Stay classy, Trump.
Let's be clear, it can be hard to remember to cover your heart when you don't have one.
Stay classy, Trump.
Let's be clear, it can be hard to remember to cover your heart when you don't have one.
So how long would it have taken him if she hadn't prodded him? And would the news stories be all over it just like they were on Obama about not wearing a flag pin?
I mean, I refused the whole hand-on-heart thing too. …When I was a snot-nosed fourth-grader who thought he was bucking the system. What's this shitstain's excuse?
"Oh, he bombed people. He's so presidential now!" "Oh, he gave a speech where he read all the cue cards without going off script! He's so presidential now!"
He does NOT get a pass from all the problems for creating a feel good story for a day. No, he does not get credit for that, especially with no plan or comprehension of what he's doing. Not when there is
- zero plan or policy in place
- no approvals or oversight from any other branch of government
- it seems unlikely that the man in charge can negotiate if it escalates from here at all
- the lesson he takes away from this is "bombs good"
- his entire reason for doing it is "the poor children", and those are the same children he's keeping out of the country.
- the military has no leash and is apparently being allowed to do anything they want without even talking to him.
- he was anti-China and then talked to the leader of China for TEN MINUTES and completely turned around his policy stance on that. And on NATO. (These are good things to flip on, but… that he was on the opposite side to begin with is the problem.)
He flip flops based on who is in the room and has no plans past this afternoon.
So no, he does NOT get credit for "doing a good thing that should have been done." Not when his previous actions, his motives, and the actual results are completely suspect and taint the whole thing. It's nuts that there's a credible "conspiracy theory" to begin with. If you'd said the exact same thign about Obama or even Bush "Oh well, he worked with the Russians and warned Syria in advance so they staged some deaths to boost his numbers", that would just get brushed off as crackpot. But here?
As is he's already gone nuts again over easter of all things, so his "being presidential" distraction sure didn't last long.
(Oh and good job of screwing up a 140 year tradition with the easter stuff btw.)
Who's talking about giving him a pass? Giving him credit and giving him a pass are very different things. Credit is small pittance. To give him a pass on anything can only be done if you give him more credit than he deserves.
You can give him credit for something he does right but when you weigh that against everything he has done wrong that determines how you feel about the overall situation. Which is why I remain skeptical and question him so. So, no, he does not get a pass on anything he has done but he does deserve credit for the things he does right and the things he does wrong deserve to be pointed out. Giving him any credit whatsoever does not automatically make him out to be a better person. It's the simplest pat on the back saying, 'Hey, you did some good here.' but it's important to keep the bigger picture in mind.
And I wouldn't exactly call that conspiracy theory "credible". Like, even if this was all planned with Assad and Putin then it wouldn't escalate into a war with Assad's government because, of course not, everything's planned to not work out that way. Everything is just for show. Just as planned. You can't have it both ways. Either Trump has a master plan with Assad and Putin to gas the Syrian people and then have America attack Assad's base to distance Trump's administrstion from Russia and make Trump look strong, or Trump has no plan with Syria at all. Which one is it? At the most I'm willing to go I'd call the move a positive PR stunt that placed America's position against the Assad regime, not a human rights violation.
Now, that could all change in the future and we could soften on Assad. Trump might not do anything else in Syria from here on. We might even "miraculously" fall back into Russia's good graces within a year. All I can say for sure is that I understand the reason why most people agree with Trump's strike on the Syrian base and it isn't simply because they like missles going, "Whhheeeeee!!!" The target matters as well as the motive, consequences, and stances.
Who's talking about giving him a pass? Giving him credit and giving him a pass are very different things.
Everyone in the media going "Oh, he's so presidential now" and "Well, I guess this proves he's not in bed with Russia." and "Good job Trump, this is the only thing we'll talk about for the next several days while ignoring whatever other shady thing you're doing at the same time!"
EVERYONE is giving him a pass by saying "Good job!" so loudly that they stop going "but what about this?"
