CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Trumpocalypse Now
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trumpocalypse Now - Page 797

post #39801 of 41482

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/jared-kushner-trump-jerusalem-mideast-peace-283770

 

Quote:

Kushner has been hemmed in since the arrival of chief of staff John Kelly, losing his free-floating “first among equals” status in the White House, while wrestling with increased scrutiny from special counsel Robert Mueller. These days, close associates said, Kushner is primarily driven by one goal: to prove himself by delivering a Middle East peace deal many skeptics doubt he can close.

He is banking on the hope that the opposition is just a facade — and that privately, after a “cooling off” period, Arab allies will continue to work with him on a peace plan he still expects to announce at some point in the early months of 201

 

How many people are going to be killed in inevitable violence because the second most hopelessly out of his depth man on the planet wants to prove his usefulness to the first?  This might be the most out-and-out bizarre thing going on in the Trump administration. 

I'd've at least figured that Trump possessed the rat-like, base cunning necessary to realise that putting Jared in charge of the U.S.'s Middle Eastern policy is a recipe for disaster. It must be that he just doesn't give a shit. 

post #39802 of 41482
These are my fave posts.

post #39803 of 41482
I'm dying to see how many of the rest of the developed nations of the world move their embassies to Jerusalem, and how many stay right the fuck where they are in Tel Aviv.
post #39804 of 41482
America is going to learn a very important lesson that we're only a "leader" if someone's willing to follow us. Otherwise, we're just assholes.
post #39805 of 41482
Quote:
Originally Posted by RexBanner View Post
 

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/jared-kushner-trump-jerusalem-mideast-peace-283770

 

 

How many people are going to be killed in inevitable violence because the second most hopelessly out of his depth man on the planet wants to prove his usefulness to the first?  This might be the most out-and-out bizarre thing going on in the Trump administration. 

I'd've at least figured that Trump possessed the rat-like, base cunning necessary to realise that putting Jared in charge of the U.S.'s Middle Eastern policy is a recipe for disaster. It must be that he just doesn't give a shit. 

 

 

It's still baffling.  The president hands a grenade with no pin to a kid who went to business school and made a couple of really bad deals, and every single person in a position to do something about it twiddles their thumbs.  The remains of the State Department must be aging years by the day.

post #39806 of 41482

Yeah, I think "none" is probably the right answer.  Hell, the US probably won't move the embassy  either, it's just another shiny thing for Trump to screw up, get press about, then abandon, damn the consequences.

post #39807 of 41482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Shrinker View Post
 

But aren't the  number and severity of the accusations against Franken about the same as the ones against DJT? Why does one "have to go" while the other can just call them all liars and pay/intimidate them into silence?

 

Trump is accused of raping an underage girl, with a corroborating witness. Trump is accused of forcefully grabbing women's genitalia - by witness Donald J. Trump.

 

The accusations against Franken don't remotely compare. Trump is accused of violent felonies, and admits to being a criminal sexual predator. At least in Minnesota, nothing that Franken is accused of rises to the level of a crime.

post #39808 of 41482

While the Senate deciding Franken has to go is a perfectly valid mechanism for handling this situation, quotes like this bother me:

 

Quote:
 “There were new allegations today, and enough is enough,” Gillibrand said Wednesday at a press conference on Capitol Hill. “We need to draw a line in the sand.”

 

So wait, the line in the sand is "X number of allegations"? Do we pause for a second to examine credibility? Because my opinion on Moore, Trump, Weinstein, Cosby et al was based on the cumulative -credibility- of the allegations, not just their volume.

 

In Franken's case, we have (I think) 8 allegations. Tweeden's was deceptive (dramatically overstating what -her own account- actually accused him of), and the 8th said that while posing for a photo with his arm around her, he squeezed her waist (is that a thing? One-handed sexual waist-squeezing?). The other six describe non-crimes that even if 100% believed are more akin to what Bush did and got a shrug in response than to the violent criminals and pedophiles that have been outed in the last year.

