annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Then the GOP would have claimed that her election was invalid, and you all would be screaming about Russian interference and demanding some kind of congressional intervention...
The long nightmare has just begun: Inauguration of a fraud.
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
Then the GOP would have claimed that her election was invalid, and you all would be screaming about Russian interference and demanding some kind of congressional intervention...
:think: That's exactly what the dems are doing now !
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Which was kinda my point. If Putin had wanted Hillary to win, your party would be doing exactly what the Dems are doing now.
The party for which the hacking was helpful was quite willing to leave things alone, and the party that was damaged by the hacking is the one that's looking for answers. Putin knew who he wanted to win, and he's probably been sipping champagne and laughing at us every night since last November. And the GOP and Trump's base don't care, because they got what they wanted - the end justifies the means.
:think: Had that happened, what would you say, Patrick? Trump was already screaming "RIGGED". Had it been my decision, I would have announced because I understand that regardless of the outcome, Trump would whine and play victim. With Russian assistance, he won and he is STILL whining.
Fixed that for ya :chuckle:
No you didn't. Winners don't need assistance by hostile foreign governments ... whiners do though.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I Found Trump’s Diary—Hiding in Plain Sight
Legally risky, undiplomatic and sometimes wrong, Trump’s Twitter feed is a document for the ages. And historians don’t want to lose it.
Interesting reading. I used to think he should stop tweeting, but I've come to change my mind. It was @exminister here who pointed out that whether it was for good or bad, that we were seeing the real Trump, so thank you for that, exminister.
My favorite part from the article?
"[Trump's] Twitter feed is a rolling, thin-skinned, squint-eyed stew of shouted announcements, grudges and grievances, ravaging insecurities and overcompensating bluster."
:chuckle: That just about sums it up.
Legally risky, undiplomatic and sometimes wrong, Trump’s Twitter feed is a document for the ages. And historians don’t want to lose it.
Lots of people want President Donald Trump to stop tweeting. Mitch McConnell wants him to stop tweeting. Carly Fiorina wants him to stop tweeting. Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins and other Republican members of Congress and some Democrats in Congress and Jeb Bush and many of Trump’s advisers and attorneys and even some of his supporters (although not all of his supporters) want him to stop tweeting. His wife wants him to stop. A majority of business leaders want him to stop, and a majority of millennials, and a majority of voters, period. His tweeting, they all believe, is unseemly and incendiary, legally risky and chaotic, undiplomatic, demoralizing, destructive, and distracting, too—for everybody, but especially for Trump.
The people, though, who want Trump to keep tweeting are the people who rely on his words to do their jobs—reporters, biographers, political scientists and strategists, and presidential historians. They often are appalled by the content of the tweets, just plain weary like everybody else of the volume and pace of the eruptions and deeply worried about their consequences as well—but still, they say, the more Trump tweets, the better.
Trump’s Twitter timeline is the realest real-time expression of what he thinks, and how he thinks. From his brain to his phone to the world, the “unfiltered” stream of 140-character blurts makes up the written record with which Trump is most identified. “I think Twitter,” one White House official told POLITICO, “is his diary.”
It is, presidential historian Robert Dallek told me, “a kind of presidential diary.”
“A kind of live diary,” Princeton University political scientist Julian Zelizer said.
“His version of a diary,” said Douglas Brinkley, editor of The Reagan Diaries.
Many modern presidents have kept a diary of some sort—that no member of the public sees until long after the author has left the Oval Office. The White House didn’t respond to four requests for comment on whether Trump is following suit, but people who know him well say it’s all but impossible to imagine him sitting down with a pen and paper in a quiet moment. “Absolutely zero chance,” one of them said. In the presumed absence, then, of a more traditional version of the form, Trump’s collected tweets comprise the closest thing to a diary this presidency will produce. And that is what makes the messages from @realDonaldTrump, almost 800 and counting since January 20, 2017, such a prize to those who care the most about lasting insight into the president and this administration. If @realDonaldTrump was to go dark, and Trump stopped tweeting to his more than 32 million followers, humans and bots alike, the loss from a historical standpoint would be acute. What else would there be to memorialize the breathtaking bluntness of the 45th president of the United States? But can the nation weather the daily injury of Trump’s epistolary eye-pokes?
