Man, his shit about asking to be able to purge the federal work force is disturbing as fuck but kinda seems to have snuck under the radar. I didn't even notice it the first time.
I didn't watch the speech, but I might have paled a bit when I saw that bit on my Facebook feed.
The Federal civil service is the only thing keeping this boat upright.
Ending the spoils system is like the one good thing this country's government did between 1877 and 1901. But sure, let's repeal the bloody Pendleton Act.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Man, his shit about asking to be able to purge the federal work force is disturbing as fuck but kinda seems to have snuck under the radar. I didn't even notice it the first time.
I didn't watch the speech, but I might have paled a bit when I saw that bit on my Facebook feed.
The Federal civil service is the only thing keeping this boat upright.
Ending the spoils system is like the one good thing this country's government did between 1877 and 1901. But sure, let's repeal the bloody Pendleton Act.
Trump stuck to his script, which was moderately surprising.
He repeatedly trotted out victims of horrible tragedy and then made them relive their trauma in excruciating detail, which I didn't see coming.
He pledged his support of a new nuclear arms race, eternal war in the Middle East, and political purges of federal employees, which I didn't expect him to actually be explicit about.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Trump stuck to his script, which was moderately surprising.
He repeatedly trotted out victims of horrible tragedy and then made them relive their trauma in excruciating detail, which I didn't see coming.
He pledged his support of a new nuclear arms race, eternal war in the Middle East, and political purges of federal employees, which I didn't expect him to actually be explicit about.
He didn't talk about the investigation except perhaps for the purge-the-government request being an oblique reference. That was somewhat surprising.
Trump stuck to his script, which was moderately surprising.
He repeatedly trotted out victims of horrible tragedy and then made them relive their trauma in excruciating detail, which I didn't see coming.
He pledged his support of a new nuclear arms race, eternal war in the Middle East, and political purges of federal employees, which I didn't expect him to actually be explicit about.
He didn't talk about the investigation except perhaps for the purge-the-government request being an oblique reference. That was somewhat surprising.
Maybe that meeting with the Russian spy chief was so he could hand over the Ritz-Carlton tape so the CIA could get Trump under control.
Man, his shit about asking to be able to purge the federal work force is disturbing as fuck but kinda seems to have snuck under the radar. I didn't even notice it the first time.
I didn't watch the speech, but I might have paled a bit when I saw that bit on my Facebook feed.
The Federal civil service is the only thing keeping this boat upright.
Ending the spoils system is like the one good thing this country's government did between 1877 and 1901. But sure, let's repeal the bloody Pendleton Act.
Transcontinental Railroad, but yeah. I really am surprised how little reaction there is to explicitly calling for political firings of the Civil Service. That seems like something that should be a big deal to the DC press.
Man, his shit about asking to be able to purge the federal work force is disturbing as fuck but kinda seems to have snuck under the radar. I didn't even notice it the first time.
I didn't watch the speech, but I might have paled a bit when I saw that bit on my Facebook feed.
The Federal civil service is the only thing keeping this boat upright.
Ending the spoils system is like the one good thing this country's government did between 1877 and 1901. But sure, let's repeal the bloody Pendleton Act.
I knew it would be sound and fury, guess I’m relived(?) he didn’t directly call for the blood of the unbelievers?
That is a part of a lot of versions of populism. Corruption and patronage is OK when it helps the people, which is pretty much never defined as all citizens or everybody in the country. It is only bad when it helps those who aren't part of the people.
Man, his shit about asking to be able to purge the federal work force is disturbing as fuck but kinda seems to have snuck under the radar. I didn't even notice it the first time.
I didn't watch the speech, but I might have paled a bit when I saw that bit on my Facebook feed.
The Federal civil service is the only thing keeping this boat upright.
Ending the spoils system is like the one good thing this country's government did between 1877 and 1901. But sure, let's repeal the bloody Pendleton Act.
Transcontinental Railroad, but yeah. I really am surprised how little reaction there is to explicitly calling for political firings of the Civil Service. That seems like something that should be a big deal to the DC press.
They are too dumb to notice and most other people don't care or also didn't notice.
+2
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Man, his shit about asking to be able to purge the federal work force is disturbing as fuck but kinda seems to have snuck under the radar. I didn't even notice it the first time.
