Off Topic · Off Topic: six months later, do people who voted for Trump still support this guy? (page 7)
fwk00 wrote:MaTT4281 wrote:I lean liberal on most issues (certainly the social issues, a little wiggle room economically). Chances conservatives and I will find common ground are slim. But the issues with Trump are not just left vs. right. The man has been a disgrace and most of that has nothing to do with policy.As Kot just wrote, Clinton is not going to be in office regardless of what happens to Donald. We don't need to drag everything down to "...but Hillary." The man is the fucking president right now and should be able to be judged without a cop out.
Can we agree that the scandal and drama surrounding this administration is off the charts? Can we agree the man has been the most thinned skin president in our life times and needs to shut the fuck up on Twitter?
Impeachment leaves us with President Pence. I guarantee you I will fundamentally disagree with most of his policies, but at least we would have a fucking adult in the highest office in the nation.
The Trump scandal is a cover for the scandal that isn't being covered. That is how the Democratic party has been corrupted during the Obama administration to allow a Hillary Clinton to be nominated. And no one asks what the Russians had on her only that Trump's son was duped into wanting to know.
Truth will prevail
TPercy wrote:For conservatives this was always a lose lose. You either elect trump who is marginally better ideology wise than Hillary, but his gross incompetence likely harms the Republican Party a lot or you get Hillary for 4 years with hopes of preserving the Republican Party for a true conservative to take over.
You work for Washington DC because I assure you 90% of the people who work or hold any kind of office there shares your view point to a tee. They would love nothing more than to keep the status quo in place for eternity
smackeddog wrote:fwk00 wrote:MaTT4281 wrote:I lean liberal on most issues (certainly the social issues, a little wiggle room economically). Chances conservatives and I will find common ground are slim. But the issues with Trump are not just left vs. right. The man has been a disgrace and most of that has nothing to do with policy.As Kot just wrote, Clinton is not going to be in office regardless of what happens to Donald. We don't need to drag everything down to "...but Hillary." The man is the fucking president right now and should be able to be judged without a cop out.
Can we agree that the scandal and drama surrounding this administration is off the charts? Can we agree the man has been the most thinned skin president in our life times and needs to shut the fuck up on Twitter?
Impeachment leaves us with President Pence. I guarantee you I will fundamentally disagree with most of his policies, but at least we would have a fucking adult in the highest office in the nation.
The Trump scandal is a cover for the scandal that isn't being covered. That is how the Democratic party has been corrupted during the Obama administration to allow a Hillary Clinton to be nominated. And no one asks what the Russians had on her only that Trump's son was duped into wanting to know.
I'm a Bernie guy, never liked Hilary- I get the anger at the elites, the MSM, the democratic party machine. What I don't get is then going on to support Trump, who takes everything I dislike about those (corruption, dishonesty, etc) and cranks it up to 12. He is an absolute liar and a crook. He's a sexual abuser and a bully. He's a lousy human being. He'll screw over poor people to get him and his friends richer.
Baseless attacks but the salacious stuff dems love to hear
fwk00 wrote:smackeddog wrote:fwk00 wrote:MaTT4281 wrote:I lean liberal on most issues (certainly the social issues, a little wiggle room economically). Chances conservatives and I will find common ground are slim. But the issues with Trump are not just left vs. right. The man has been a disgrace and most of that has nothing to do with policy.As Kot just wrote, Clinton is not going to be in office regardless of what happens to Donald. We don't need to drag everything down to "...but Hillary." The man is the fucking president right now and should be able to be judged without a cop out.
Can we agree that the scandal and drama surrounding this administration is off the charts? Can we agree the man has been the most thinned skin president in our life times and needs to shut the fuck up on Twitter?
Impeachment leaves us with President Pence. I guarantee you I will fundamentally disagree with most of his policies, but at least we would have a fucking adult in the highest office in the nation.
The Trump scandal is a cover for the scandal that isn't being covered. That is how the Democratic party has been corrupted during the Obama administration to allow a Hillary Clinton to be nominated. And no one asks what the Russians had on her only that Trump's son was duped into wanting to know.