Diaries, presidential or otherwise, typically are private and contemplative, and Trump’s Twitter feed is on both counts aggressively the opposite. As a document, though, it’s invaluable—chronological, recurrent, instantly archived and intensely revealing. “Donald Trump doesn’t use Twitter to be reflective,” biographer Tim O’Brien said in an interview. “He uses it like a fire hose … like a battering ram. And that’s profoundly who he is.”
Ever since he set up his account with the social media service back in 2009, Trump has used Twitter to divert and to deflect, to frame and to float, according to George Lakoff, the linguist and cognitive scientist, and as a megaphone and as a weapon—a potent tool to promote himself and attack others, this reflexive, lifelong, one-two punch that makes Trump Trump. In this regard, his election and inauguration changed nothing. On vivid, visceral, nearly daily display are his most elemental, most animating character traits, in this most public, most concentrated way. He’s impulsive and undisciplined and obsessed with taking shots and settling scores and with the sustenance of an image of success even when it’s at utter odds with objective reality. He can never back down. He can never let go.
As president, he has used Twitter to pillory the press (“Fake … not Real,” “the enemy of the American People!”), baselessly accuse former President Barack Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower during the campaign and rail away about leaks and “LEAKING” and “low-life leakers.” He has used it to denigrate the Affordable Care Act as “horrible,” “imploding” and “dead,” describe Democrats as “pathetic” “OBSTRUCTIONISTS” in spite of the fact that Republicans control Congress, and assail Chicago, Germany, Nordstrom, the federal judiciary and perceived opponents ranging from “Cryin’ Chuck Schumer” to NBC’s “Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd” to the mayor of London in the immediate aftermath of the recent terrorist attack in the British capital. And he has done so much of this in frenetic, mostly early-morning torrents replete with exclamation points, jammed-down caps-lock, an apparent indifference to the rules of spelling and grammar and in a by-now-familiar construction, a telling pattern of thought, a certain Trump-tameter—a usually one-sentence declaration, routinely factually shaky, followed by a usually one-word assertion of emotion. “Weak!” “Strong!” “WIN!” “Terrible!” “Sad!” “BAD!”
The Twitter feed is a rolling, thin-skinned, squint-eyed stew of shouted announcements, grudges and grievances, ravaging insecurities and overcompensating bluster. “The Twitter feed,” said Michael D’Antonio, author of Never Enough, in which he wrote of Trump’s “Twitter wars,” “is true Trump.”
He is how he tweets.
“We’re dealing with a psychologically damaged element here—feeling the need to express your anger and bitterness into the public arena without any consideration of the consequences,” Brinkley told me. And yet, even as he rebuked the tweeter, he extolled the merit of the tweets. Trump’s timeline, he said, “is probably the best window into Trump’s presidency...”
The people, though, who want Trump to keep tweeting are the people who rely on his words to do their jobs—reporters, biographers, political scientists and strategists, and presidential historians. They often are appalled by the content of the tweets, just plain weary like everybody else of the volume and pace of the eruptions and deeply worried about their consequences as well—but still, they say, the more Trump tweets, the better.
Trump’s Twitter timeline is the realest real-time expression of what he thinks, and how he thinks. From his brain to his phone to the world, the “unfiltered” stream of 140-character blurts makes up the written record with which Trump is most identified. “I think Twitter,” one White House official told POLITICO, “is his diary.”
It is, presidential historian Robert Dallek told me, “a kind of presidential diary.”
“A kind of live diary,” Princeton University political scientist Julian Zelizer said.
“His version of a diary,” said Douglas Brinkley, editor of The Reagan Diaries.