I didn't watch the speech, but I might have paled a bit when I saw that bit on my Facebook feed.
The Federal civil service is the only thing keeping this boat upright.
Ending the spoils system is like the one good thing this country's government did between 1877 and 1901. But sure, let's repeal the bloody Pendleton Act.
Transcontinental Railroad, but yeah. I really am surprised how little reaction there is to explicitly calling for political firings of the Civil Service. That seems like something that should be a big deal to the DC press.
I think the loose use of "explicitly" is doing a lot of work here. In the quote I saw, he called for it being easier for heads of agencies to fire people. Connecting the dots with the fact that his administration is full of completely incompetent lackeys and hacks, one can infer that the effect of making it easier for agency heads to fire people would be that more dedicated civil servants got rotated out and more lackeys and hacks got rotated in. Furthermore, that's probably part of the point of bringing it up. But that's an educated prediction about what would happen and an educated guess about the motivation in play. It's not what he actually said. And what he did actually say--it should be easier for agency heads to fire people--is so of a piece with bog standard Republican ideology, which hates both worker protections in general and the federal government in particular, that it's not particularly remarkable on its face.
I don't know if it's the hill I'm trying to die on or anything, but I feel like there's a vaguely Orwellian air to what seems to be a common tendency now to use terms like "explicitly" and "openly" to describe exactly those features of people's message that are indirect or inferred (often on the basis of extremely negative, even if accurate, background information).
Man, his shit about asking to be able to purge the federal work force is disturbing as fuck but kinda seems to have snuck under the radar. I didn't even notice it the first time.
I didn't watch the speech, but I might have paled a bit when I saw that bit on my Facebook feed.
The Federal civil service is the only thing keeping this boat upright.
Ending the spoils system is like the one good thing this country's government did between 1877 and 1901. But sure, let's repeal the bloody Pendleton Act.
Transcontinental Railroad, but yeah. I really am surprised how little reaction there is to explicitly calling for political firings of the Civil Service. That seems like something that should be a big deal to the DC press.
I think the loose use of "explicitly" is doing a lot of work here. In the quote I saw, he called for it being easier for heads of agencies to fire people. Connecting the dots with the fact that his administration is full of completely incompetent lackeys and hacks, one can infer that the effect of making it easier for agency heads to fire people would be that more dedicated civil servants got rotated out and more lackeys and hacks got rotated in. Furthermore, that's probably part of the point of bringing it up. But that's an educated prediction about what would happen and an educated guess about the motivation in play. It's not what he actually said. And what he did actually say--it should be easier for agency heads to fire people--is so of a piece with bog standard Republican ideology, which hates both worker protections in general and the federal government in particular, that it's not particularly remarkable on its face.
I don't know if it's the hill I'm trying to die on or anything, but I feel like there's a vaguely Orwellian air to what seems to be a common tendency now to use terms like "explicitly" and "openly" to describe exactly those features of people's message that are indirect or inferred (often on the basis of extremely negative, even if accurate, background information).
I think "thinly veiled" or "very thinly veiled" request for powers to politically purge is a better description, yes.
+10
Options
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
Man, his shit about asking to be able to purge the federal work force is disturbing as fuck but kinda seems to have snuck under the radar. I didn't even notice it the first time.
I didn't watch the speech, but I might have paled a bit when I saw that bit on my Facebook feed.
The Federal civil service is the only thing keeping this boat upright.
Ending the spoils system is like the one good thing this country's government did between 1877 and 1901. But sure, let's repeal the bloody Pendleton Act.
Transcontinental Railroad, but yeah. I really am surprised how little reaction there is to explicitly calling for political firings of the Civil Service. That seems like something that should be a big deal to the DC press.
I think the loose use of "explicitly" is doing a lot of work here. In the quote I saw, he called for it being easier for heads of agencies to fire people. Connecting the dots with the fact that his administration is full of completely incompetent lackeys and hacks, one can infer that the effect of making it easier for agency heads to fire people would be that more dedicated civil servants got rotated out and more lackeys and hacks got rotated in. Furthermore, that's probably part of the point of bringing it up. But that's an educated prediction about what would happen and an educated guess about the motivation in play. It's not what he actually said. And what he did actually say--it should be easier for agency heads to fire people--is so of a piece with bog standard Republican ideology, which hates both worker protections in general and the federal government in particular, that it's not particularly remarkable on its face.
