,300-acre Butts Canyon fire roared through his property July 1, sounding like “five jet airplanes landing in my yard,” Bennett said. His home was spared while a neighbor’s cabin that had been surrounded by overhanging oak trees was destroyed.
If they lived elsewhere in California, the neighbors might have received stern warnings from local authorities, including fines and citations requiring them to clear their properties. A review by The Associated Press of state data revealed wide geographic discrepancies in how state and local fire officials apply fines and citations for failing to clear vegetation in areas prone to wildland blazes
And it's not as if Governor Brown, visiting the Woolsey fire (the SoCal one) is against saying better forestry management is needed.
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Brown-Zinke-Assess-Woolsey-Fire-Devastation-500621981.html
And whether the Woolsey fire may or may not have been reduced by better forestry management, the Camp Fire up North certainly could have. As could a large number of the other fires we have been dealing with in California the last few years.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2018/11/16/californias-deadliest-fires-could-have-been-mitigated-by-prevention/#470dce08341b
CAL FIRE experts expanded on the problem by blaming decades of policy that discouraged controlled burns to reduce the fuel load in the now-burning forests in the north and hillsides in the south, creating tinderbox conditions.
Some of the needed prescribed burns in Southern California’s coastal chaparral and grasslands have been deterred by environmental lawsuits and air quality concerns.
The federal government controls 46 percent of California’s land, much of it managed by the U.S. Forest Service. In the three decades before 1990, foresters harvested 10-12 billion board feet of timber from national forests every year. By 2013, restrictive environmental policies cut that to 2.5 billion. While the harvest declined, so too did tree thinning and the clearing of brush and diseased trees. The Trump administration is reversing that trend with the biggest harvest of trees on federal land in 20 years, selling 3.4 billion board feet on some 3 million acres—still just a third of the typical pre-1990 harvest.
California has a forestry management/wildland management problem. Focusing on Trump's questionable statements, or the more unique issues of the second-largest fire burning right now does not detract from this problem which every expert acknowledges exists, even before one takes into account climate conditions.
My wife was confined to the house last week. Both by her choice (she had difficulty breathing) and then by the government issueing a shelter-in-place advisory. Of course, we got off far better than some, we still have our house.
We are well aware of the fire issues in California. And we are well aware that CA (and USFS) are not managing things well.
You want this solved you need elected officials who understand what is going on. Being able to reinterpret someone's ramblings when adding large chunks and ignoring sections of what they say does not make them close to correct.
Trump is not pointing out an issue. He has no clue why these fires are happening. He does know that California forest management are someone he can blame that is not him. That is the sum total of thought that has gone into his response.0 -
This is far too much reinterpretation of Trump's statements. He said none of this. He said what "Finland" told him.
You want this solved you need elected officials who understand what is going on. Being able to reinterpret someone's ramblings when adding large chunks and ignoring sections of what they say does not make them close to correct.
Trump is not pointing out an issue. He has no clue why these fires are happening. He does know that California forest management are someone he can blame that is not him. That is the sum total of thought that has gone into his response.
I wonder does Manic get so worked up about removal of funding from parks and forestry July successive GOP conservative governments and the latest one to hand over tax breaks to already wealthy multinationals.
Does that work him up?
Hard to know.
But manic has gone completely Trump tastic from pretending to be on the fence. I guess there is nothing better than getting some short term tax breaks to focus to mind on national issues ...0 -
This is far too much reinterpretation of Trump's statements. He said none of this. He said what "Finland" told him.
You want this solved you need elected officials who understand what is going on. Being able to reinterpret someone's ramblings when adding large chunks and ignoring sections of what they say does not make them close to correct.
Trump is not pointing out an issue. He has no clue why these fires are happening. He does know that California forest management are someone he can blame that is not him. That is the sum total of thought that has gone into his response.
