Options

The Trump Administration Thread For Discussing the Trump Administration

18687899192100

Posts

  • Options
    ZomroZomro Registered User regular
    Mim wrote: »
    Zomro wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    Forar wrote: »
    Zomro wrote: »
    The man can't even pretend to wish a simple thing without being a complete asshole. Just completely incapable of putting up a facade decency.

    Just wait until he has to start consoling families of fallen soldiers, or handling a massive crisis when something awful happens during his administration. Think of all the times Obama had to stand before the nation after a mass shooting or other tragedy.

    I was going to put a satirical version of how I think it'll go down here, but I just can't. It's too dark, and frankly at this point I won't be surprised if he's an even bigger asshole than I could imagine.

    The best case scenario will probably be generic platitudes and vagueness. But what the GOP might try to push through following such an event legitimately concerns me.

    Whether through indifference, ignorance, or actual malice, their capacity to do harm is going to be staggering.

    I was gonna say that being an ass himself to the family of fallen soldiers might get some people to turn on him.

    Then I remembered the Khans.

    Fuck everything.

    The only way being a dick to military families is going to harm Trump is if the family is white christian. Period.

    Republicans didn't care about him antagonizing the Khans because they were brown muslims. They weren't "real Americans".

    He attacked McCain, who is a white, Christian republican.

    That still didn't stop him or his supporters, who once held McCain in high esteem for being a POW but then turned on him like "You just a punk who got caught. HOW DARE YOU DEFY TRUMP."

    So, he's basically untouchable.

    McCain would be a special case because he's also an establishment Republican politician. I was mainly referring to a family like the Khans, people who were unknown until the DNC convention and the public feud with Trump.

    However, you're probably right. Trump wouldn't see any blowback from his supporters if it were a white, christian family.

    And now that I'm thinking about it, the idea of Trump consoling, or pretending to in his case, makes me sick to my stomach. We know exactly how the man is. He'll turn it into a massive event so everyone can see how great he is. And I bet that he will sexually harrass some grieving widow of a service member. It's almost a given.

  • Options
    silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    As much as I'd love for Trump to actually suffer consequences for crossing the line, what the election taught us is that that line no longer exists.

    It exists.
    It just doesn't exist when your base is willing to ignore it.

    Which, of course, many... many Trump supporters were more than willing to do all through the election, and currently still seem more than willing to do despite the massive hypocrisy (that they also ignore).

    No, there truly is no line. The fear of being wrong and the need to belong to a powerful group supersedes all other principles. Any negative outcomes of Trump's presidency will be dismissed as not that bad or scapegoated to Dems/libruls/for'ners/other. I am dangerously close to believing this kind of behavior is a for real personality disorder.

    I actually do believe he has a personality disorder. Sadly I'm not a doctor and can't diagnose for real, but it seems extremely plausible, and I fear it'll only get worse with age, especially if he develops Alzheimer's like Reagan.

  • Options
    Mx. QuillMx. Quill I now prefer "Myr. Quill", actually... {They/Them}Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    Nobeard wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    As much as I'd love for Trump to actually suffer consequences for crossing the line, what the election taught us is that that line no longer exists.

    It exists.
    It just doesn't exist when your base is willing to ignore it.

    Which, of course, many... many Trump supporters were more than willing to do all through the election, and currently still seem more than willing to do despite the massive hypocrisy (that they also ignore).

    No, there truly is no line. The fear of being wrong and the need to belong to a powerful group supersedes all other principles. Any negative outcomes of Trump's presidency will be dismissed as not that bad or scapegoated to Dems/libruls/for'ners/other. I am dangerously close to believing this kind of behavior is a for real personality disorder.

    I actually do believe he has a personality disorder. Sadly I'm not a doctor and can't diagnose for real, but it seems extremely plausible, and I fear it'll only get worse with age, especially if he develops Alzheimer's like Reagan.

    Well good news, cause we now live in the Age of False News and Information, so you can claim to be a doctor and "know things about doctoring that others don't" and who can claim otherwise!


    I am fully expecting someone to throw shit at him on the 20th and a full-scale riot to break out. Fucking calling out to his "enemies", that's over half the goddamn country you're supposed to be running! You talk of "uniting America" and then pull stunts like this every shitting day!

    Mx. Quill on
  • Options
    XantomasXantomas Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    I really really want his Twitter account to get hacked.

    If he starts Tweeting sensible, reasonable and moderate things, you'll know he's been hacked.

    That's exactly what should happen. Tweets that are humble and apologetic and a promise to stop being insensitive and make it up to all the women he's sexually assaulted and all the people he's ripped off over the years. And after that he's selling off all his company like every other president has done and release his taxes to prove he's not so easily corrupted and milking the American people with his newly gained power.

    His people love him because he's an ignorant asshole of course, and this would do no damage, but it would be quite an amusing sight.