 

This does feel like the kind of scenario an ethics investigation is designed for. So I find it a bit troubling that so many Democrats are passionately wanting to skip that and move straight to banishment. That reeks of Internet justice, which is rapidly becoming an oxymoron.

post #39809 of 41482
Quote:
 That reeks of Internet justice, which is rapidly becoming an oxymoron.

 

Wasn't there a "Black Mirror" episode along those very lines (although a little more lethal in nature)?

post #39810 of 41482

I don't think Democrats are saying Franken should be banished from public life. I'm not hearing that at all. I think people are arguing that Senators, Democrat and Republican, should be held to a higher standard, and he hasn't met that standard. 

post #39811 of 41482

DT jr. is stiiiiilll testifying??? Holy hell....

post #39812 of 41482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
 

While the Senate deciding Franken has to go is a perfectly valid mechanism for handling this situation, quotes like this bother me:

 

 

So wait, the line in the sand is "X number of allegations"? Do we pause for a second to examine credibility? Because my opinion on Moore, Trump, Weinstein, Cosby et al was based on the cumulative -credibility- of the allegations, not just their volume.

 

In Franken's case, we have (I think) 8 allegations. Tweeden's was deceptive (dramatically overstating what -her own account- actually accused him of), and the 8th said that while posing for a photo with his arm around her, he squeezed her waist (is that a thing? One-handed sexual waist-squeezing?). The other six describe non-crimes that even if 100% believed are more akin to what Bush did and got a shrug in response than to the violent criminals and pedophiles that have been outed in the last year.

 

This does feel like the kind of scenario an ethics investigation is designed for. So I find it a bit troubling that so many Democrats are passionately wanting to skip that and move straight to banishment. That reeks of Internet justice, which is rapidly becoming an oxymoron.

 

Which means voters in Alabama should be able to cast ballots for Roy Moore with a clear conscience, since they shouldn't take the allegations into account because they haven't been for sure officially investigated and verified yet, and in point of fact there is more verifiable (non-hearsay/he said-she said) evidence of Franken behaving inappropriately than there is of the more salacious Moore allegations (whether the photo was "overstated" or not).

 

Or do we just wanna put it all on the table and admit that we're drawn towards being hypocrites about it because it's someone on "our side?"

post #39813 of 41482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmacq1 View Post

 

Or do we just wanna put it all on the table and admit that we're drawn towards being hypocrites about it because it's someone on "our side?"

 

I think it's the fact that it's children that makes me want to grab a pitchfork and some torches.  

post #39814 of 41482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
 

 

I think it's the fact that it's children that makes me want to grab a pitchfork and some torches.  


But apparently you're wrong for feeling that way because it's "internet justice."

post #39815 of 41482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmacq1 View Post
 

 

Which means voters in Alabama should be able to cast ballots for Roy Moore with a clear conscience, since they shouldn't take the allegations into account because they haven't been for sure officially investigated and verified yet, and in point of fact there is more verifiable (non-hearsay/he said-she said) evidence of Franken behaving inappropriately than there is of the more salacious Moore allegations (whether the photo was "overstated" or not).

 

Or do we just wanna put it all on the table and admit that we're drawn towards being hypocrites about it because it's someone on "our side?"

 

That's not at all what I said.

 

Voters in Alabama should and are able to decide for themselves whether they want Roy Moore to represent them. Voters in Minnesota are not being afforded that opportunity, and apparently the Senate isn't even going to begin an investigation before shoving Franken out the door.

 

I'm suggesting that we need to have a system in place that treats these accusations JUSTLY across the board. A system that relies almost entirely on outrage level and virtue signaling is NOT that system.

 

I fully support ethics investigations into Al Franken, Roy Moore (should he be elected) and Donald Trump. That seems quite fair to me.

post #39816 of 41482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post

 

Voters in Alabama should and are able to decide for themselves whether they want Roy Moore to represent them.