Many modern presidents have kept a diary of some sort—that no member of the public sees until long after the author has left the Oval Office. The White House didn’t respond to four requests for comment on whether Trump is following suit, but people who know him well say it’s all but impossible to imagine him sitting down with a pen and paper in a quiet moment. “Absolutely zero chance,” one of them said. In the presumed absence, then, of a more traditional version of the form, Trump’s collected tweets comprise the closest thing to a diary this presidency will produce. And that is what makes the messages from @realDonaldTrump, almost 800 and counting since January 20, 2017, such a prize to those who care the most about lasting insight into the president and this administration. If @realDonaldTrump was to go dark, and Trump stopped tweeting to his more than 32 million followers, humans and bots alike, the loss from a historical standpoint would be acute. What else would there be to memorialize the breathtaking bluntness of the 45th president of the United States? But can the nation weather the daily injury of Trump’s epistolary eye-pokes?
Diaries, presidential or otherwise, typically are private and contemplative, and Trump’s Twitter feed is on both counts aggressively the opposite. As a document, though, it’s invaluable—chronological, recurrent, instantly archived and intensely revealing. “Donald Trump doesn’t use Twitter to be reflective,” biographer Tim O’Brien said in an interview. “He uses it like a fire hose … like a battering ram. And that’s profoundly who he is.”
Ever since he set up his account with the social media service back in 2009, Trump has used Twitter to divert and to deflect, to frame and to float, according to George Lakoff, the linguist and cognitive scientist, and as a megaphone and as a weapon—a potent tool to promote himself and attack others, this reflexive, lifelong, one-two punch that makes Trump Trump. In this regard, his election and inauguration changed nothing. On vivid, visceral, nearly daily display are his most elemental, most animating character traits, in this most public, most concentrated way. He’s impulsive and undisciplined and obsessed with taking shots and settling scores and with the sustenance of an image of success even when it’s at utter odds with objective reality. He can never back down. He can never let go.
As president, he has used Twitter to pillory the press (“Fake … not Real,” “the enemy of the American People!”), baselessly accuse former President Barack Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower during the campaign and rail away about leaks and “LEAKING” and “low-life leakers.” He has used it to denigrate the Affordable Care Act as “horrible,” “imploding” and “dead,” describe Democrats as “pathetic” “OBSTRUCTIONISTS” in spite of the fact that Republicans control Congress, and assail Chicago, Germany, Nordstrom, the federal judiciary and perceived opponents ranging from “Cryin’ Chuck Schumer” to NBC’s “Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd” to the mayor of London in the immediate aftermath of the recent terrorist attack in the British capital. And he has done so much of this in frenetic, mostly early-morning torrents replete with exclamation points, jammed-down caps-lock, an apparent indifference to the rules of spelling and grammar and in a by-now-familiar construction, a telling pattern of thought, a certain Trump-tameter—a usually one-sentence declaration, routinely factually shaky, followed by a usually one-word assertion of emotion. “Weak!” “Strong!” “WIN!” “Terrible!” “Sad!” “BAD!”
The Twitter feed is a rolling, thin-skinned, squint-eyed stew of shouted announcements, grudges and grievances, ravaging insecurities and overcompensating bluster. “The Twitter feed,” said Michael D’Antonio, author of Never Enough, in which he wrote of Trump’s “Twitter wars,” “is true Trump.”
He is how he tweets.
“We’re dealing with a psychologically damaged element here—feeling the need to express your anger and bitterness into the public arena without any consideration of the consequences,” Brinkley told me. And yet, even as he rebuked the tweeter, he extolled the merit of the tweets. Trump’s timeline, he said, “is probably the best window into Trump’s presidency...”
Interesting reading. I used to think he should stop tweeting, but I've come to change my mind. It was @exminister here who pointed out that whether it was for good or bad, that we were seeing the real Trump, so thank you for that, exminister.
My favorite part from the article?
"[Trump's] Twitter feed is a rolling, thin-skinned, squint-eyed stew of shouted announcements, grudges and grievances, ravaging insecurities and overcompensating bluster."