Anyone who supports Trump in any way at this stage has to be able to interpret his statements the way manic has done. To do otherwise would make you appear ridiculous. Trump wasn't bringing attention to anything, he was simply blaming someone else for something he doesn't understand. That's all he is capable of. That's why he blamed a retired soldier for not getting Osama sooner.0 -
Trump supporters are now Trump full time apologists0
-
everlast75 wrote: »Trump supporters are now Trump full time apologists
No, they don't just excuse him, they justify him. That's cultist behaviour. The correct term for them now is fanatic.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »As this article in the Fresno Bee observes, perhaps "Wildland management" is a better term.
I'd listen to the Pasadena Firefighters Association and their correction of the statement from the Whitehouse.
https://twitter.com/PFA809/status/10613079816381931520 -
Advertisement
-
With all due respect, this is looking at a Trump statement and searching for meaning in it.Manic Moran wrote: »As usual, Trump makes a completely idiotic statement, which actually does touch upon a legitimate problem. Which lots of folks are going to ignore, instead focusing a lot of attention looking at Trump’s aforementioned idiotic statement.
Virtually any statement by anyone can be reinterpreted to say whatever it is that you want it to. Like a college professor who'll run a course on how Garfield is actually a long-running commentary on the tyranny of marxist dictatorships.
Extrapolating some deeper, unsaid meaning from a string of barely coherent words is just you convincing yourself that there's something else in it.
Fact is, Trump said absolutely nothing about anything you mention in your post. He talks about sweeping the forest floor. This isn't a clever metaphor for "ensuring that our national parks are up to scratch".
It's a statement of complete nonsense from a man who is quite likely entering the early stages of dementia. But even if he isn't, it remains true to form; he doesn't speak in riddle or metaphor. He just flaps his lips, stuff comes out, and then he moves on. He really, really, doesn't care.0 -
You would think he picked the wrong fight to take on firefighters....but then I thought the same about Thatcher and the miners.I'd listen to the Pasadena Firefighters Association and their correction of the statement from the Whitehouse.
https://twitter.com/PFA809/status/1061307981638193152
Eaten bread is soon forgotten.0 -
And we still haven't talked about his interview with Fox in which he showed even more disrespect for the Armed Forces..
President Donald Trump derided retired Adm. William H. McRaven as a "Hillary Clinton fan" and an "Obama backer" and suggested that the former head of U.S. Special Operations Command should have apprehended Osama bin Laden faster.
The comments, which the president made in an interview with Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday," represent the latest point of tension between Trump and a group of retired general officers who have criticized the commander-in-chief publicly for his handling of national security and military matters.
McRaven, a retired Navy SEAL, oversaw the 2011 operation that killed bin Laden at a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. After Trump revoked former CIA director John Brennan's security clearance in the summer, McRaven wrote an article in The Washington Post defending Brennan as a man of unparalleled integrity and asked the president to revoke his clearance, as well, in solidarity. McRaven also criticized Trump more broadly.
"Like most Americans, I had hoped that when you became president, you would rise to the occasion and become the leader this great nation needs," McRaven wrote. "A good leader tries to embody the best qualities of his or her organization. A good leader sets the example for others to follow. A good leader always puts the welfare of others before himself or herself."
"Your leadership, however, has shown little of these qualities," McRaven added. "Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation."
The commentary amounted to a rare public rebuke by a former flag officer, most of whom tend to stay quiet on political matters after retiring, and escalated calls for McRaven to run for public office.
On Sunday, about three months later, Trump fired back at the retired admiral when Wallace brought him up in the interview.
"Bill McRaven, retired admiral, Navy SEAL, 37 years, former head of U.S. Special Operations, who led the operations, commanded the operations that took down Saddam Hussein and that killed Osama bin Laden, says that your sentiment is the greatest threat to democracy in his lifetime," Wallace said, as Trump interrupted him to call the former top commander a "Hillary Clinton fan."
Trump then accused McRaven of not finding bin Laden fast enough.