I don't know if it's the hill I'm trying to die on or anything, but I feel like there's a vaguely Orwellian air to what seems to be a common tendency now to use terms like "explicitly" and "openly" to describe exactly those features of people's message that are indirect or inferred (often on the basis of extremely negative, even if accurate, background information).
I get what you're saying, but on the other hand we've lost a lot of ground by refusing to play hardball on things like this. For instance, we kept refusing to call things out as obviously, explicitly racially motivated, and then suddenly WHOOPS we're dealing with things like people chanting "blood and soil" in the streets.
You may be right that "explicitly" is a bad word to use here, but we need to make sure that whatever we use instead is no less forceful. I'm tired of giving ground to plausible deniability.
Well, he explicitly said he wanted it to be easier to fire people, in the context of organizations that are actively proving to be a thorn in his side. Everybody knows exactly what he's talking about.
A non-stupid person would not announce his plan to fire a bunch of dudes in such a way as to clearly allude to political purges. He was explicit about what he was going to do, even if he technically only delivered his motivation via obvious subtext.
So I guess yeah, imprecise language, shame on me, but I don't think this is that egregious a misuse of the word.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
And meanwhile, he DID explicitly say he wanted to build a shit ton more nukes and remain at war in the middle east for an indefinite period of time.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Calling clean coal "beautiful" was just ... weird to me.
Like, who uses that phrase and how does it make any sense and what is it even supposed to be conveying.
Goddamn Miller is a shitty writer.
Jet is a gemstone used in jewelry, and it is also a form of anthracite coal, which is what they refer to as "clean coal"*, so.....technically...I guess?
*What that really means is that it doesn't contain contaminants that introduce other gases when it's burned, it just gives off pure CO2.
Man, his shit about asking to be able to purge the federal work force is disturbing as fuck but kinda seems to have snuck under the radar. I didn't even notice it the first time.
I didn't watch the speech, but I might have paled a bit when I saw that bit on my Facebook feed.
The Federal civil service is the only thing keeping this boat upright.
Ending the spoils system is like the one good thing this country's government did between 1877 and 1901. But sure, let's repeal the bloody Pendleton Act.
Transcontinental Railroad, but yeah. I really am surprised how little reaction there is to explicitly calling for political firings of the Civil Service. That seems like something that should be a big deal to the DC press.
I think the loose use of "explicitly" is doing a lot of work here. In the quote I saw, he called for it being easier for heads of agencies to fire people. Connecting the dots with the fact that his administration is full of completely incompetent lackeys and hacks, one can infer that the effect of making it easier for agency heads to fire people would be that more dedicated civil servants got rotated out and more lackeys and hacks got rotated in. Furthermore, that's probably part of the point of bringing it up. But that's an educated prediction about what would happen and an educated guess about the motivation in play. It's not what he actually said. And what he did actually say--it should be easier for agency heads to fire people--is so of a piece with bog standard Republican ideology, which hates both worker protections in general and the federal government in particular, that it's not particularly remarkable on its face.
I don't know if it's the hill I'm trying to die on or anything, but I feel like there's a vaguely Orwellian air to what seems to be a common tendency now to use terms like "explicitly" and "openly" to describe exactly those features of people's message that are indirect or inferred (often on the basis of extremely negative, even if accurate, background information).
I think the loose use of a vacuum is doing a lot of work for you.
This is what was said the day prior to his State of the Union by the Speaker of the House sitting behind him:
“Let it all out, get it all out there. Cleanse the organization*,” Ryan, R-Wis. said.
[*The FBI]
After the President fired the Director of the FBI in an unprecedented move, forced the early retirement of the Deputy Director of the FBI on Monday, and the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee announced an ongoing investigation into the FBI and Department of Justice by his staff. All under the backdrop of repeated calls to end the investigation into the President's potential Obstruction of Justice and other criminality by the President.
If we pretend those things didn't happen then calling for easing the firing of career civil servants could be dismissed as typical complaints about worker protections. But that is pretending, because those actions did occur. This speech wasn't given in a vacuum, so treating that call as a sui generis statement that's basically just a non sequitur and shouldn't be seen as chilling seems wrong.
Man, his shit about asking to be able to purge the federal work force is disturbing as fuck but kinda seems to have snuck under the radar. I didn't even notice it the first time.
