The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sadly, this might be the last bit of fun we see from the WH staff for a while. Seems like Kelly is here to steady the ship and stop the shitsto*m from escalating further, at least in public eye.
 
20431387_1102747393188573_5006423795053487294_n.jpg
 
Raoul said:
Click to expand...

1) we got the damn keystone kops running the most powerful country in the world

2) this is an actual comment to CNN's story on the email hoax on Facebook...
NEVER FORGET THAT JESUS CHRIST IS LORD AND HAS CHOSEN TRUMP TO LEAD AMERICA TO ETERNAL SALVATION. THERE IS ONLY ONE PATH TO HEAVEN AND THAT IS THROUGH OUR LORD. HEED HIS WORD BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!
Click to expand...
 
Yup. You'd think that Jesus would've at least arranged for Strumpet to win the popular vote.
 
In that case, he should be on Trump's staff.
 
van der star said:
Sadly, this might be the last bit of fun we see from the WH staff for a while. Seems like Kelly is here to steady the ship and stop the shitsto*m from escalating further, at least in public eye.
Click to expand...

Come on man.....There is one person he can't control; and he's the one he needs to control. Kelly is far too sensible for the role, and will never last. He's going to regret taking this.
 
Someone should do another WWE meme, this time with Kelly as Bill Goldberg doing his "who's next" bit.
 
I'm surprised no one is showing concern with the amount of military generals in administrative roles now. There is a general relief over the expectation of competence and discipline but I've read many a story before and usually a weak ruler who surrounds himself with strong military ends up setting the platform for a military coup.
 
Wednesday at Stoke said:
I'm surprised no one is showing concern with the amount of military generals in administrative roles now. There is a general relief over the expectation of competence and discipline but I've read many a story before and usually a weak ruler who surrounds himself with strong military ends up setting the platform for a military coup.
Click to expand...
It is indeed. Especially worrying if those he surrounds himself with have a scorched earth mentality when dealing with international conflicts or terrorism, which is exactly what he's been doing.
 
Wednesday at Stoke said:
I'm surprised no one is showing concern with the amount of military generals in administrative roles now. There is a general relief over the expectation of competence and discipline but I've read many a story before and usually a weak ruler who surrounds himself with strong military ends up setting the platform for a military coup.
Click to expand...

Americans hero-worship the military too much to see a danger. This is a time full of irony though. For example until recently we were suspiciously watching the US intelligence services thinking they were wildly overpowered and worried about what they might do. Now we're basically sitting hoping the US intelligence services were watching everything the Trump transition team did, and that they can cause the overthrow of a democratically elected leader.

I've said it for a while now, but the big danger in all this is normalization of the extreme. Spies gaining power, military involvement in government normalized, politicians openly lying expected and tolerated, leaders considered to be succeeding if they don't humiliate themselves or their country for a week.

It's hard to overemphasize how abnormal and genuinely fecked up all this is.
 
Wednesday at Stoke said:
I'm surprised no one is showing concern with the amount of military generals in administrative roles now. There is a general relief over the expectation of competence and discipline but I've read many a story before and usually a weak ruler who surrounds himself with strong military ends up setting the platform for a military coup.
Click to expand...
Would never happen, but all the same the could easily run the shots from the background.
 
Wednesday at Stoke said:
I'm surprised no one is showing concern with the amount of military generals in administrative roles now. There is a general relief over the expectation of competence and discipline but I've read many a story before and usually a weak ruler who surrounds himself with strong military ends up setting the platform for a military coup.
Click to expand...

Is it possible? I mean anythings possible so how would they go about it? You also have to ask if he's smart enough to pull it off while actually not falling out with said generals.
 
WackyWengerWorld said:
Is it possible? I mean anythings possible so how would they go about it? You also have to ask if he's smart enough to pull it off while actually not falling out with said generals.
Click to expand...

He's not going to pull anything off when he'll be the one getting overthrown. All it takes is a military action on some poor sap like North Korea, claiming that the senate is not doing enough to counter a credible threat (this would require compliance from the intelligence community but when did they ever stop a jolly war?) and suspend the constitutional procedure, installing someone like McMaster as the commander in chief. The war would ofcourse be sponsored by Halliburton, Lockheed or any of the gazillion military contracting firms.
 
unchanged_lineup said:
We're having quite a big discussion here about a rather innocuous and probably true detail in a batshit crazy story. I think whether the small (but fun) detail is true or not (and I'm going to stand by it considering the source til I see otherwise) is kind of neither here nor there. I also think you're giving Trump waaaaaaaaay too much credit with that second theory there.

Edit: sources plural now.

Edit Edit: To suggest using that BBC quote Trump has orchestrated something that Kelly has done since he was hired again stretches the bounds of believability. The man verifiably adopts the opinion of whatever he saw ten seconds ago on Fox And Friends.
Click to expand...

Interesting. So what exactly do you believe happened? I can only see two versions of your story, neither of which seem believable on the face of it.

Option 1: Trump hired Scaramucci as WH comms director. Trump was oblivious or indifferent to the upset that would cause within the WH, leading to the unexpected resignation of both his acting comms director and his chief of staff. As part of that process Scaramucci launched attacks on the comms department, the chief of staff and multiple senior advisors, and sources claimed that Trump gave the ok to one particularly unusual attack on live TV at his chief of staff, either because he simply likes chaos or he doesn't care. Kelly comes in, decides he doesn't like the man Trump picked to be his comms director little over a week ago, and lays down the law. Trump, the notorious control freak and egomaniac, happily lets the new man establish his authority in the WH by essentially overruling his decision.