  • Options
    EclecticGrooveEclecticGroove Registered User regular
    Xantomas wrote: »

    His people love him because he's an ignorant asshole of course, and this would do no damage, but it would be quite an amusing sight.

    I dunno, plenty seem to still have this delusion that he's a truly brilliant individual, a peerless business tycoon with a razor sharp intellect and instinct.

    They see none of his behaviors as the act of a small minded and petty individual who finally has the chance to pay people back for making fun of him.

    I don't know what it will take to change people's minds about that, but so far where we see a raging egomaniac who can't let go of the fact that someone has slighted him, ever (even if in his own head)... they just see a guy working the situation to his advantage.

  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    As much as I'd love for Trump to actually suffer consequences for crossing the line, what the election taught us is that that line no longer exists.

    It exists.
    It just doesn't exist when your base is willing to ignore it.

    Which, of course, many... many Trump supporters were more than willing to do all through the election, and currently still seem more than willing to do despite the massive hypocrisy (that they also ignore).

    No, there truly is no line. The fear of being wrong and the need to belong to a powerful group supersedes all other principles. Any negative outcomes of Trump's presidency will be dismissed as not that bad or scapegoated to Dems/libruls/for'ners/other. I am dangerously close to believing this kind of behavior is a for real personality disorder.

    I actually do believe he has a personality disorder. Sadly I'm not a doctor and can't diagnose for real, but it seems extremely plausible, and I fear it'll only get worse with age, especially if he develops Alzheimer's like Reagan.

    Well good news, cause we now live in the Age of False News and Information, so you can claim to be a doctor and "know things about doctoring that others don't" and who can claim otherwise!


    I am fully expecting someone to throw shit at him on the 20th and a full-scale riot to break out. Fucking calling out to his "enemies", that's over half the goddamn country you're supposed to be running! You talk of "uniting America" and then pull stunts like this every shitting day!

    If you are shitting as often as Donald Trump is making offensive tweets you should see a doctor. Especially before the ACA is gutted.

  • Options
    KetBraKetBra Dressed Ridiculously Registered User regular
  • Options
    VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    edited January 2017
    If you told me 1 year ago that Congress could spend the next presidential term investigating Clinton to find how she illegally influenced the election she was running in, I'd at the very least expect you to tell me she won.

    Welcome to 2017, folks. It's only going to get worse from here.

    Veevee on
  • Options
    KetBraKetBra Dressed Ridiculously Registered User regular
  • Options
    Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    "We're just going to report it all and let the viewers decide what's true and what isn't."

  • Options
    Panda4YouPanda4You Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    Veevee wrote: »
    It's only going to get worse from here.

    Panda4You on
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    WSJ is owned by Murdoch.

  • Options
    MayabirdMayabird Pecking at the keyboardRegistered User regular
    Trump and the GOP are going to have Hillary Clinton executed as a traitor or something by the end of the year, aren't they?

  • Options
    So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    Mayabird wrote: »
    Trump and the GOP are going to have Hillary Clinton executed as a traitor or something by the end of the year, aren't they?

    no, as he told all of america and the world at the second debate, he's going to put her in jail

    because we are a first world democracy I mean a banana republic now

  • Options
    HozHoz Cool Cat Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    I get to thinking that maybe it would be good if they try to prosecute Hillary, giving us a clear and open example of their depravity and corruption to rail against. But then I realize that half the country would probably be cheering them on and I can't rule out the possibility that he can strain our system of checks and balances enough to succeed with a phony prosecution.

    These are depressing times, my friends.

    Hoz on
  • Options
    ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    Mayabird wrote: »
    Trump and the GOP are going to have Hillary Clinton executed as a traitor or something by the end of the year, aren't they?

    Maybe he'll just say he already did. His base will accept the matter as settled, and he won't actually have to do it. Win win.

  • Options
    silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    Hoz wrote: »
    I get to thinking that maybe it would be good if they try to prosecute Hillary, giving us a clear and open example of their depravity and corruption to rail against. But then I realize that half the country would probably be cheering them on and I can't rule out the possibility that he can strain our system of checks and balances enough to succeed with a phony prosecution.

    These are depressing times, my friends.

    If they do prosecute Hillary, the only thing that will happen is she will be convicted and spend the rest of her life in jail. Interesting times in the post-irony America.

  • Options
    HonkHonk Honk is this poster. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Is there actually any chance of them doing that?

    Only motivation could be vindictiveness. She's not going to run again, politically she will probably work on from outside any of the goverment branches. Doing speeches and stuff, working with the DNC probably. Advocacy work.

    I can't see a scenario where they'd have anything politically to gain and it would be a huge risk to try.

    PSN: Honkalot
  • Options
    EclecticGrooveEclecticGroove Registered User regular
    Honk wrote: »
    Is there actually any chance of them doing that?