I didn't watch the speech, but I might have paled a bit when I saw that bit on my Facebook feed.
The Federal civil service is the only thing keeping this boat upright.
Ending the spoils system is like the one good thing this country's government did between 1877 and 1901. But sure, let's repeal the bloody Pendleton Act.
Transcontinental Railroad, but yeah. I really am surprised how little reaction there is to explicitly calling for political firings of the Civil Service. That seems like something that should be a big deal to the DC press.
It’s even super easy to link it to Russia. Just point out that what Trump wants is the equivalent to the commissar/political officer system.
Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Man, his shit about asking to be able to purge the federal work force is disturbing as fuck but kinda seems to have snuck under the radar. I didn't even notice it the first time.
I didn't watch the speech, but I might have paled a bit when I saw that bit on my Facebook feed.
The Federal civil service is the only thing keeping this boat upright.
Ending the spoils system is like the one good thing this country's government did between 1877 and 1901. But sure, let's repeal the bloody Pendleton Act.
Transcontinental Railroad, but yeah. I really am surprised how little reaction there is to explicitly calling for political firings of the Civil Service. That seems like something that should be a big deal to the DC press.
I think the loose use of "explicitly" is doing a lot of work here. In the quote I saw, he called for it being easier for heads of agencies to fire people. Connecting the dots with the fact that his administration is full of completely incompetent lackeys and hacks, one can infer that the effect of making it easier for agency heads to fire people would be that more dedicated civil servants got rotated out and more lackeys and hacks got rotated in. Furthermore, that's probably part of the point of bringing it up. But that's an educated prediction about what would happen and an educated guess about the motivation in play. It's not what he actually said. And what he did actually say--it should be easier for agency heads to fire people--is so of a piece with bog standard Republican ideology, which hates both worker protections in general and the federal government in particular, that it's not particularly remarkable on its face.
I don't know if it's the hill I'm trying to die on or anything, but I feel like there's a vaguely Orwellian air to what seems to be a common tendency now to use terms like "explicitly" and "openly" to describe exactly those features of people's message that are indirect or inferred (often on the basis of extremely negative, even if accurate, background information).
I think the loose use of a vacuum is doing a lot of work for you.
This is what was said the day prior to his State of the Union by the Speaker of the House sitting behind him:
“Let it all out, get it all out there. Cleanse the organization*,” Ryan, R-Wis. said.
[*The FBI]
After the President fired the Director of the FBI in an unprecedented move, forced the early retirement of the Deputy Director of the FBI on Monday, and the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee announced an ongoing investigation into the FBI and Department of Justice by his staff. All under the backdrop of repeated calls to end the investigation into the President's potential Obstruction of Justice and other criminality by the President.
If we pretend those things didn't happen then calling for easing the firing of career civil servants could be dismissed as typical complaints about worker protections. But that is pretending, because those actions did occur. This speech wasn't given in a vacuum, so treating that call as a sui generis statement that's basically just a non sequitur and shouldn't be seen as chilling seems wrong.
If you're offering a bunch of background information to contextualize what he said--including what the person sitting behind him said yesterday--then you're probably no longer talking about what he "explicitly" said. In describing what people "explicitly" say, you typically don't need to go beyond their actual words.
Consider the following scene from Italy:
In the election of April 1924 Mussolini had the support of the parties of the center and right and won an overwhelming majority.
The electoral campaign had, on the surface, been relatively calm. But even during the campaign, there had been disquieting signs of what was happening in Italy. In one way or another, since the March on Rome, the facists had put their people into provincial and local positions. During the campaign these officers had "influenced" the voters, discreetly where possible, by torture and murder where necessary.
When parliament met after the election, one of the most respected Socialist deputies, Giacomo Matteotti, rose to denounce these excesses. He ended by accusing the Facists of determination to maintain their power by force; the Facist deputies shouted back 'yes!'"
--A Broken World: The Rise of Modern Europe 1919-1939
You could contextualize the Italian fascists' remarks by referring to the violence in the earlier election. Indeed, you could contextualize them by pointing out that a few days later they would go on to murder Giacomo Matteotti. But you don’t have to! Because when it comes to what they explicitly said, they said “yes”, yes we intend to maintain power by force. They did say it openly, with no allusions or inferences on the part of the listener necessary, and that’s what made it so shocking. That they could say it explicitly shows how defunct democratic norms and functional government were in Italy, 1924.