Option 2: Trump hired Scaramucci as WH comms director with the explicit goal of causing chaos in the WH, forcing out both his acting comms director and his chief of staff who both had voiced strong opposition to him joining and putting the fear of god into the leakers. Scaramucci does everything he can to achieve that goal, regularly keeping Trump briefed on his plans to publicly ridicule many members of the WH and receiving support from Trump on his intended approach. Scaramucci achieves his goal and Trump is able to bring in his new man, Kelly. Despite Trump supporting Scaramucci through all of this, Trump has only ever seen him as a pawn and happily discards him as soon as the general suggests it.

To me, option 2 is much more believable and it involves tactical and strategic moves from Trump. If you think he's totally incapable of that then you come back to option 1. While I don't dismiss the idea he's simply a bumbling buffoon, there's one very obvious thing that doesn't sit right. You buy into this idea that Kelly made the decision. Everything we know about Trump points to him hating displays of authority and people going against his decision. If you follow the media's narrative then the story is essentially that Trump was very keen on Scaramucci, he supported him throughout these tirades, he loved the chaos it created and everything was rosy in his view. For Kelly to take such a firm stance against it and for Trump to concede...I find it hard to believe that Trump has that capacity.

Option 3 was just an alternative theory which incorporates the idea that Scaramucci was a kamikaze fighter - that was certainly his approach, and he'd be ideal in the sense that he obviously wouldn't care about destroying his non-existent political career - and that the inevitable chaos that Trump felt had to ensue would then be publicly dealt with by hiring an authority figure and having him clean house, firing the man that was brought in there to kill and be killed.
 
Brwned said:
Interesting. So what exactly do you believe happened? I can only see two versions of your story, neither of which seem believable on the face of it.

Option 1: Trump hired Scaramucci as WH comms director. Trump was oblivious or indifferent to the upset that would cause within the WH, leading to the unexpected resignation of both his acting comms director and his chief of staff. As part of that process Scaramucci launched attacks on the comms department, the chief of staff and multiple senior advisors, and sources claimed that Trump gave the ok to one particularly unusual attack on live TV at his chief of staff, either because he simply likes chaos or he doesn't care. Kelly comes in, decides he doesn't like the man Trump picked to be his comms director little over a week ago, and lays down the law. Trump, the notorious control freak and egomaniac, happily lets the new man establish his authority in the WH by essentially overruling his decision.

Option 2: Trump hired Scaramucci as WH comms director with the explicit goal of causing chaos in the WH, forcing out both his acting comms director and his chief of staff who both had voiced strong opposition to him joining and putting the fear of god into the leakers. Scaramucci does everything he can to achieve that goal, regularly keeping Trump briefed on his plans to publicly ridicule many members of the WH and receiving support from Trump on his intended approach. Scaramucci achieves his goal and Trump is able to bring in his new man, Kelly. Despite Trump supporting Scaramucci through all of this, Trump has only ever seen him as a pawn and happily discards him as soon as the general suggests it.

To me, option 2 is much more believable and it involves tactical and strategic moves from Trump. If you think he's totally incapable of that then you come back to option 1. While I don't dismiss the idea he's simply a bumbling buffoon, there's one very obvious thing that doesn't sit right. You buy into this idea that Kelly made the decision. Everything we know about Trump points to him hating displays of authority and people going against his decision. If you follow the media's narrative then the story is essentially that Trump was very keen on Scaramucci, he supported him throughout these tirades, he loved the chaos it created and everything was rosy in his view. For Kelly to take such a firm stance against it and for Trump to concede...I find it hard to believe that Trump has that capacity.

Option 3 was just an alternative theory which incorporates the idea that Scaramucci was a kamikaze fighter - that was certainly his approach, and he'd be ideal in the sense that he obviously wouldn't care about destroying his non-existent political career - and that the inevitable chaos that Trump felt had to ensue would then be publicly dealt with by hiring an authority figure and having him clean house, firing the man that was brought in there to kill and be killed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm actually on my holidays and not getting into it, but Option 1 is what happened and Option 2 is you creating a theory flying directly in the face of all of the anti-nous that Trump has displayed throughout his entire life.

Also, Trump is a bully and a wimp. He folds in the face of flattery and actual authority.
 
Wednesday at Stoke said:
I'm surprised no one is showing concern with the amount of military generals in administrative roles now. There is a general relief over the expectation of competence and discipline but I've read many a story before and usually a weak ruler who surrounds himself with strong military ends up setting the platform for a military coup.
Click to expand...
This is a country where military service is typically seen as a prerequisite for political office.
 
Brwned said:
Interesting. So what exactly do you believe happened?
Click to expand...
I think it's actually a pretty simple scenario...

Kelly is a no-bullshit guy. He walked in after seeing the last week and a half of Scaramucci on tv, said "this guy goes or I quit and then the media is REALLY gonna have a field day", and then Trump has Scaramucci fired. Why? Because Trump is a bully, and bullies by definition are cowards.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.