I'm a Bernie guy, never liked Hilary- I get the anger at the elites, the MSM, the democratic party machine. What I don't get is then going on to support Trump, who takes everything I dislike about those (corruption, dishonesty, etc) and cranks it up to 12. He is an absolute liar and a crook. He's a sexual abuser and a bully. He's a lousy human being. He'll screw over poor people to get him and his friends richer.
Look, I'm a Liberal (not the bullshit democrats calling themselves liberals - a Liberal who fought for civil rights, free speech and so on ALL MY LIFE). The Democrats starting with Obama ripped my heart out. Obama ran on and promised change (and the promises were liberal promises) AFTER DECADES of waiting for a liberal and change to happen. He turned out to be a fraud.
What should have been single-payer became a cleverly-disguised, unsustainable ACA whose costs wouldn't reach breaking point until he was out of office. Torture continues. Endless war continues. The absence of an illegal immigrant policy festers, the education system bleeds money and unemployable test-takers. The list is long and painful.
The Democrats have shit on Liberals for decades and cranked it up to 12. You have to be a moron to stick around. They believe they have us by the balls and that we're F'd without them.
Trump is an easy switch. You can hate him all you like. HE AIN'T THE PROBLEM but keep pretending he is - that will solve everything.
As I've said all along if he enforces our immigration policies and most importantly our national security he is a great success. Because liberals don't care until they or their loved ones are affected.
Side notes on my agenda:
-Permanent ban on violent illegal criminals
-Permanent ban on illegal immigrants and future foreign immigrants who badmouth the U.S. and do take part in heinous moronic acts like burning the 🇺🇸 And disrespecting our troops.
Not on my agenda:
Russia colliding with Trump campaign to expose the dirt and truth on Athe Clintons and the Obamas.
Not interested. Trump won Hillary lost and that's that.
Rookie wrote:You can't make everyone see the world through your eyes. Everyone is entitled to their own view based on their own person experience. In that regard, everyones opinion is correct, for them personally and probably thier small geographic area.
Yea fortunately elections aren't decided by these small geographic areas
fwk00 wrote:djsunyc wrote:fwk00 wrote:3.) Demonizing white guys is a bad idea and mighty racist of you and anyone else engaging in the slander. The world is not dominated by whites but by the opportunists. I'm not one of them.your parents or grandparents were around when blacks could not vote or had to go to segregated schools. not enough time has passed by for there to be actual racism against whites. it's an argument/defense that carries no weight as far as i'm concerned. it shows an absolute lack of understanding of world history.
and speaking of time...we took a huge step forward electing obama as president. but the day he took office, one party unified to make sure he would not be successful. this type of unification against a democratic president did not happen under clinton or carter. why did it under obama?
8 years later, this country elects the most divisive rich, corrupt, sexist and racist white guy that's ever ran for president. this is not some deep sh t here - it's pretty clear as day.
My and my grandparents were dirt poor immigrants who came to this country through official channels. My mother left school in eighth grade worked in factories that were true sweat shops during WWII. My father a lifetime factory worker - not a fun guy. Our neighborhoods were poor, crowded, and not middle-class until the sixties. My nanny was a black teen next door who earned spare money doing it. The mixed race school we attended had to cancel a party because the mice got into the food.
Racist? Sure if you say so.
Yeah, Obama's election was a big deal and a good thing in many ways but not because he was an effective president. He was a symbolic president.
He fell in love with assassination by drone, no trial, jury, nothing - its all under the umbrella of war. Educationally he funded a bankrupt and dysfunctional set of NCLB and RTTT policies that dumbed-down and continues to dumb-down generations of kids. ACA was and is a fiscally bleeding pig. Everything he touched turned to sh@t because he compromised it away.The opposition both parties face is the death spiral they both engage in - hate speech toward the other, political blood-letting, relentless propaganda, and so on. Obama wasn't special that way - a mid-western white kid born with black skin. First thing he did in office was go and hug Bush so hard it could be considered sexual. Obama was and is part of the system, not a leader, not courageous, just another govt pensioner racking in millions on his influence peddling.