    Only motivation could be vindictiveness. She's not going to run again, politically she will probably work on from outside any of the goverment branches. Doing speeches and stuff, working with the DNC probably. Advocacy work.

    I can't see a scenario where they'd have anything politically to gain and it would be a huge risk to try.

    Yes, because Trump has never shown himself to be petty or vindictive at all.

    I think as of right now... no, nothing will happen.

    But should Trump catch it in his mind (or have it put there) that Hillary was saying bad things about him now/working against him, or some other such thing. I would not put it past him to fire up the "lock her up" thing again.

  • Options
    GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Seems like it would be a good test case. If you fail you're losing the nation anyway. But if you succeed then welcome to the permanent republican majority (brought to you by foreign powers)

    wbBv3fj.png
  • Options
    SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    KetBra wrote: »

    When even politico is saying that you're acting like a brain dead courtier.....

    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    HonkHonk Honk is this poster. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Honk wrote: »
    Is there actually any chance of them doing that?

    Only motivation could be vindictiveness. She's not going to run again, politically she will probably work on from outside any of the goverment branches. Doing speeches and stuff, working with the DNC probably. Advocacy work.

    I can't see a scenario where they'd have anything politically to gain and it would be a huge risk to try.

    Yes, because Trump has never shown himself to be petty or vindictive at all.

    I think as of right now... no, nothing will happen.

    But should Trump catch it in his mind (or have it put there) that Hillary was saying bad things about him now/working against him, or some other such thing. I would not put it past him to fire up the "lock her up" thing again.

    If it was just Trump it'd seem probable to me but maybe not likely. This at least feels like something all advisors would pretty unanimously advice against though. But then I'm assuming some level of rationality there.

    PSN: Honkalot
  • Options
    MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    They aren't putting Clinton in jail.

    If they did, who would they spend all their time bashing?

    She's more useful to them as an 'opponent' they can sling mudballs at.

    There's no plan, there's no race to be run
    The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
  • Options
    GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    It's a matter of inertia. In order to foster the "our opponnents are evil" theme they have to investigate. In order for them to not look like fools they have to find something.

    Once they find something they have to imprison.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    They aren't putting Clinton in jail.

    If they did, who would they spend all their time bashing?

    She's more useful to them as an 'opponent' they can sling mudballs at.

    Obama? I heard he was helping terrorists and something was going on.

  • Options
    MayabirdMayabird Pecking at the keyboardRegistered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    It's a matter of inertia. In order to foster the "our opponnents are evil" theme they have to investigate. In order for them to not look like fools they have to find something.

    Once they find something they have to imprison.

    And from there it would have to go to execution since the groundlings already had changed their screams of incoherent blind hatred from "lock her up" to "kill her" at rallies by August.

  • Options
    davidsdurionsdavidsdurions Your Trusty Meatshield Panhandle NebraskaRegistered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    It's a matter of inertia. In order to foster the "our opponnents are evil" theme they have to investigate. In order for them to not look like fools they have to find something.

    Once they find something they have to imprison.

    ~25 years of investigating and all they've ever looked like are fools except to the people who agree with and accept the lies.

    If they just imprison a Clinton now, they'd lose the leverage of having a convenient target to throw all their projection at.

  • Options
    MayabirdMayabird Pecking at the keyboardRegistered User regular
    Since when have they cared about long-term thinking? Besides, they can always find a new target once the previous one has been eliminated.

  • Options
    PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    Donald can always appease his supporters by telling them that he tricked them.

  • Options
    Twenty SidedTwenty Sided Registered User regular
    Mayabird wrote: »
    Trump and the GOP are going to have Hillary Clinton executed as a traitor or something by the end of the year, aren't they?

    Maybe he'll just say he already did. His base will accept the matter as settled, and he won't actually have to do it. Win win.

    The Hillary you see on those media outlets is obviously a double to prop up the librul lies and propaganda.

  • Options
    ultraexactzzultraexactzz BLEASCHMNN Registered User regular
    So I went to a funeral yesterday. After the services, as I was walking her out, one of my aunts, a Catholic Nun, asked me what I thought about Trump. She is, obviously, the most Catholic woman I have ever known, a staunch republican and pro life conservative. I love her dearly, but there are few areas of policy on which we agree. I replied, carefully, that President Geroge W Bush (a lifelong christian, I noted) may have been reasonably moral and compassionate on an individual basis, but that his administration as a whole was... less so. And that Trump did not appear to be a moral person in any way whatsoever - and even then his administration was shaping up to be less moral than he.

    I braced myself for the calm and gentle dressing down I've received in the past. Instead, as I walked her to her car, she leaned over and whispered. "I just hope he doesn't kill us all."

    I've had lots of crazy political discussions this year. But boy howdy, that one topped them all.