"Wouldn't it have been nice if we got Osama bin Laden a lot sooner than that, wouldn't it have been nice?" the president said. "You know, living - think of this - living in Pakistan, beautifully in Pakistan, in what I guess they considered a nice mansion, I don't know, I've seen nicer. But living in Pakistan right next to the military academy, everybody in Pakistan knew he was there."0 -
Is it starting to look like he has done as much damage as he was able to and the support from his base is only now only knee jerk and perfunctory as the hollowness of his assertions (and their blatatant self serving partisanship) is unavoidable even to them?0
-
relax carry on wrote: »His latest masterpiece.
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
So funny to see little Adam Schitt (D-CA) talking about the fact that Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker was not approved by the Senate, but not mentioning the fact that Bob Mueller (who is highly conflicted) was not approved by the Senate!
6:01 PM · Nov 18, 2018 · Twitter for iPhone
Think he's a little confused over the positions held by Whitaker and Mueller and who needs senate approval.
Whats even funnier is that although for his current role Muller doesn't need Senate approval, he does have it by virtue of being a former FBI director where he was confirmed 100-0 when it term was extended in 2009.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 33867
relax carry on wrote: »His latest masterpiece.
[...]
So funny to see little Adam Schitt (D-CA) talking about the fact that Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker was not approved by the Senate, but not mentioning the fact that Bob Mueller (who is highly conflicted) was not approved by the Senate!
Can I just stop everything for a moment and point out that the Sitting US President took a moment to call a congressman a "shít" by way of an adolescent pun? I mean sure, it could have been an innocent typo, but given the man's predilection for nicknames of his rivals & targets, it's easier to see him delighting in calling the congressman a 'little shít'.
2018 American Politics. And remember: the Republicans are the ones demanding 'civility', while those who might criticise the Trump admin (such as on this thread) are the 'deranged' ones.0 -
Can I just stop everything for a moment and point out that the Sitting US President took a moment to call a congressman a "shít" by way of an adolescent pun? I mean sure, it could have been an innocent typo, but given the man's predilection for nicknames of his rivals & targets, it's easier to see him delighting in calling the congressman a 'little shít'.
2018 American Politics. And remember: the Republicans are the ones demanding 'civility', while those who might criticise the Trump admin (such as on this thread) are the 'deranged' ones.
Be Best.
Some of the things from his Fox interview are simply incredible. How anyone can still support him is astounding to me, yet I guess because he's "owning the libs!" it's excusable.0 -
Is it starting to look like he has done as much damage as he was able to and the support from his base is only now only knee jerk and perfunctory as the hollowness of his assertions (and their blatatant self serving partisanship) is unavoidable even to them?
I was commenting on a Facebook post (I know, I know) about the forest fires.
According to one women Trump is spot on by saying the forest floor should be raked. She knows because she is a fire marshal and forestry expert.
On another post about Trump not showing up in Paris, she stated that she has reliable info that the CIA and FBI received death threats and his trip was cancelled due to safety reasons.
The VERY first thing you see on her profile is Q Anon. I promptly told her that Q is about as reliable source as The Beano.
So the new argument by the Trump Trolls is that they immediately become an expert with 20 years experience in whatever field is being discussed and they will confirm (with their very large brain) that Trump is spot on and 100% correct in whatever he just said, even if it contradicts something he said five minutes earlier.
Trump Bots will always be 100% behind him and there is no point even engaging them.0 -
Can I just stop everything for a moment and point out that the Sitting US President took a moment to call a congressman a "shít" by way of an adolescent pun? I mean sure, it could have been an innocent typo, but given the man's predilection for nicknames of his rivals & targets, it's easier to see him delighting in calling the congressman a 'little shít'.
2018 American Politics. And remember: the Republicans are the ones demanding 'civility', while those who might criticise the Trump admin (such as on this thread) are the 'deranged' ones.
As I noted was said elsewhere, if I called someone I work with a little ****, I'd at the very least get a warning, if not be fired.0 -
Advertisement
-
Be Best.
Some of the things from his Fox interview are simply incredible. How anyone can still support him is astounding to me, yet I guess because he's "owning the libs!" it's excusable.
40% of Americans approve of the job he's doing. It's worth stopping to think about how ludicrous that is for a second.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement