If Twitter has any integrity as a company then they should shut down that account right now, and if he continues the shite in the POTUS account then do the same. It's ridiculous that they censor porn on the feed yet tolerate this kind of behaviour.
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
The use of 'dude' seemed odd, but other than that a quality rant.
I also like her hashtag game - #PresidentMeanGirl
Sarah Huckabee getting grilled on the tweet at the presser.
The lovely Sarah Huckabee Sanders is doing a presser currently if you're into that sort of thing.
I've just eaten so I might pass, thanks.
I wonder if the "tweet speaks for itself" this time
No, its the "He's known as a counterpuncher".
How about "No, I'm insulted that you've asked that question".
"He did it first" is a excuse that'll get laughed at any place out of high school. President using that is even more laughable.
It's pronounced "cnut"
She looked exasperated, as if she was about to cry once she left the room.
Is he doing a speech today? There's an event on the WH livestream about UNLEASHING AMERICANNN ENNNUURRRRGGGGY...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/live
https://www.whitehouse.gov/live
I have zero sympathy for her or Spicer. They know what they're doing is beneath them. It's one thing to spin a story but to stand in front a camera while consistently defending lies is unacceptable. If they had any chance of a career in journalism after leaving this White House they better forget it.
It tells everything about him.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...-come-to-love-trump/ar-BBDsiV7?ocid=ASUSDHP15
How the Christian Right Has Come to Love Trump
In an administration full of “firsts,” Mike Pence marked another over the weekend by being the first ever vice president to publicly speak to Focus on the Family – a longtime leading organization in the Christian Right.
Pence’s closeness to the Christian Right may make this seem unremarkable, but it would arguably have not been surprising if President Trump appeared himself.
Focus on the Family has never hosted a President, but white evangelicals have been his most loyal supporters. As Pence stated, the group has, “ an unwavering ally in President Donald Trump.”
This episode and the relationship underlying it also illustrates something important about evangelicals and the Christian Right; that is, their elevation of political pragmatism over moral principle. And, thus far into the Trump presidency, this move has paid handsome political dividends for the group.
From the beginning, the Christian Right’s embrace of the crass, materialistic, thrice-married real estate and reality TV mogul has raised eyebrows.
Trump is the moral antithesis of the Christian Right’s proclaimed values, and past data suggested that those values guide the white evangelical vote. Despite this, 81 percent of white evangelicals voted for Trump – a higher percentage than voted for George W. Bush, who is an evangelical.
What’s more, white evangelical support for him has actually risen despite a constant barrage of negative press about the president. Around the 100-day mark of his presidency, 78 percent endorsed the president’s performance, with over two-thirds of those very strongly approving of the president, dwarfing the general public approval rating of 39 percent.
Christian Right leader (and early Trump supporter) Jerry Falwell, Jr.’s explanation for his movement’s embrace of Trump is that, “Rank-and-file evangelicals are…trying to save the country and maybe vote on social issues next time.”
The “rank-and-file’s” turn to pragmatism is seen in a PRRI/Brookings report comparing 2011 and 2016 data. White evangelicals, for example, jumped from 30 percent to 72 percent approval of elected officials who commit immoral acts in their personal lives.
Other data also show that their chief concerns going into the election were far from traditional “culture war” issues. While this may be a temporary shift with white evangelical voters rationalizing to accommodate a candidate that otherwise appeals to them, the Christian Right’s elites have been embracing this kind of pragmatic thinking for a lot longer.
For decades, the Christian Right’s strict commitment to religious principle inhibited cooperation between movement leaders and between the Christian Right and secular conservatives. It also limited their use of politically motivated litigation.
Beginning in the 1990s, however, the center of gravity within the Christian Right movement migrated toward a set of more politically strategic actors, such as Pat Robertson from the Christian Coalition, Jay Sekulow, the head attorney at the American Center for Law and Justice, and Alan Sears from Alliance Defending Freedom. Though not without their differences, each of these leaders demonstrated a pragmatic willingness to engage in compromise for political and legal victories.
One site where the conflict between principle and pragmatism played out is in the internal battles fought in new Christian Right law schools. Within Robertson’s own law school at Regent, the early leadership fights reflected concerns about preserving a religious mission and identity, versus practical considerations seen as threatening them. Here, as elsewhere, the pragmatists won.
It is also seen in Christian Right litigation. They have become savvy litigators who recognize opportunities in secular cases, the need to position themselves to appeal to secular conservatives, and the value of using secular precedent that Christian conservatives may otherwise find offensive.
The Christian Right’s embrace of Trump can thus be understood as a continuation of this trend of elevating pragmatism over strict principle. Trump has rewarded the group’s loyalty by appointing government officials who reflect the core of the Christian Right movement.