 

Should they?  Are you confident in the voters of Alabama to responsibly utilize the power of the ballot box?  When you vote, you're exercising political authority. You're using force.  And force my friends, is violence, the supreme authority from which all other authority derives.  Can we trust the voters of Alabama with such power?  

 

Would you like to know more?

post #39817 of 41482
That’s ideal Farsight, but we’re in a different time right now. The silver lining to Trump being president is that it’s brought out in the open the treatment of women at the hands of powerful men.
post #39818 of 41482

The best argument for Franken leaving is, I think, a pragmatic one. If he stays, he'll be crippled politically in that no one is going to want to work him on anything ever again. There will be no "Franken/__" bills or amendments. We can go back and forth on whether or not it's right, but that's what will happen. He'll remain isolated, and I think his constituents deserve better than an isolated representative.

post #39819 of 41482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
 

 

I think it's the fact that it's children that makes me want to grab a pitchfork and some torches.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmacq1 View Post
 


But apparently you're wrong for feeling that way because it's "internet justice."

 

 

Actually, the imagery Overlord (intentionally) chose was that of old-fashioned, analog mob justice.  Which is, you know, not considered an ideal to strive toward.

post #39820 of 41482
Junior could very well be the stupidest person on the face of the earth.
Quote:
Donald Trump Jr. on Wednesday cited attorney-client privilege to avoid telling lawmakers about a conversation he had with his father, President Donald Trump, after news broke this summer that the younger Trump — and top campaign brass — had met with Russia-connected individuals in Trump Tower during the 2016 campaign.

Though neither Trump Jr. nor the president is an attorney, Trump Jr. told the House Intelligence Committee that there was a lawyer in the room during the discussion
post #39821 of 41482
Quote:
Originally Posted by History Buff View Post

That’s ideal Farsight, but we’re in a different time right now. The silver lining to Trump being president is that it’s brought out in the open the treatment of women at the hands of powerful men.

 

And our response to that mistreatment is going to define us going forward. A reactionary, haphazard, self-serving response is not the legacy we should want to leave behind.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Peace View Post
 

The best argument for Franken leaving is, I think, a pragmatic one. If he stays, he'll be crippled politically in that no one is going to want to work him on anything ever again. There will be no "Franken/__" bills or amendments. We can go back and forth on whether or not it's right, but that's what will happen. He'll remain isolated, and I think his constituents deserve better than an isolated representative.

 

Again, that's someone else deciding for the people of Minnesota who should represent them. IMO, that's their call, not ours.

 

I'm not arguing that anyone be given a pass. I'm arguing that Franken face a public ethics investigation. The result of which would either be expulsion, censure or vindication. Only censure would possibly fit your scenario, and then Minnesota could decide whether they still want a senator censured for misconduct.

 

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 

 

Actually, the imagery Overlord (intentionally) chose was that of old-fashioned, analog mob justice.  Which is, you know, not considered an ideal to strive toward.

 

And that's exactly what we're looking at here. The virtual mob is every bit as bloodthirsty as ye olde villager mobs were. As a singular entity, they don't want justice. They want a pound of flesh.

 

That's not the behavior of empathetic people who give the slightest damn about victims of harassment. It's the behavior of self-centered faux-activists trying to make themselves look and feel better.

post #39822 of 41482
Now that McConnel got his tax reform, it’s time for Ryan’s dream of killing the poor and sick to come true.

https://splinternews.com/paul-ryan-says-entitlement-reform-is-coming-1821066313

Entitlement, this privileged and sociopathic piece of shit calls it.
I hope he fucking dies of an hemorrhaging prolapsed colon while working out.
I’m not joking here. If Paul Ryan dropped dead tomorrow of natural causes, disease or an accident, I would celebrate.
Because this Entitlement Reform will kill thousands, perhaps millions, and Ayn Rand’s fuckboy here sees that as a personal accomplishment.
Fuck him and anyone who supports him.
post #39823 of 41482

If only there was a way for the government to pay for social security, medicare, and medicaid through appropriate taxation throughout a citizen's life.  Of course, this would require cutting out the middle man (Big Health Insurance) and eliminating horribly regressive tax policies (the "cap" on what portion of income is social security-taxable). 