Using the term “explicitly” to describe what was in fact implicit suggests, hyperbolically, that the situation is much more like Italy circa 1924 than it really is. Even Trump, not known for being a cautious speaker, is not going to go out and explicitly say “I want to summarily fire all the Democrats from the executive, because they aren’t loyal or trustworthy Americans.” There are places and times where people would say that explicitly! But for here and now at least we keep it veiled.
Oh well. I said I wasn’t trying to die on this hill. I bring it up just because I think this particular form of rhetorical overreach, omnipresent in the broader culture, is especially unhelpful on this board, where many of us seem already convinced that we’re living in Italy 1924, and so we are not in need of further figures of speech which fudge the distinctions.
Man, his shit about asking to be able to purge the federal work force is disturbing as fuck but kinda seems to have snuck under the radar. I didn't even notice it the first time.
He called for purging the federal government of anyone not conservative.
I know he and the rest of the GOP are fascists, but even that was a little surprising!
Trump doesn't want to purge the federal government of anyone who's not conservative.
He wants to purge the federal government of anyone who's not slavishly loyal to Trump.
It's not like the folks at the FBI and DOJ who are not rolling over for Trump are all Clinton-loving liberals, they're just not willing to set their morals and career futures on fire to keep Trump warm.
"Speech watchers" is the key there. Most people don't like watching SOTU to begin with, so you've really got a whole bunch of true believers at the end of the day.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
When authoritarians talk about uniting the "people," its important to look at who they don't consider part of the "people."
LGBT? Nope. Not Christian? Definitely not a real American. Not a citizen? Get the fuck out of here.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
+13
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Posts
Ending the spoils system is like the one good thing this country's government did between 1877 and 1901. But sure, let's repeal the bloody Pendleton Act.
Nah, patronage is ok when it’s your* people
*= white, Christian, conservative, conspiracy theorist optional people.
I knew it would be sound and fury, guess I’m relived(?) he didn’t directly call for the blood of the unbelievers?
He called for purging the federal government of anyone not conservative.
I know he and the rest of the GOP are fascists, but even that was a little surprising!
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
"We choose both."
Fuuuuuuucccccckkkkkk That. I hate trump exactly because I love America and want to see it prosper as a whole
I guess she missed Kennedy's speech
Trump stuck to his script, which was moderately surprising.
He repeatedly trotted out victims of horrible tragedy and then made them relive their trauma in excruciating detail, which I didn't see coming.
He pledged his support of a new nuclear arms race, eternal war in the Middle East, and political purges of federal employees, which I didn't expect him to actually be explicit about.
He didn't talk about the investigation except perhaps for the purge-the-government request being an oblique reference. That was somewhat surprising.
Maybe that meeting with the Russian spy chief was so he could hand over the Ritz-Carlton tape so the CIA could get Trump under control.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Transcontinental Railroad, but yeah. I really am surprised how little reaction there is to explicitly calling for political firings of the Civil Service. That seems like something that should be a big deal to the DC press.
That is a part of a lot of versions of populism. Corruption and patronage is OK when it helps the people, which is pretty much never defined as all citizens or everybody in the country. It is only bad when it helps those who aren't part of the people.
They are too dumb to notice and most other people don't care or also didn't notice.
I think the loose use of "explicitly" is doing a lot of work here. In the quote I saw, he called for it being easier for heads of agencies to fire people. Connecting the dots with the fact that his administration is full of completely incompetent lackeys and hacks, one can infer that the effect of making it easier for agency heads to fire people would be that more dedicated civil servants got rotated out and more lackeys and hacks got rotated in. Furthermore, that's probably part of the point of bringing it up. But that's an educated prediction about what would happen and an educated guess about the motivation in play. It's not what he actually said. And what he did actually say--it should be easier for agency heads to fire people--is so of a piece with bog standard Republican ideology, which hates both worker protections in general and the federal government in particular, that it's not particularly remarkable on its face.
I don't know if it's the hill I'm trying to die on or anything, but I feel like there's a vaguely Orwellian air to what seems to be a common tendency now to use terms like "explicitly" and "openly" to describe exactly those features of people's message that are indirect or inferred (often on the basis of extremely negative, even if accurate, background information).