And I wouldn't exactly call that conspiracy theory "credible". Like, even if this was all planned with Assad and Putin then it wouldn't escalate into a war with Assad's government because, of course not, everything's planned to not work out that way. Everything is just for show. Just as planned. You can't have it both ways. Either Trump has a master plan with Assad and Putin to gas the Syrian people and then have America attack Assad's base to distance Trump's administrstion from Russia and make Trump look strong, or Trump has no plan with Syria at all. Which one is it?
You can have a plan that the other side then goes overboard on or screws up. PR stunts can go wrong. Especially when there are other parties involved. "Make a show out of Syria and have it all cleared" doesn't then stretch over to North Korea and their reaction, or what the escalations there and in China then force Russia and Japan to do, or what happens when the Military then uses "the mother of all bombs" and makes a big announcement about it without even discussing it with the president.
I'm not saying Putin mastercrafted an ornate line for line stage play for everyone to follow like he's Light Yagami. I'm not saying "Trump coordinated with Assad over this." or even "Trump coordinated with Putin over this."
I'm saying, given his actions up until now, his outrage and reason and justification is completely staged, and that takes away from it being a noble cause of any sort or the right thing to do, and turns it into JUST a PR ploy. And yes, that delegitimizes the good done from it, same as us going into war with countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 to get Sadaam. That was a good thing to do, sure, but the wrong reasons built around the president's agenda and not the actual needs or wants of the people.
And that yes, it's really REALLY odd that Russia (and thus Syria) get a call in advance to warn them to clear out the airbase of any important equipment and personal, (while our congress didn't get notified) that we had troops on the ground a week in advance, and that so little damage was actually done that the airfield was fine the very next day, with no follow up announced, and it happened right at a time where more and more Russia scandals are falling out of the woodwork. SO the net result is? People died and Trump got a PR boost. And thats it. No target was actually damaged, nothing was actually accomplished, no lives were saved or avenged…. it was 100% a bomb dropping show..
All I can say for sure is that I understand the reason why most people agree with Trump's strike on the Syrian base and it isn't simply because they like missles going, "Whhheeeeee!!!"
Almost no one in the news talked about the target. They all talked about the bomb show. "Hey look, we dropped a bunch of bombs!" There was very little emphasis on the gas attacks.
Well, up until the white house started saying Hitler didn't use gas, anyway.
It might depend on what media (MSNBC, CNN, FOX) is talking about Trump for whether or not they're giving him a pass on all of this. I've heard a lot of 'What's Trump's follow up plan for Syria' or 'What's next' from plenty of news outlets. The building general consensus is, if Trump doesn't follow this up with something his strike will be largely moot and only symbolic…
As for the damage to the base the sources on the ground which gathered the intelligence and informed the rest of us that Syria was able to fly sorties from the base basically said it was 'nearly impossible' so trusting them there's little doubt significant damage was done to the base. Yes, more could have been done if they hit the runways and didn't warn Russian personell of an incoming U.S. strike but the latter would have just been dumb.
And I'm pretty sure Trump's reason for attacking Syria was highlighted as retaliation for the gas attack by neary every media outlet.
And I'm pretty sure Trump's reason for attacking Syria was highlighted as retaliation for the gas attack by newrly every media outlet.
That's the reason GIVEN, and what the media has to latch onto to make this not seem completely irresponsible. But given his stance on refugees and "don't care about other people" and his past opinions on Syria (twitter confirmed) it's not Trump's ACTUAL reason. That's the problem.
ANd if it truly is because his daughter was moved by it and begged him to do something so he immediately did as she asked without any plan or follow up or concern for the consequences… that's also a problem.
I guess we finally know how senile he really is. Hopefully nobody asks him to kiss any babies. :ninja:
Trump signs baby, throws into crowd
Trump supporters: "Baby must've been a secret terrorist. What strong leadership."
As if Trump even has an inkling of what's going on in Turkey.
I wouldn't read too much in Trump's call to Erdogan. The US has long been too soft on Turkey because they're a key geographical ally and this is probably just a continuation of that. If his call had been immediate I would be more critical.
Umm… I mean, it was within days. Is that not immediate in this time and age?
I heard a new Anti-Trumpcare ad on the radio today, sponsored by the AARP.
Is Trumpcare back?
I'm going to wait until somewhere else picks this up because that site doesn't look very credible.
@Monkey:
I'm going to wait until somewhere else picks this up because that site doesn't look very credible.