:chuckle: That just about sums it up.
glorydaz
Well-known member
This is how libs twist the facts. A little here and a little there.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
On Thursday, going back on years of tradition, the White House announced that they would not allow audio or video recording during the day’s press briefing. They later changed their minds and agreed to allow audio recordings only, inexplicably.
Today, CNN pretty hilariously trolled the White House by sending their Supreme Court sketch artist Bill Hennessy to the press room to capture the scene.
:chuckle:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
How Trump is empowering the military -- and raising some eyebrows
Washington (CNN)In his first six months in office, President Donald Trump has overseen a steady transfer of power from the White House to the Pentagon, handing off several warfighting authorities that previously rested in his hands -- and those of past presidents of both parties -- to the Pentagon and the commanders overseeing the US' military campaigns.
The moves are intended to empower the military at a tactical level, bolstering the US' intensifying fight against ISIS and al-Qaeda-linked terrorist groups to praise from several current and former military officials.
But those efforts have also raised concerns about whether Trump expects to face the same level of accountability for military decisions he has kicked down to the Pentagon and have drawn attention to the inherent risks of downsizing the White House's role in overseeing the US' escalating military campaign against ISIS and al-Qaeda and its offshoots.
Trump's most significant step in this direction came earlier this month when he empowered Defense Secretary James Mattis, a recently retired four-star general, to set troop levels in Afghanistan.
The Pentagon and the White House have downplayed the move by noting that Mattis can only act within the guardrails of the current US strategy in that country. But the move effectively empowers Mattis to send thousands more US troops into the warzone without the commander in chief's signoff for the first time in a 16-year war that has spanned three presidents.
In Yemen and Somalia, Trump has given US commanders waging the fight against terrorist groups there more freedom to launch raids and offensive airstrikes without the White House's OK by designating provinces in both countries as "areas of active hostilities," leading to a marked uptick in airstrikes in Yemen.
In Iraq and Syria, the President has also granted the Pentagon more freedom to manage troop levels.
Meanwhile, the White House's National Security Council -- which some at the Pentagon criticized as overbearing in the Obama administration -- has seen its power diminished, leaving Pentagon officials to describe a more streamlined decision-making process with fewer White House-crafted hoops to jump through on some military decisions.
The CIA, too, has been empowered by Trump, regaining the authority to conduct drone strikes against suspected terrorists -- actions President Barack Obama chose to personally authorize via the military.
The moves are intended to empower the military at a tactical level, bolstering the US' intensifying fight against ISIS and al-Qaeda-linked terrorist groups to praise from several current and former military officials.
But those efforts have also raised concerns about whether Trump expects to face the same level of accountability for military decisions he has kicked down to the Pentagon and have drawn attention to the inherent risks of downsizing the White House's role in overseeing the US' escalating military campaign against ISIS and al-Qaeda and its offshoots.
Trump's most significant step in this direction came earlier this month when he empowered Defense Secretary James Mattis, a recently retired four-star general, to set troop levels in Afghanistan.
The Pentagon and the White House have downplayed the move by noting that Mattis can only act within the guardrails of the current US strategy in that country. But the move effectively empowers Mattis to send thousands more US troops into the warzone without the commander in chief's signoff for the first time in a 16-year war that has spanned three presidents.
In Yemen and Somalia, Trump has given US commanders waging the fight against terrorist groups there more freedom to launch raids and offensive airstrikes without the White House's OK by designating provinces in both countries as "areas of active hostilities," leading to a marked uptick in airstrikes in Yemen.
In Iraq and Syria, the President has also granted the Pentagon more freedom to manage troop levels.
Meanwhile, the White House's National Security Council -- which some at the Pentagon criticized as overbearing in the Obama administration -- has seen its power diminished, leaving Pentagon officials to describe a more streamlined decision-making process with fewer White House-crafted hoops to jump through on some military decisions.