  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    KetBra wrote: »
    Happy 2017

    https:// twitter.com/owillis/status/815564653812191232

    Gerard Barker? He was one of the creeps in 2008.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/sarah_palin_vs_barack_obama.html
    Sarah Palin vs. Barack Obama
    By Gerard Baker - September 1, 2008
    Appeal

    Obama: A very attractive speaker whose celebrity has been compared to that of Britney Spears and who sends thrills up Chris Matthews' leg

    Palin: A very attractive woman, much better-looking than Britney Spears who speaks rather well too. She sends thrills up the leg of Rush Limbaugh (and me).
    Not quite sparkles levels.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/312361-spicer-questions-if-clinton-should-be-punished-for-receiving
    President-elect Donald Trump’s press secretary pick questioned Sunday whether Hillary Clinton will be “punished” for what he said were her attempts to influence the election.

    When asked about the U.S. intelligence assessment that Russian hackers tried to influence the presidential election in favor of Trump during a Sunday segment on ABC’s “This Week," Sean Spicer turned the question around.

  • Options
    MimMim I prefer my lovers… dead.Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/312361-spicer-questions-if-clinton-should-be-punished-for-receiving
    President-elect Donald Trump’s press secretary pick questioned Sunday whether Hillary Clinton will be “punished” for what he said were her attempts to influence the election.

    When asked about the U.S. intelligence assessment that Russian hackers tried to influence the presidential election in favor of Trump during a Sunday segment on ABC’s “This Week," Sean Spicer turned the question around.

    Are you fucking kidding me

  • Options
    Jealous DevaJealous Deva Registered User regular
    Spoit wrote: »
    KetBra wrote: »

    When even politico is saying that you're acting like a brain dead courtier.....

    His argument is a lie. If you knowing state a mistruth, that is a lie. If you state something as fact with disregard for truth or falsehood, then that is a lie. If you state something believing it to be true, and later find evidence of its falsehood, and do not correct yourself with the full level of volume and conviction as the original statement, then that is a lie. It is impossible to take these actions without intent to mislead.

    It is not being objective to refrain from ascribing motive when motive is clear, no more that it would be objective to refuse to refer to the direct willful shooting of a person in a public place (for example as in the case of the recent Russian ambassador shooting)as murder simply because it is impossible to truly know the mind of the killer.

  • Options
    South hostSouth host I obey without question Registered User regular
    KetBra wrote: »

    He's complaining about her getting the debate question, as well as "the answer", as if debate questions were multiple choice with one right answer. These fucking morons.

    Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
  • Options
    ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    I noticed that too, he clearly says "questionS", plural, when I believe it was one (that didn't end up being used anyway?), and the 'answers' thing is just insane.

    As usual, I'm not defending any such actions (one, many, whatever), but he's clearly trying to oversell the gravity of what transpired to let it make his point.

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • Options
    dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    So for the weird brand of populism they've got going on right now they are required to have a "them" as an enemy. It really makes no difference who the "other" is right now, as long as they can blame every problem on them. It really hurts my brain when I have to explain to Trumpsters at work that what is happening right now has happened at minimum a dozen times in modern history, at least once or twice in this country and the outcome has never ultimately been beneficial to any significant population.

    The scary thing is, right now I don't think they care. Or they all believe that they're part of the population group that will benefit from this crazy shit. It's like smokers denial. Cancer is something everyone else gets... not me.

    dispatch.o on
  • Options
    MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    Forar wrote: »
    I noticed that too, he clearly says "questionS", plural, when I believe it was one (that didn't end up being used anyway?), and the 'answers' thing is just insane.

    As usual, I'm not defending any such actions (one, many, whatever), but he's clearly trying to oversell the gravity of what transpired to let it make his point.

    It was also in the democratic primary, and was such an obvious question that it couldn't have changed anything.

    They are absolutely overselling it.

    There's no plan, there's no race to be run
    The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
  • Options
    EclecticGrooveEclecticGroove Registered User regular
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    Forar wrote: »
    I noticed that too, he clearly says "questionS", plural, when I believe it was one (that didn't end up being used anyway?), and the 'answers' thing is just insane.

    As usual, I'm not defending any such actions (one, many, whatever), but he's clearly trying to oversell the gravity of what transpired to let it make his point.

    It was also in the democratic primary, and was such an obvious question that it couldn't have changed anything.

    They are absolutely overselling it.

    Obviously they are underselling it!
    It's an attack on Democracy itself!
    It gave Crooked Hilary every bit as much of an advantage, no, even more, than all this "alleged" Russian interference in the election.

    The Mighty Trump was just too powerful for such things to matter in the end. He swept the election and won the votes despite the whole system being rigged (by Hilary and the evil Democrats) against him.

    I have very little doubt that something like the above will be pretty much what they try and sell people. And at this point I have little faith in people not eating it up as the truth.

This discussion has been closed.