There's nothing divisive about Trump - the divisions were already there and aren't going away. He's a lightning rod for hate and political back-stabbing. Being rich is no crime. Being a man is no crime. He will do more for minorities in his time than Clinton, Bush, and Obama did.
Wake up.
I voted for Obama because I bought into all of that too. What a colossal mistake that was as the country is more divided than its ever been in my lifetime. Fortunately it was the last time I voted for someone based on color or gender with false promises
gunsnewing wrote:smackeddog wrote:fwk00 wrote:MaTT4281 wrote:I lean liberal on most issues (certainly the social issues, a little wiggle room economically). Chances conservatives and I will find common ground are slim. But the issues with Trump are not just left vs. right. The man has been a disgrace and most of that has nothing to do with policy.As Kot just wrote, Clinton is not going to be in office regardless of what happens to Donald. We don't need to drag everything down to "...but Hillary." The man is the fucking president right now and should be able to be judged without a cop out.
Can we agree that the scandal and drama surrounding this administration is off the charts? Can we agree the man has been the most thinned skin president in our life times and needs to shut the fuck up on Twitter?
Impeachment leaves us with President Pence. I guarantee you I will fundamentally disagree with most of his policies, but at least we would have a fucking adult in the highest office in the nation.
The Trump scandal is a cover for the scandal that isn't being covered. That is how the Democratic party has been corrupted during the Obama administration to allow a Hillary Clinton to be nominated. And no one asks what the Russians had on her only that Trump's son was duped into wanting to know.
I'm a Bernie guy, never liked Hilary- I get the anger at the elites, the MSM, the democratic party machine. What I don't get is then going on to support Trump, who takes everything I dislike about those (corruption, dishonesty, etc) and cranks it up to 12. He is an absolute liar and a crook. He's a sexual abuser and a bully. He's a lousy human being. He'll screw over poor people to get him and his friends richer.
Baseless attacks but the salacious stuff dems love to hear
How are they baseless? You don't think he lies?! We have him on tape boasting of his sexual assaults. We've seen his bullying attempts on twitter. We've seen how hyper sensitive he is to criticism.
Who's your President Smack?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-...
gunsnewing wrote:lol... sure and when it does the same guys will be crying "fake news"fwk00 wrote:MaTT4281 wrote:I lean liberal on most issues (certainly the social issues, a little wiggle room economically). Chances conservatives and I will find common ground are slim. But the issues with Trump are not just left vs. right. The man has been a disgrace and most of that has nothing to do with policy.As Kot just wrote, Clinton is not going to be in office regardless of what happens to Donald. We don't need to drag everything down to "...but Hillary." The man is the fucking president right now and should be able to be judged without a cop out.
Can we agree that the scandal and drama surrounding this administration is off the charts? Can we agree the man has been the most thinned skin president in our life times and needs to shut the fuck up on Twitter?
Impeachment leaves us with President Pence. I guarantee you I will fundamentally disagree with most of his policies, but at least we would have a fucking adult in the highest office in the nation.
The Trump scandal is a cover for the scandal that isn't being covered. That is how the Democratic party has been corrupted during the Obama administration to allow a Hillary Clinton to be nominated. And no one asks what the Russians had on her only that Trump's son was duped into wanting to know.
Truth will prevail
A year from now trump voters will insist the Russian invasion of the US election is STILL a hoax, Ivanka making millions off products made outside of the US, simply to her privilege, IS perfectly kosher, coal mining jobs are back, Obamacare is the worst thing to ever happen... and trump, as The Mooch claimed, nailed free throws in his trench coat from the floor at Madison Sqaure Garden with the accuracy of Steph Curry.
gunsnewing wrote:Sinix wrote:fishmike wrote:Sinix wrote:You mean the one that Obama released before he was elected? The hunt for that one?Knickoftime wrote:Sinix wrote:WaltLongmire wrote:Sinix wrote:With all that's come out about the Russia story being fabricated how could one still buy into this fake news? Probably says a lot about how you easily eat up propaganda.One clearly lives a sheltered life...doesn't one.
Trump's continued whining and threatening actually proves he did something wrong or is covering up something his people did, but Don Jr. and Kushner being involved means that Trump was aware of everything.
One does not react to a "nothing burger" in this way...
Get real.
So if you harass a guy at his job enough and he eventually responds, it means he's covering something up. Nice to know.
No, not at all.
When you and your staff are under investigation for something, claim there is nothing there and then we learn you did not disclose the very sort of thing you're being investigated for until the NYT forces your hand, any reasonable person would ask why. Jared Kushner's national security clearance depends on being forthright about such encounters, even if they were nothing, yet wasn't upfront about one.
There could be several answers to that question, some of involving totally innocent behavior, but not disclosing it just doesn't make sense, given what we know are established facts:
1.) As a senior white house advisor in order to obtain security clearance to view sensitive materials involving national security he must disclose ALL contact with foreign interests, however innocent.
2.) He did not.
Asking why is pretty much the most natural response possible.
How'd you feel about the hunt for Obama's birth certificate?
Pretty stupid story to harp on and on about for years that provided nothing but a distraction for the guy who needs to spend his time managing the whole country? But it was ratings gold for Fox News and for conservatives it painted Obama as potentially non American with non American interests.
CNN is telling you straight up they are doing the exact same thing with the Russia story. House democrats are quoted saying they hope to tie Trump up in these types of stories so he can't pass any legislation.
It's also xenophobic towards Russia.
It's also ignoring the true major corruption in American politics which is in the DNC. Filled with p2p, and undemocratic favoritism and even goes into pedophilia.
This is exactly the Dems and some republicans game plan. Stall by creating these baseless absurd Russian Aligarh theories. Only to keep Trump from erasing what's left of Obamas legacy. Eventhough Obama and the likes sold out their own party for personal gain. Trump has to ignore them and focus on the tasks at hand. Hire a new AG who will fire the Clinton's best buddy.
With full control of the House, Senate and White House the dumbshits can't repeal or replace the ACA, but it's because the Dems are bringing up Russian meddling? Yeah and the sun rises in the West.
Fukking pathetic.
gunsnewing wrote:Sangfroid wrote:arkrud wrote:WaltLongmire wrote:Sinix wrote:With all that's come out about the Russia story being fabricated how could one still buy into this fake news? Probably says a lot about how you easily eat up propaganda.One clearly lives a sheltered life...doesn't one.
Trump's continued whining and threatening actually proves he did something wrong or is covering up something his people did, but Don Jr. and Kushner being involved means that Trump was aware of everything.
One does not react to a "nothing burger" in this way...
Get real.
Trump and Co were looking for any dirt on Hillary so why its matter from were it comes - from CIA or KGB/FSB?
They are the same people anyways. All secret services are twin-brothers.
Hillary and Dems were not looking for same as they were too confident that they win the thing anyways.
OOPS... They lost. What a pity...
But in general who cares. Politician are all junk and as much all of them fail the better for regular folks.The difference for me is that when the CIA wins, hopefully I benefit. When the KGB/FSB wins, I lose, in this case Trump. One thing that may be settled with these investigations is an in-depth examination of Trump's "wealth" and the origin of it. If, the country was given the courtesy of examining his taxes, as EVERY presidential candidate as done for the past forty years, then it would have allayed suspicions about who he serves. With Trump's constant pandering to Russia and Russian interests, an accounting to the people is necessary. #FOLLOWTHEMONEY
Why so CNN and MSNBC can pick about every little detail and ignore the fact he contributed far more tax dollars than Obama, Sanders, Perez and Ellison combined. Probably can throw the Clintons in there too
And how did you work out how many tax dollars he contributed? Oh wait, Trump released his tax returns only two you!!!
Stakeholder capitalism is what built the largest middle class ever, anywhere. But since the 70s, corporate America has adopted mostly shareholder capitalism. As a result we've seen the largest gap between the rich and everyone else, ever.
Democrats aren't much better. In some ways they're worse because they almost always seem to take a dive when their biggest donors tell them to. If both parties could reject shareholder capitalism, this country would have a much better chance of coming together.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...
Harold Meyerson: Shareholder capitalism vs. stakeholder capitalismSometimes, a throwaway sentence, a passage not intended to make a major point, ends up telling a great deal more than the author intended. One such passage popped up in a recent Wall Street Journal story that documented U.S. corporations’ scramble to buy overseas companies and thereby shift their legal residency abroad to benefit from lower tax rates. It noted that roughly 1,700 U.S.-based companies currently are holding $1.5 trillion offshore rather than bringing it home and paying taxes on it. “But that,” the story said, “has left the bulk of their funds for paying dividends or buying back shares effectively out of reach.”
Actually, those funds locked away abroad could be put to more uses than buying back shares or paying dividends if those companies brought them home. They might fund more research and development, or start a new product line, or even give employees a raise. But the Journal story has it right. American big business these days is in the business of rewarding shareholders (a group that very much includes chief executives), to the exclusion of any other activity that might help companies flourish. They’re in the business of raising their dividends and buying back stock, practices that effectively raise the value of outstanding shares but do nothing to enhance a company’s long-term value. But long-term value is a diminishing factor in many CEOs’ calculations, as they come under pressure from extortion artists — the euphemism is “activist investors” — who demand bigger dividends, and as the CEOs’ own fortunes are linked to share value as well.
As The Post’s Steven Pearlstein recently ntoed, 80 percent of the companies listed on the S&P 500 bought back shares last year, spending $477 billion on raising share values by diminishing the number of shares outstanding. The S&P 500 spent 30 percent more on dividends and stock buybacks than they did on capital expenditures. Worse yet, most of these buybacks were funded by these corporations taking on debt. Indeed, of the $3.4 trillion in debt that U.S. non-financial corporations have incurred since 2009, nearly 87 percent has gone to stock buybacks and dividend payments.
The next time a corporate CEO chastises the federal government for taking on debt to meet current expenses, tell him to clean up his own house first.
Shareholder capitalism in the United States has reached the point of absurdity. More than three decades ago, economist Milton Friedman argued that a company’s sole obligation should be to its shareholders. But even Friedman didn’t argue that companies should cut back on everything else or plunge themselves deep into debt just to raise their shareholders’ rewards. Nevertheless, that — as that Wall Street Journal so succinctly illustrated — is what shareholder capitalism has become today.
That’s why an increasing number of top business reporters and commentators have turned against shareholder capitalism. Two years ago, writing in the Harvard Business Review, that magazine’s editorial director, Justin Fox, and Harvard Business School professor Jay Lorsch argued that shareholders performed none of the three basic tasks that, theoretically, justified their claim on corporate profits: They didn’t normally provide the companies with capital (which corporations usually get through retained earnings and borrowing), they didn’t provide a barometer of the company’s value (unless you believe that the share price is always accurate) and they didn’t provide a check on management — save to feather their own nests. In a recent issue of the American Prospect, a magazine I help edit, Pearlstein delivered his own withering critique of shareholder capitalism. And last week, Martin Wolf, the chief economics writer for the Financial Times — the most venerable and respected journal for investors — argued that shareholder capitalism had become so dysfunctional that “we need to rethink ownership and control” of corporations.
Wolf’s point is that shareholders are far from the major risk-holders in the modern corporation. That distinction goes to the firm’s employees, who have “firm-specific skills.” And yet, he continued, “employees have no voice in what happens to a company to which they might have devoted their lives, while the shareholder of ten seconds does.”
The alternative model to which Wolf implicitly points is the kind of stakeholder capitalism that exists in Germany, where workers, and sometimes public representatives, take half the seats on corporate boards and have a real voice in company decision-making. Changing corporate structure in the United States will require an epochal political battle, but it’s long past time that that battle began.