 

Such things, unfortunately, are simply impossible.  

 

**If the Republicans have such a hard-ons for programs that help out the least fortunate, one would think they would target SSDI.  Since non-objectively diagnosed conditions (primarily, spinal and mental/emotional conditions) were added to SSDI eligibility the program has spiraled beyond what anyone could have expected.  


Edited by Overlord - 12/6/17 at 7:05pm
post #39824 of 41482


I'm most proud of the last one.
post #39825 of 41482
Vigilante justice is mad slept on.
post #39826 of 41482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post

Vigilante justice is mad slept on.

 

Maine Justice of gtfo.

post #39827 of 41482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 

 

Maine Justice of gtfo.

 

AH DO DECLARE THAT MAINE JUSTICE DOES NOT WANT THE SWAMP DRAINED BECAUSE WE NEED THAT SWAMP FULL O' GATUHZ!

 

*clap clap*

post #39828 of 41482
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryoken View Post

Now that McConnel got his tax reform, it’s time for Ryan’s dream of killing the poor and sick to come true.

https://splinternews.com/paul-ryan-says-entitlement-reform-is-coming-1821066313

Entitlement, this privileged and sociopathic piece of shit calls it.
I hope he fucking dies of an hemorrhaging prolapsed colon while working out.
I’m not joking here. If Paul Ryan dropped dead tomorrow of natural causes, disease or an accident, I would celebrate.
Because this Entitlement Reform will kill thousands, perhaps millions, and Ayn Rand’s fuckboy here sees that as a personal accomplishment.
Fuck him and anyone who supports him.

Crazy question but.... is this a wise thing for him to make visible in 2018, you know, an election year?

I just thought that fucking the poor was something you did BETWEEN election years, so that you could spend your election year talking about how you're NOT fucking the poor.

Maybe I'm wrong.

I'm probably wrong. Because I've been wrong about the American people, and Republicans, and the GOP as an organization too many times to count.

In today's world this is probably a way to WIN votes. "Yes! Slash our Medicaid! Take our Social Security! Hit us harder! Treat me like the piece of garbage I am!" say millions of poor rural voters, apparently.
post #39829 of 41482
You've basically hit the nail on the head. Ryan has never been smart enough to hide what his agenda is. Instead, he's consistently argued that the destruction he's going to bring is really good for us.
post #39830 of 41482
I found this a pretty amusing bit of shade to approach the end of the day with.








post #39831 of 41482
Zing, sir.
post #39832 of 41482

Did he drop a mic at the end of that, or did I just picture it in my head?

post #39833 of 41482

Internet mob justice isn't usually like real mob justice for a couple of reasons.  First, and most obviously,  people are rarely actually hurt.  Second and usually overlooked is that the mob is actually powerless on the internet.  There's no hotheads dragging you out of jail with tar and feathers.  It takes people with actual power to react to the perceived 'crowd'.  It's less old timey lynching and more "We want Barabbas!"  and even then there's not going to be a potential Hebrew uprising if Pilate says no.

 

I would actually add that,  when you look at many of these things in detail,  people baying for blood isn't as common as we tend to think. It's just a bunch of negative opinions in a big group.  Genuine agitation for any specific response is often quite small (and saying someone should be fired, for instance, is quite different from genuinely agitating that someone should be fired).  Even the supposed feminist hate mobs everyone is scared of aren't all that troublesome a lot of the time when looked at in detail.  And there's plenty of people in any supposed mob who are simply expressing a view point in line with a crowd but do not consider themselves part of it, like in this discussion.  The slightly crappy analogy that sprang to mind was that the universe is expanding so everywhere you stand in the universe it looks like you're in the centre and everything is moving away from you.  Well when apparent mob anger on social media is expanding, no matter where you stand this mob anger is expanding apart from you  (and whatever small sphere you're in).  You're -here-  the angry crowd is -over there- even if you have expressed views in line with any particular angry mob you're not necessarily a part of it (despite having contributed to it from every other perspective).