In addition to selecting Pence, Trump has placed natural law enthusiast Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court, appointed New Christian Right donor Betsy Devos as the Secretary of Education and National Right to Life lobbyist Theresa Manning as Secretary of Health and Human Services, tapped Jerry Falwell, Jr to lead a task force on higher education, and hired American Center for Law and Justice’s Jay Sekulow as his personal lawyer.
So while Trump’s statement in front of the Freedom and Faith coalition that, “n my first 100 days – and I don’t think anybody has ever done more, or, certainly, not much more” is a questionable claim at best, if we qualify that statement with “for the New Christian Right,” it rings quite true.
In a matter of months, Trump has successfully moved this group from the political margins to the center of power. And they have rewarded the president with their enduring loyalty.
How the Christian Right Has Come to Love Trump
In an administration full of “firsts,” Mike Pence marked another over the weekend by being the first ever vice president to publicly speak to Focus on the Family – a longtime leading organization in the Christian Right.
Pence’s closeness to the Christian Right may make this seem unremarkable, but it would arguably have not been surprising if President Trump appeared himself.
Focus on the Family has never hosted a President, but white evangelicals have been his most loyal supporters. As Pence stated, the group has, “ an unwavering ally in President Donald Trump.”
This episode and the relationship underlying it also illustrates something important about evangelicals and the Christian Right; that is, their elevation of political pragmatism over moral principle. And, thus far into the Trump presidency, this move has paid handsome political dividends for the group.
From the beginning, the Christian Right’s embrace of the crass, materialistic, thrice-married real estate and reality TV mogul has raised eyebrows.
Trump is the moral antithesis of the Christian Right’s proclaimed values, and past data suggested that those values guide the white evangelical vote. Despite this, 81 percent of white evangelicals voted for Trump – a higher percentage than voted for George W. Bush, who is an evangelical.
What’s more, white evangelical support for him has actually risen despite a constant barrage of negative press about the president. Around the 100-day mark of his presidency, 78 percent endorsed the president’s performance, with over two-thirds of those very strongly approving of the president, dwarfing the general public approval rating of 39 percent.
Christian Right leader (and early Trump supporter) Jerry Falwell, Jr.’s explanation for his movement’s embrace of Trump is that, “Rank-and-file evangelicals are…trying to save the country and maybe vote on social issues next time.”
The “rank-and-file’s” turn to pragmatism is seen in a PRRI/Brookings report comparing 2011 and 2016 data. White evangelicals, for example, jumped from 30 percent to 72 percent approval of elected officials who commit immoral acts in their personal lives.
Other data also show that their chief concerns going into the election were far from traditional “culture war” issues. While this may be a temporary shift with white evangelical voters rationalizing to accommodate a candidate that otherwise appeals to them, the Christian Right’s elites have been embracing this kind of pragmatic thinking for a lot longer.
For decades, the Christian Right’s strict commitment to religious principle inhibited cooperation between movement leaders and between the Christian Right and secular conservatives. It also limited their use of politically motivated litigation.
Beginning in the 1990s, however, the center of gravity within the Christian Right movement migrated toward a set of more politically strategic actors, such as Pat Robertson from the Christian Coalition, Jay Sekulow, the head attorney at the American Center for Law and Justice, and Alan Sears from Alliance Defending Freedom. Though not without their differences, each of these leaders demonstrated a pragmatic willingness to engage in compromise for political and legal victories.
One site where the conflict between principle and pragmatism played out is in the internal battles fought in new Christian Right law schools. Within Robertson’s own law school at Regent, the early leadership fights reflected concerns about preserving a religious mission and identity, versus practical considerations seen as threatening them. Here, as elsewhere, the pragmatists won.
It is also seen in Christian Right litigation. They have become savvy litigators who recognize opportunities in secular cases, the need to position themselves to appeal to secular conservatives, and the value of using secular precedent that Christian conservatives may otherwise find offensive.
The Christian Right’s embrace of Trump can thus be understood as a continuation of this trend of elevating pragmatism over strict principle. Trump has rewarded the group’s loyalty by appointing government officials who reflect the core of the Christian Right movement.
In addition to selecting Pence, Trump has placed natural law enthusiast Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court, appointed New Christian Right donor Betsy Devos as the Secretary of Education and National Right to Life lobbyist Theresa Manning as Secretary of Health and Human Services, tapped Jerry Falwell, Jr to lead a task force on higher education, and hired American Center for Law and Justice’s Jay Sekulow as his personal lawyer.
So while Trump’s statement in front of the Freedom and Faith coalition that, “n my first 100 days – and I don’t think anybody has ever done more, or, certainly, not much more” is a questionable claim at best, if we qualify that statement with “for the New Christian Right,” it rings quite true.
In a matter of months, Trump has successfully moved this group from the political margins to the center of power. And they have rewarded the president with their enduring loyalty.
Big story just come out from the WSJ. Sure looks like collusion to me.
Yep, Gorsuch proving himself to be not what he said in the confirmation hearings (not like the GOP wouldn't have approved him regardless).