Read more from Harold Meyerson’s archive or follow him on Twitter.
We need to get Donald Trump’s finger off the nuclear button. This is not a partisan plea. It is not a call to lower America’s guard against potential nuclear attacks. It is an appeal to common sense in the face of a president whose volatile temperament and erratic judgment should rule out allowing him to single-handedly start a nuclear war.
People who voted for Trump could care less.
https://www.thenation.com/article/donald-trump-has-his-finger-on-the-nuclear-button-maybe-we-should-do-something-about-that/
misterearl wrote:SoberingWe need to get Donald Trump’s finger off the nuclear button. This is not a partisan plea. It is not a call to lower America’s guard against potential nuclear attacks. It is an appeal to common sense in the face of a president whose volatile temperament and erratic judgment should rule out allowing him to single-handedly start a nuclear war.
People who voted for Trump could care less.
https://www.thenation.com/article/donald-trump-has-his-finger-on-the-nuclear-button-maybe-we-should-do-something-about-that/
Anthony Scaramucci Called Me to Unload About White House Leakers, Reince Priebus, and Steve BannonHe started by threatening to fire the entire White House communications staff. It escalated from there.
Ryan Lizza
July 27, 2017 4:52 PMThe new White House communications director has become obsessed with leaks and threatened to fire staffers if he discovers that they have given unauthorized information to reporters.
The new White House communications director has become obsessed with leaks and threatened to fire staffers if he discovers that they have given unauthorized information to reporters.Photograph by Jabin Botsford / The Washington Post / Getty
On Wednesday night, I received a phone call from Anthony Scaramucci, the new White House communications director. He wasn’t happy. Earlier in the night, I’d tweeted, citing a “senior White House official,” that Scaramucci was having dinner at the White House with President Trump, the First Lady, Sean Hannity, and the former Fox News executive Bill Shine. It was an interesting group, and raised some questions. Was Trump getting strategic advice from Hannity? Was he considering hiring Shine? But Scaramucci had his own question—for me.“Who leaked that to you?” he asked. I said I couldn’t give him that information. He responded by threatening to fire the entire White House communications staff. “What I’m going to do is, I will eliminate everyone in the comms team and we’ll start over,” he said. I laughed, not sure if he really believed that such a threat would convince a journalist to reveal a source. He continued to press me and complain about the staff he’s inherited in his new job. “I ask these guys not to leak anything and they can’t help themselves,” he said. “You’re an American citizen, this is a major catastrophe for the American country. So I’m asking you as an American patriot to give me a sense of who leaked it.”
In Scaramucci’s view, the fact that word of the dinner had reached a reporter was evidence that his rivals in the West Wing, particularly Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff, were plotting against him. While they have publicly maintained that there is no bad blood between them, Scaramucci and Priebus have been feuding for months. After the election, Trump asked Scaramucci to join his Administration, and Scaramucci sold his company, SkyBridge Capital, in anticipation of taking on a senior role. But Priebus didn’t want him in the White House, and successfully blocked him for being appointed to a job until last week, when Trump offered him the communications job over Priebus’s vehement objections. In response to Scaramucci’s appointment, Sean Spicer, an ally of Priebus’s, resigned his position as press secretary. And in an additional slight to Priebus, the White House’s official announcement of Scaramucci’s hiring noted that he would report directly to the President, rather than to the chief of staff.
Scaramucci’s first public appearance as communications director was a slick and conciliatory performance at the lectern in the White House briefing room last Friday. He suggested it was time for the White House to turn a page. But since then, he has become obsessed with leaks and threatened to fire staffers if he discovers that they have given unauthorized information to reporters. Michael Short, a White House press aide considered close to Priebus, resigned on Tuesday after Scaramucci publicly spoke about firing him. Meanwhile, several damaging stories about Scaramucci have appeared in the press, and he blamed Priebus for most of them. Now, he wanted to know whom I had been talking to about his dinner with the President. Scaramucci, who initiated the call, did not ask for the conversation to be off the record or on background.