I think "thinly veiled" or "very thinly veiled" request for powers to politically purge is a better description, yes.
I get what you're saying, but on the other hand we've lost a lot of ground by refusing to play hardball on things like this. For instance, we kept refusing to call things out as obviously, explicitly racially motivated, and then suddenly WHOOPS we're dealing with things like people chanting "blood and soil" in the streets.
You may be right that "explicitly" is a bad word to use here, but we need to make sure that whatever we use instead is no less forceful. I'm tired of giving ground to plausible deniability.
A non-stupid person would not announce his plan to fire a bunch of dudes in such a way as to clearly allude to political purges. He was explicit about what he was going to do, even if he technically only delivered his motivation via obvious subtext.
So I guess yeah, imprecise language, shame on me, but I don't think this is that egregious a misuse of the word.
Jet is a gemstone used in jewelry, and it is also a form of anthracite coal, which is what they refer to as "clean coal"*, so.....technically...I guess?
*What that really means is that it doesn't contain contaminants that introduce other gases when it's burned, it just gives off pure CO2.
I think the loose use of a vacuum is doing a lot of work for you.
This is what was said the day prior to his State of the Union by the Speaker of the House sitting behind him:
After the President fired the Director of the FBI in an unprecedented move, forced the early retirement of the Deputy Director of the FBI on Monday, and the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee announced an ongoing investigation into the FBI and Department of Justice by his staff. All under the backdrop of repeated calls to end the investigation into the President's potential Obstruction of Justice and other criminality by the President.
If we pretend those things didn't happen then calling for easing the firing of career civil servants could be dismissed as typical complaints about worker protections. But that is pretending, because those actions did occur. This speech wasn't given in a vacuum, so treating that call as a sui generis statement that's basically just a non sequitur and shouldn't be seen as chilling seems wrong.
It’s even super easy to link it to Russia. Just point out that what Trump wants is the equivalent to the commissar/political officer system.
If you're offering a bunch of background information to contextualize what he said--including what the person sitting behind him said yesterday--then you're probably no longer talking about what he "explicitly" said. In describing what people "explicitly" say, you typically don't need to go beyond their actual words.
Consider the following scene from Italy:
You could contextualize the Italian fascists' remarks by referring to the violence in the earlier election. Indeed, you could contextualize them by pointing out that a few days later they would go on to murder Giacomo Matteotti. But you don’t have to! Because when it comes to what they explicitly said, they said “yes”, yes we intend to maintain power by force. They did say it openly, with no allusions or inferences on the part of the listener necessary, and that’s what made it so shocking. That they could say it explicitly shows how defunct democratic norms and functional government were in Italy, 1924.
Using the term “explicitly” to describe what was in fact implicit suggests, hyperbolically, that the situation is much more like Italy circa 1924 than it really is. Even Trump, not known for being a cautious speaker, is not going to go out and explicitly say “I want to summarily fire all the Democrats from the executive, because they aren’t loyal or trustworthy Americans.” There are places and times where people would say that explicitly! But for here and now at least we keep it veiled.
Oh well. I said I wasn’t trying to die on this hill. I bring it up just because I think this particular form of rhetorical overreach, omnipresent in the broader culture, is especially unhelpful on this board, where many of us seem already convinced that we’re living in Italy 1924, and so we are not in need of further figures of speech which fudge the distinctions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2018/02/01/trump-says-his-state-of-the-union-viewership-was-the-highest-ever-the-ratings-say-otherwise/?utm_term=.c5a9deaf1ccc
Course we can't let a little thing like facts get in the way now can we.
We need to know! Where's the video?
Trump doesn't want to purge the federal government of anyone who's not conservative.
He wants to purge the federal government of anyone who's not slavishly loyal to Trump.
It's not like the folks at the FBI and DOJ who are not rolling over for Trump are all Clinton-loving liberals, they're just not willing to set their morals and career futures on fire to keep Trump warm.
So, in Trump's mind, they have to go.
Hoo boy I'm gonna need to see some numbers on THIS poll
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I sure was.
Also, isn't YouGov completely opt-in online polling?
... At first I thought that said "Among Speech Writers"
Was that somehow not clear to 1 out of 5 people?
LGBT? Nope. Not Christian? Definitely not a real American. Not a citizen? Get the fuck out of here.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
United like a lynch mob.