 

That people think and respond like it is a real angry mob is part of the problem.  Social media storms are only powerful because people and institutions in particular react to them as if they are Not social media storms but something else. We just shifted our emotional and public relations cognition straight from a pre-internet and even pre-historic period to now and it doesn't work at all.  Even if we look at it as a part of PR, it's not even all that clear how much a part of an overall image social media is important to and on what time scale.  And yet people react, seemingly 'just in case'.

 

So in this context I'm saying wait and see as far as the Franken situation goes (although he can also have some agency in that himself for better or worse, as well as the state voters and legislature),  but not because internet mobs are horrible representations of our baser selves that should not be fed, but because that interpretation of people on the internet is itself the problem.

post #39834 of 41482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muzman View Post
 

Internet mob justice isn't usually like real mob justice for a couple of reasons.  First, and most obviously,  people are rarely actually hurt.  Second and usually overlooked is that the mob is actually powerless on the internet. 

 

I disagree with these statements completely. There are more kinds of harm than physical, and more kinds of power than direct control. That people aren't being literally dragged from their homes and murdered doesn't make the mob mentality harmless.

 

Anyways...

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-jr-attorney-client-privilege_us_5a289d5fe4b03ece03000e48

 

Don Jr. claimed attorney-client privilege today when questioned about a discussion with his father due to a lawyer being in the room. It's important to remember when judging Republicans in the future that they allowed this and backed off... despite no such privilege existing.

 

It's an uphill battle, but it would be soooo huge to wrest the Senate away from these shitheels next year, if only to change who will have control over Drumpf's impeachment proceedings. Between the stupid ones and the evil* ones, I wouldn't trust Republicans to interrogate a toddler with their hand in the cookie jar... even an elderly orange one.

 

* = also stupid.

post #39835 of 41482

Personally I'm pleased to see Abramson put under some scrutiny for once, I hope to see more of it. He been retweeted into my timeline about twice a day for months and I don't trust him in the slightest. He is indeed basically another Menshe only with better attention paid to factual detail, and I reckon he's heading for a fall same as her.

 

Read up on this article or his own philosophy of 'experimental journalism' if you want to know what he’s all about. Before he went full time on the Russia stuff he was an H A Goodman style Huffpo Bernie crank, one of those guys trying to convince the world that Sanders was definitely going to win the primary right up until about two months after the last possible moment.

 

He's made his name by skirting the boundaries between what's impossible and merely incredibly unlikely, on the basis that if presenting something barely possible as inevitable inches you closer to that thing actually happening, then that's what you should do. He doesn't even deny it!

 

Sad thing is, in the current climate he might actually have a point. But by his own admission he's not even attempting to report the facts in an objective or dispassionate way. He's not interested in truth, he sees the world as a battle between warring 'metanarratives', and he's made it his mission to connect the dots between any given event and the end result he and his followers want to see by any logic possible.

 

He constantly mixes in facts with pure speculation and sweeping assertions backed up with "believe me, I'm a lawyer", all to make people believe the thing they want to happen is definitely going to happen, regardless of whether it's realistically likely or not.

post #39836 of 41482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
 

 

I disagree with these statements completely. There are more kinds of harm than physical, and more kinds of power than direct control. That people aren't being literally dragged from their homes and murdered doesn't make the mob mentality harmless.

 

Well it's easy to disagree with a statement when you separate it from the whole argument.  Has an internet mob ever physically beaten anyone?  Actually taken them bodily, removed their liberty and caused them physical harm?  Not very often.  You could probably cite somethings like SWATing and some individual instances where one individual acted out of allegiance to an apparent mob.  Otherwise I don't think so  (right now I'm separating these Jon Ronson-ish instances from things like revolutions that have been organised through social media as I think there's arguably context there that needs to be considered).