“Is it an assistant to the President?” he asked. I again told him I couldn’t say. “O.K., I’m going to fire every one of them, and then you haven’t protected anybody, so the entire place will be fired over the next two weeks.”
I asked him why it was so important for the dinner to be kept a secret. Surely, I said, it would become public at some point. “I’ve asked people not to leak things for a period of time and give me a honeymoon period,” he said. “They won’t do it.” He was getting more and more worked up, and he eventually convinced himself that Priebus was my source.
“They’ll all be fired by me,” he said. “I fired one guy the other day. I have three to four people I’ll fire tomorrow. I’ll get to the person who leaked that to you. Reince Priebus—if you want to leak something—he’ll be asked to resign very shortly.” The issue, he said, was that he believed Priebus had been worried about the dinner because he hadn’t been invited. “Reince is a fucking paranoid schizophrenic, a paranoiac,” Scaramucci said. He channelled Priebus as he spoke: “ ‘Oh, Bill Shine is coming in. Let me leak the fucking thing and see if I can cock-block these people the way I cock-blocked Scaramucci for six months.’ ” (Priebus did not respond to a request for comment.)
Scaramucci was particularly incensed by a Politico report about his financial-disclosure form, which he viewed as an illegal act of retaliation by Priebus. The reporter said Thursday morning that the document was publicly available and she had obtained it from the Export-Import Bank. Scaramucci didn’t know this at the time, and he insisted to me that Priebus had leaked the document, and that the act was “a felony.”
“I’ve called the F.B.I. and the Department of Justice,” he told me.
“Are you serious?” I asked.
“The swamp will not defeat him,” he said, breaking into the third person. “They’re trying to resist me, but it’s not going to work. I’ve done nothing wrong on my financial disclosures, so they’re going to have to go fuck themselves.”
Scaramucci also told me that, unlike other senior officials, he had no interest in media attention. “I’m not Steve Bannon, I’m not trying to suck my own cock,” he said, speaking of Trump’s chief strategist. “I’m not trying to build my own brand off the fucking strength of the President. I’m here to serve the country.” (Bannon declined to comment.)
He reiterated that Priebus would resign soon, and he noted that he told Trump that he expected Priebus to launch a campaign against him. “He didn’t get the hint that I was reporting directly to the President,” he said. “And I said to the President here are the four or five things that he will do to me.” His list of allegations included leaking the Hannity dinner and the details from his financial-disclosure form.
I got the sense that Scaramucci’s campaign against leakers flows from his intense loyalty to Trump. Unlike other Trump advisers, I’ve never heard him say a bad word about the President. “What I want to do is I want to fucking kill all the leakers and I want to get the President’s agenda on track so we can succeed for the American people,” he told me.
He cryptically suggested that he had more information about White House aides. “O.K., the Mooch showed up a week ago,” he said. “This is going to get cleaned up very shortly, O.K.? Because I nailed these guys. I’ve got digital fingerprints on everything they’ve done through the F.B.I. and the fucking Department of Justice.”
“What?” I interjected.
“Well, the felony, they’re gonna get prosecuted, probably, for the felony.” He added, “The lie detector starts—” but then he changed the subject and returned to what he thought was the illegal leak of his financial-disclosure forms. I asked if the President knew all of this.
“Well, he doesn’t know the extent of all that, he knows about some of that, but he’ll know about the rest of it first thing tomorrow morning when I see him.”
Scaramucci said he had to get going. “Yeah, let me go, though, because I’ve gotta start tweeting some shit to make this guy crazy.”
Minutes later, he tweeted, “In light of the leak of my financial info which is a felony. I will be contacting @FBI and the @TheJusticeDept #swamp @Reince45.” With the addition of Priebus’s Twitter handle, he was making public what he had just told me: that he believed Priebus was leaking information about him. The tweet quickly went viral.