The Keith Olberman video I posted right below it is on the same thing and explains it much better.
But he's a very angry, very biased man hoping for things at this point, so I dunno what his credibility is currently, though I do like his style.
Turns out all that talk about the USS Carl Vinson heading for the Sea of Japan was false posturing; she's headed into the Indian Ocean.
CNN was trolling that moment too.
@Monkey:
I'm going to wait until somewhere else picks this up because that site doesn't look very credible.
It does pertain to the ongoing FBI investigation of Trump's ties to Russia. It's worth being mindful of on that basis atleast.
But he's a very angry, very biased man hoping for things at this point,
What you say there is the reason why I decided not to post the video. I saw it before I found the link I posted. Olberman's frustration does paint the points he makes as a vendetta against Trump. While I don't have a problem with that, I can see how that could be off-putting to some.
GA-06 results coming in now. Early numbers suggest Ossof is either just going to make the 50% or lose it by a hair.
The fact that democrats are beginning to do so well in these beet-red districts is really giving me hope for 2018. It'd be nice if he could win it, but even if he doesn't… this isn't a bad sign.
So it turns out that kid did get his hat back on Easter.
Right-wing media is spinning this as a massive conspiracy by the left-wing media.
Here's past voting on GA-06
2008: Price (68.48%) v. Jones (31.52%)
2008: McCain (62%) v. Obama (37%)
2012: Price (64.51%) v. Kazanow (35.49%)
2012: Romney (61%) v. Obama (38%)
2014: Price (66.04%) v. Montigel (33.96%)
2016: Price (61.7%) v. Stooksbury (38.3%)
2016: Trump (48%) v. Clinton (47%)
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Looks like bigly GOP turnout is going to prevent Ossof from winning.
Yeah, 538 was saying that if he didn't have at least 60% from early voting, then his chances of winning the final vote were very slim.
Ossof had 61% of the early voting though. I'm betting he'll be short, but just barely.
Fox news poised to axe Bill O' Riley amid the sexual harassment allegations.
Their decision to purge him from the network is expected to be made official later this week:
https://www.yahoo.com/tv/fox-news-poised-drop-bill-o-reilly-amid-024222819.html
One of congress' biggest shitstains, Jason Chaffetz, will not seek reelection in 2018.
One of congress' biggest shitstains, Jason Chaffetz, will not seek reelection in 2018.
Nice! One of the biggest pricks in office.
Re: the Georgia special election. Ossof won 48.5 percent, about a 1.5 percent improvement across the board from Hillary's showing there. Factor in the 1% from other Democratic candidates and it's looking very much like a coin flip.
One of congress' biggest shitstains, Jason Chaffetz, will not seek reelection in 2018.
Ratt fleeing the sinking ship or does he have a more lucrative job lined up?
Probably afraid of a McMuffin pounding. Alternatively, the only thing he was good for was organizing Democratic witch hunt and setting up Clinton investigations, so now that he actually has to govern he has no idea what he's doing.
Probably afraid of a McMuffin pounding. Alternatively, the only thing he was good for was organizing Democratic witch hunt and setting up Clinton investigations, so now that he actually has to govern he has no idea what he's doing.
Isn't that true of most of the Republican Congress?
Please please let Hannity get caught doing even worse.
lovely, America's racist uncle is on the street where he belongs
First 100 days
Flynn fired
Sessions recused
Milo blacklisted
Tomi lost her show
O'Reilly fired
Alex Jones on trial
Chaffetz retired
#MAGA
I love this because there is really no way this doesn't hurt Fox. Their loyal fans are upset because they love Bill and think the network is caving to "liberal pressure"(in reality it's the PR friendly move for them at the moment, and it's a private business so they should be in favor of honoring their decision, but conservatives), it won't help gain any long time new viewers outside of some that will watch his replacement specifically to watch the differences, and the majority of people criticizing it already don't watch Fox.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
lovely, America's racist uncle is on the street where he belongs
Could be worse; he could be ordering sweet tea at a black restaurant.
How long before O'Reilly gets hired by CNN as one of their talking heads?
Bets being taken as to when the NYT gives O'Reilly an op-ed column.