So what does cause the harm of internet storms?  It's the effect of seeing an enourmous number of negative reactions to you all at once.  That's the emotional harm.  That's bad, yes.  Beyond that, it is the reaction of the powerful to the sight of an 'internet mob' of negative opinion they want to get away from. 

But my contention is this:  each one of those 'attacks', which taken separately are of not that much of an assault (some are, some aren't.  There's a spectrum) and while there's some level of 'following the crowd' in posting it at all, has little to do with that same gathering of humans who wants to do bodily harm to someone.  There's a level of group outrage necessary to decide to pull some body out and throw a burning tyre around their neck, or even cheer on those in the centre doing the business, that the detached and vicarious posting of scorn does not possess.  It's not even a murderous mob where people distribute guilt by telling themselves they only hit the person once.   It's a category error to even put them together, no matter how many parallels we think/feel that we can see.  That we think these parallels are appropriate is exactly what is wrong here, especially if we want to de-power this whole phenomenon.

 

Currently the general thrust is: we perceive a mob and it caused a reaction, therefore it is real and threatening.  If it's weilding power we don't like or approve of, apart from general tutting, the only responses have been to try to avoid getting its attention or try to counter the mob with an opposing one.  Now everyone's angry and scared of internet mobs and it's actually skewing our behaviour and politics.  While it's never going to be fun to be at the centre of one of these events, everything else about this has a lot to do with the fact we take a bunch of arrayed negativity and put it in the same general conception as an actual mob in the first place.  It's not that and on close examination couldn't be that.  Internet mobs get better results than actual physical protests with ten times the numbers!  Violent ones too.  The whole thing is out of whack and it starts with the label.

post #39837 of 41482
post #39838 of 41482
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muzman View Post
 

Well it's easy to disagree with a statement when you separate it from the whole argument.  Has an internet mob ever physically beaten anyone?  Actually taken them bodily, removed their liberty and caused them physical harm?  Not very often.  You could probably cite somethings like SWATing and some individual instances where one individual acted out of allegiance to an apparent mob.  Otherwise I don't think so  (right now I'm separating these Jon Ronson-ish instances from things like revolutions that have been organised through social media as I think there's arguably context there that needs to be considered).

So what does cause the harm of internet storms?  It's the effect of seeing an enourmous number of negative reactions to you all at once.  That's the emotional harm.  That's bad, yes.  Beyond that, it is the reaction of the powerful to the sight of an 'internet mob' of negative opinion they want to get away from. 

But my contention is this:  each one of those 'attacks', which taken separately are of not that much of an assault (some are, some aren't.  There's a spectrum) and while there's some level of 'following the crowd' in posting it at all, has little to do with that same gathering of humans who wants to do bodily harm to someone.  There's a level of group outrage necessary to decide to pull some body out and throw a burning tyre around their neck, or even cheer on those in the centre doing the business, that the detached and vicarious posting of scorn does not possess.  It's not even a murderous mob where people distribute guilt by telling themselves they only hit the person once.   It's a category error to even put them together, no matter how many parallels we think/feel that we can see.  That we think these parallels are appropriate is exactly what is wrong here, especially if we want to de-power this whole phenomenon.

 

Currently the general thrust is: we perceive a mob and it caused a reaction, therefore it is real and threatening.  If it's weilding power we don't like or approve of, apart from general tutting, the only responses have been to try to avoid getting its attention or try to counter the mob with an opposing one.  Now everyone's angry and scared of internet mobs and it's actually skewing our behaviour and politics.  While it's never going to be fun to be at the centre of one of these events, everything else about this has a lot to do with the fact we take a bunch of arrayed negativity and put it in the same general conception as an actual mob in the first place.  It's not that and on close examination couldn't be that.  Internet mobs get better results than actual physical protests with ten times the numbers!  Violent ones too.  The whole thing is out of whack and it starts with the label.