Scaramucci seemed to have second thoughts. Within two hours he deleted the original tweet and posted a new one denying that he was targeting the chief of staff. “Wrong!” he said, adding a screenshot of an Axios article that said, “Scaramucci appears to want Priebus investigated by FBI.” Scaramucci continued, “Tweet was public notice to leakers that all Sr Adm officials are helping to end illegal leaks. @Reince45.”
A few hours later, I appeared on CNN to discuss the overnight drama. As I was talking about Scaramucci, he called into the show himself and referenced our conversation. He changed his story about Priebus. Instead of saying that he was trying to expose Priebus as a leaker, he said that the reason he mentioned Priebus in his deleted tweet was because he wanted to work together with Priebus to discover the leakers.
“He’s the chief of staff, he’s responsible for understanding and uncovering and helping me do that inside the White House, which is why I put that tweet out last night,” Scaramucci said, after noting that he had talked to me Wednesday night. He then made an argument that journalists were assuming that he was accusing Priebus because they know Priebus leaks to the press.
“When I put out a tweet, and I put Reince’s name in the tweet,” he said, “they’re all making the assumption that it’s him because journalists know who the leakers are. So, if Reince wants to explain that he’s not a leaker, let him do that.”
Scaramucci then made a plea to viewers. “Let me tell you something about myself,” he said. “I am a straight shooter.”
misterearl wrote:SoberingWe need to get Donald Trump’s finger off the nuclear button. This is not a partisan plea. It is not a call to lower America’s guard against potential nuclear attacks. It is an appeal to common sense in the face of a president whose volatile temperament and erratic judgment should rule out allowing him to single-handedly start a nuclear war.
People who voted for Trump could care less.
https://www.thenation.com/article/donald-trump-has-his-finger-on-the-nuclear-button-maybe-we-should-do-something-about-that/
Common sense lost a long time ago, before Trump was elected, Hillary beat Sanders and with that any hope of common sense went out the window. You can't elect a insecure bully to the white house and ask for him to not use his "power". The man is obsessed about power as are the people that elected him.
Trump: I consulted the military about the transgender ban. Military: no, you didn’t.
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/27/1605...
President Donald Trump said his decision to ban transgender people from serving in the military, announced via Twitter on Wednesday morning, came “after consultation with my generals and military experts.” It’s becoming clearer and clearer that he was lying.Secretary of Defense James Mattis was on vacation when the decision was announced, and privately opposed the move. The Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. James Dunford, said Thursday that the military wouldn’t implement the ban absent a formal, non-tweeted order from the commander in chief.
And then there were the remarkable remarks that Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley made during a luncheon at the National Press Club.
During the lunch, Milley told reporters that he found out about the ban "the same way everybody else did — on the news." At the time, he was holding a glass of wine:
It’s hard to imagine a better symbol of how much confusion Trump’s tweets are causing within the military than the Army’s highest-ranking officer saying he found about it through the press, all the while holding a glass of wine.
JESUS this is a freaking disgrace!!! Not to mention the Russia Infiltration and Ruining our standing in the World. There's just so much damage Trump and his Administration are causing.
nixluva wrote:This is as bad as most of us thought it would be under Trump. The Man was unfit and we all knew it. Even those who voted for him knew it, but they did it anyway, which i'll never forgive them for. The Presidency of the United States is much too important to have men of such LOW CHARACTER in power! Trump took over on THIRD BASE and still managed to muck it up. He's turned the White House into a Reality TV Show, which isn't funny cuz it affects the entire world and all of us suffer from his disastrous leadership.JESUS this is a freaking disgrace!!! Not to mention the Russia Infiltration and Ruining our standing in the World. There's just so much damage Trump and his Administration are causing.
How you can expect the country which is biggest Reality show in the world not to have government as reality show.
Every nation deserve the power they have.
We are the country of consumers and so we need our oversized demand for "bread and entertainment" to be matched with supply.
Technology, financial institution, and military who covered them out provide bread and butter and media and politicians provide entertainment.
So just consume what you asked for and shut up!!!