President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Ouch. Tell us what you really think.

 

Watching Trump try to be Reagan feels like when Fred Durst tried to cover Behind Blue Eyes. But in this case the song lasts four years.

 

It's amazing that you think a conservative denying a story means it's fake, but have perhaps the most ridiculous Lock Her Up boner of all time when anyone in Hillary's orbit says one thing that you don't believe.

 

What names was McCain called? Bush? Obama? Clinton? It's politics. She engendered hate because she said hateful things. She was a textbook example of unjustified ego, which drives most people, liberal or conservative, fucking bendy. Naming her his running mate and her related ascent might be the worst thing McCain, a man I admire, has ever done in his long public life.

I don't wish her family ill. A father feeling he has to confront his son with a gun—well, Todd must be living a nightmare, and I'm sorry about that.

But Sarah Palin deserves everything she gets politically. She's a force for idiocy and craven opportunism. She's fucking gross.

 

Here is actually a great example of the way you lie, purposefully, and constantly. The stories didn't say Ryan would "resign" soon. They said he wouldn't seek re-election. Which he very clearly may not do. We'll know sometime next year. But instead of seeing how easy it is for Ryan to deny something almost every outlet did not report, you seize on his denial as fact, and the media as making up a story.

This is how dishonest people operate.

 

LOL. Here’s Jake Tapper from this weekend’s State of the Union:

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Will he pull the trigger? A prominent Democratic congresswoman says rumors are swirling on Capitol Hill about the Russia investigation.
...
In a new letter to Congress, the transition lawyer claims such a move taints the investigation, and it comes as rumors are increasing that President Trump may be contemplating firing the special counsel, Bob Mueller.

Tapper has the resources of CNN’s reporting at his disposal, but rather than relying on any reporting, he passes along rumors, as does his pannelist, who’s a CNN commentator:

JEN PSAKI, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Of course they are.

But this has been a months-long, orchestrated, frankly, pathetic and also dangerous attack by FOX News, by many in the conservative right to try to discredit Mueller.

There is a big rumor in Washington, who knows, that there is going to be a Friday afternoon firing. I have no information on that, but all of this is to set up for that and create an echo chamber to support that ludicrous and dangerous action.

CNN.com - Transcripts

 

I, for one, am pleased that much of the board now seems to see @YankeeFan not as some gee-golly board conservative but for the weirdly malevolent strain of thought measles that he is.

 

The vitriol Palin received came IMMEDIATELY. There was only one reason for that. I realize that diehard liberals feel that any politician (and many people) with whom they disagree politically are not due basic common decency. It's self-serving political fanaticism that makes for great social media theater. But it's not an approach I'd want anyone close to me to emulate.

 

The idea that I should be empathetic toward a hateful idiot like Sarah Palin is silly. She was a laughingstock on the national stage for good reason.

 

It didn't come immediately. It started coming after the Katie Couric interview.

Nobody remembers now, but Palin, for the first few days after her selection, seemed like a genius pick. She took all the attention from a then-surging Obama campaign, and McCain's naming of her was portrayed as a bold maverick play.

Then she couldn't name a newspaper.

I mean, her own running mate—they hardly ever campaigned together because McCain couldn't stand to hear her speak. She asked for time on Election Night and I don't believe he used the actual words "Fuck off," but from what I heard, they were close to them. That's because he wanted to end things with dignity, and his concession speech was maybe the best of his campaign. He didn't trust not to fuck up a concession speech. HER OWN RUNNING MATE. Of course liberals hated her.

 

This is bullshit.

It’s a blanket permission for reporters to make up anything.

You print a claim, attributed to anonymous sources, who you do not categorize, and who you don’t provide evidence that they know, or are even in a position to know, the thinking of the subject of the article.

And then, despite forceful denials the subject, that doesn’t satisfy you. Instead, the subject must somehow prove a negative.

So, who can’t I write this same story about?

If I say any politician, coach or CEO may be considering resigning, who’s to say I’m wrong?

And, when eventually, even years later, when they do resign, I can claim I was right.

 

This sounds exactly like you.