The CIA, too, has been empowered by Trump, regaining the authority to conduct drone strikes against suspected terrorists -- actions President Barack Obama chose to personally authorize via the military.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Trump eager for big meeting with Putin; some advisers wary
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is eager to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin with full diplomatic bells and whistles when the two are in Germany for a multinational summit next month. But the idea is exposing deep divisions within the administration on the best way to approach Moscow in the midst of an ongoing investigation into Russian meddling in the U.S. elections.
Many administration officials believe the U.S. needs to maintain its distance from Russia at such a sensitive time — and interact only with great caution.
But Trump and some others within his administration have been pressing for a full bilateral meeting. He’s calling for media access and all the typical protocol associated with such sessions, even as officials within the State Department and National Security Council urge more restraint, according to a current and a former administration official.
Some advisers have recommended that the president instead do either a quick, informal “pull-aside” on the sidelines of the summit, or that the U.S. and Russian delegations hold “strategic stability talks,” which typically don’t involve the presidents. The officials spoke anonymously to discuss private policy discussions.
The contrasting views underscore differing views within the administration on overall Russia policy, and Trump’s eagerness to develop a working relationship with Russia despite the ongoing investigations.
. . . .
There are big risks, though. Trump is known to veer off-script, creating the possibility for a high-stakes diplomatic blunder. In a brief Oval Office meeting with top Russian diplomats last month, Trump revealed highly classified information about an Islamic State group threat to airlines that was relayed to him by Israel, according to a senior administration official. The White House defended the disclosures as “wholly appropriate.”
In addition, many observers warn that Putin is not to be trusted.
Oleg Kalugin, a former general with Russia’s main security agency, known as the KGB, said Putin, a shrewd and experienced politician, has “other priorities” than discussing the accusations that Russia hacked the U.S. election with Trump, such as easing sanctions, raising oil prices, as well as next year’s presidential elections in Russia.
“Putin knows how to redirect a conversation in his favor,” Kalugin said.
Nina Khrushcheva, a Russian affairs professor at the New School, said Trump is in an “impossible position.”
Many administration officials believe the U.S. needs to maintain its distance from Russia at such a sensitive time — and interact only with great caution.
But Trump and some others within his administration have been pressing for a full bilateral meeting. He’s calling for media access and all the typical protocol associated with such sessions, even as officials within the State Department and National Security Council urge more restraint, according to a current and a former administration official.
Some advisers have recommended that the president instead do either a quick, informal “pull-aside” on the sidelines of the summit, or that the U.S. and Russian delegations hold “strategic stability talks,” which typically don’t involve the presidents. The officials spoke anonymously to discuss private policy discussions.
The contrasting views underscore differing views within the administration on overall Russia policy, and Trump’s eagerness to develop a working relationship with Russia despite the ongoing investigations.
. . . .
There are big risks, though. Trump is known to veer off-script, creating the possibility for a high-stakes diplomatic blunder. In a brief Oval Office meeting with top Russian diplomats last month, Trump revealed highly classified information about an Islamic State group threat to airlines that was relayed to him by Israel, according to a senior administration official. The White House defended the disclosures as “wholly appropriate.”
In addition, many observers warn that Putin is not to be trusted.
Oleg Kalugin, a former general with Russia’s main security agency, known as the KGB, said Putin, a shrewd and experienced politician, has “other priorities” than discussing the accusations that Russia hacked the U.S. election with Trump, such as easing sanctions, raising oil prices, as well as next year’s presidential elections in Russia.
“Putin knows how to redirect a conversation in his favor,” Kalugin said.
Nina Khrushcheva, a Russian affairs professor at the New School, said Trump is in an “impossible position.”
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Just a few words, but this completely sums up the GOP, Trump, and the Trump base who once upon a time wouldn't have dreamed of being Putin's lapdogs:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
The sad part about this pic is that it's accurate.
/thread
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
You know, you're right. It does say it all, doesn't it?
I'm gonna post it one more time, and that's it for me in the thread:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
You know, you're right. It does say it all, doesn't it?
I'm gonna post it one more time, and that's it for me in the thread:
i don't care
it prevented a hillary presidency :banana:
I already miss the lefties