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/26/politics/justice-neil-gorsuch-president-trump-gets-his-man/
https://www.usnews.com/news/the-rep...neil-gorsuch-shows-his-conservative-bonafides
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/28/democrats-gorsuch-supreme-court-rulings-240030
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...h_is_everything_liberals_feared_and_more.html
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/26/politics/justice-neil-gorsuch-president-trump-gets-his-man/
https://www.usnews.com/news/the-rep...neil-gorsuch-shows-his-conservative-bonafides
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/28/democrats-gorsuch-supreme-court-rulings-240030
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...h_is_everything_liberals_feared_and_more.html
The GOP operative involved in this story died 10 days after the WSJ interviewed him 
He was 81, but its still one heck of a coincidence.
He was 81, but its still one heck of a coincidence.
Last edited:
From the Wall Street Journal, no less (Murdoch company)
Plant story perhaps?
This is his website
http://peterwsmith.com/
His last article was on May 13 and he was dead a day later. Spooky stuff.
http://peterwsmith.com/
His last article was on May 13 and he was dead a day later. Spooky stuff.
Surely Hannity will run a week long crusade blaming the GOP/DT administration for this man's death.
I think the collusion angle is pretty clear right now. Russia, Wikileaks, Assange, Stone, Farage - then Kushner's data analytics being funneled to Russian sponsored microtargeting of certain swing states. If all of this winds up true then it will be absolutely epic.
Peter Smith must be this intermediary referenced in the tweet.
The only people who would desperately want this information is the Kremlin
So let's ponder the extreme worst: Russia did tamper/alter votes and is proven to have affected the outcome in key states.
What happens when proved in such scenario?
If Trump is still in office does he get booted for not having legally won?
If it's after 2020 and per say he wasn't reelected/declined to run again, would all of his passed bills and policies become null?
What happens when proved in such scenario?
If Trump is still in office does he get booted for not having legally won?
If it's after 2020 and per say he wasn't reelected/declined to run again, would all of his passed bills and policies become null?
There's not precedent for it so who knows. I suspect the answer to both is no, a bigger no to laws he signed though.
That ship has sailed. The only action that can be taken is on individuals who knowingly participated. If Mueller manages to flip people like Flynn, Page, Manafort, Stone etc, then he can use whatever information they are willing to contribute save their own asses to build a case against Trump himself. Once Mueller presents his findings, the house would then need to start the impeachment process.
By the time Mueller reveals his findings (probably at least a year or two from now), I'm guessing that the entire Congress will be so sick of Trump that there will be some in his own party who are willing to take the plunge, especially if his first two years are filled with legislative failure and inaction, combined with a damning report from Mueller. The public pressure will be immense.
BTW...there is a lot of speculation that Flynn has already been flipped and has been giving the FBI a lot of information. Page has also already been interviewed. If anyone can pull this off, its Mueller.
By which time the GOP will have passed a slew of shit bills and policies.
Oh dear lawd, here's Jeffrey Lord managing to defend Trump.
Nearly 15 minutes later Lord is citing a Limbaugh segment that the media is upset because Trump prefers Twitter and is stealing viewers from media. Lord is that mentally ill, aging white man down the street or at your local watering hole, constantly ranting about this or that.
Nearly 15 minutes later Lord is citing a Limbaugh segment that the media is upset because Trump prefers Twitter and is stealing viewers from media. Lord is that mentally ill, aging white man down the street or at your local watering hole, constantly ranting about this or that.
Last edited:
Also managed to a Ronald Reagan reference in.
My read on this is that the smoking gun, if there is one, won't be uncovered on our side. It would be the KGB...errr...Putin going for the nuclear option by releasing info that would throw the US political process into chaos. The next most likely scenario is Trump's ego screwing himself into an Obstruction charge.
A straightforward impeachment resulting from Mueller's investigation is the least likely of these scenarios, in my opinion.
I'm sure his taxes will come out at some point as well.
I wouldn't be surprised if deep down on some levels the Intelligence Community already has compromising info in this regard.
The implications of releasing that info on political and intelligence gathering levels would be incredible though and would need approval from the highest levels, of course.
This.
His financial history will be his biggest downfall. Corrupt practises incl money laundering.
That's the problem though, what is the highest levels that aren't under Trump control? The FBI reports to the DoJ, and those are direct Trump appointments. I'm not sure who the direct reports are for the CIA, NSA etc but they're probably going to be political appointees.
Trump can't interfere in the work of these agencies. If he tried, it would be obstruction of justice and it would leak and he would wind up with an independent council investigating him.
In the case of DOJ, Rod Rosenstein is in charge because Jeff Sessions recused himself. Rosenstein is a Trump appointee and yet also called for a special prosecutor (Mueller), so there is quite a bit of latitude for these people to do their jobs.
- Status