 

How about the guy who read about "PizzaGate" online then went to the pizza place with a gun? 

 

How about the numerous instances reported over the years of teenagers being driven to suicide after being dog piled on via Social Media?

 

How do you think both Antifa and Alt Right mobs coordinated to meet at Charlottesville?

 

Also it's awfully conveinent to your argument to ignore the Arab Spring and the role Social Media played in that. 

post #39839 of 41482

 

...as the old saying goes, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results...

post #39840 of 41482
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post
 

 

Good points.

While it very well maybe a good thing to get Franken to resign to maintain Democratic Party credibility, I'm going to go on record to say that the Bannon/Cernovich wing of the GOP will use Franken stepping down to start a fullblown dirty tricks war* to bring down as many progressive democratic politicians as they can...using any and all sketchy tactics as possible.  

 

*MSNBC Gives In To Disingenuous Right-Wing Smear, Fires Sam Seder


Some good news on this:

 

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/07/sam-seder-msnbc-reverses-decision-to-fire-contributor-sam-seder/

post #39841 of 41482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham View Post

...as the old saying goes, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results...

Well, that was Trump's logic on this.

As I said in a previous post, there was actually a way to do this and NOT piss off the entire Arab world, and in fact accomplish what he said he wanted to accomplish - move the peace process forward. Announce you're moving the US embassy to Israel to West Jerusalem.... and that we'll also be establishing an embassy to the future Palestinian State in East Jerusalem. Boom. That's how you make some waves.

It's almost shocking how inept these guys can be. The solution will be ready and waiting for a Democrat president to implement as long as the location of the embassy within Jerusalem hasn't been chosen yet. Getting through these next months without an escalating pattern of violence is going to be the real trick.
post #39842 of 41482
Of course he didn't understand it. He probably thinks his rice crispies crackling is just magic and claps his hands like a toddler whenever it happens. He looks at being POTUS as a new toy to play choo choo with. He's every boss I've ever had who I'd just stare at and wonder how in the hell did you muster up enough brain power to make it here with pants on.....much less drive an actual car on an actual highway and not kill anyone, much less have the job you have, except times a million in this case.

He just cannot have his mouth filled with shit of some kind and then taped shut, body sewn up in an elephant scrotum and hung from a tree over a nest of rattlesnakes fast enough..
post #39843 of 41482
see below

Goddamn
Edited by Zhukov - 12/7/17 at 8:16am
post #39844 of 41482

 

I'm not on FB so I can't see this.  What is it?

post #39845 of 41482

I don't have FB either (here at work), but I can take a guess at what it is, it being Facebook and all.  Unreliable.

post #39846 of 41482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalyn View Post
 

I don't have FB either (here at work), but I can take a guess at what it is, it being Facebook and all.  Unreliable.


Depends, a fair amount of time the stuff that pops up on my feed is just from normal media outlets.  No idea what this one is, though since the link isn't working.

post #39847 of 41482

Man how the hell are you supposed to link anything from that fucking website.

Here, this one should work.

 

https://www.facebook.com/OfficialEricTurner/videos/1681274751924069/

post #39848 of 41482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
 

Man how the hell are you supposed to link anything from that fucking website.

Here, this one should work.

 

https://www.facebook.com/OfficialEricTurner/videos/1681274751924069/

 

That video has been posted a few times in this thread already.  It's great.

post #39849 of 41482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
 

Man how the hell are you supposed to link anything from that fucking website.

Here, this one should work.

 

https://www.facebook.com/OfficialEricTurner/videos/1681274751924069/


Oh.  Yeah.  Pretty sure that was linked in this thread the day the Manafort indictment came down.

post #39850 of 41482

Oh, my bad.

I think I was on a celebratory bender right around then.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Trumpocalypse Now