The long nightmare has just begun: Inauguration of a fraud.

[Town Heretic]

I'm sorry to see you approve such a juvenile tactic from the left. I would call out how nasty it is, if it came the other way. f you cant see all the things wrong with what they did there, well that speaks for you.

Never said you wouldn't, if you saw it that way. Now then, how often did you see it that way when Obama was routinely lampooned by the right?

As for me, I can point you to posts of my calling out both the right and left candidate in the last election. My dog in this fight is the nation, not any particular party. And I don't begin to agree with you that the cover is "nasty". Unflattering? Sure. Foreboding? Absolutely. Accurate? Depends on how you see it. He is the chief strategist for this White House. That's a fact. Manipulative? It's what he aims to be.

"What we are witnessing now is the birth of a new political order." Steve Bannon

Also, I don't believe you can be a part of a party that routinely calls the media manipulative and then give a pass to someone like Bannon on the very point. But what really bothers me about this light weight is the position of authority he's being handed given his utter lack of qualification and how those with actual credentials are being pushed aside to accommodate the move.

The President’s reform shrinks the roster of regular members of the National Security Council’s principals committee — a premier gathering in the U.S. government’s foreign policy decisionmaking process — by removing several officials, including the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as regular members. The pair will attend when "issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed," the President's memorandum stated. The committee, chaired by either the National Security Adviser or the Homeland Security Adviser, is often the final step where policy is shaped before being presented to the President for sign-off. Time/Politics, Jan. 29, 2017​

 

[Angel4Truth]

Never said you wouldn't, if you saw it that way. Now then, how often did you see it that way when Obama was routinely lampooned by the right?

Please post a major news publication and its shameful pic of obama so i can condemn it also. Thanks.

Its just as cheap to do that, as someone taking shots at your family, but you think one is ok? Quite hypocritical.

Do you bash other peoples looks, or just those you dont like? Do you often in a disingenuous manner, take pics and purposely present them in a bad light in order to cast disparity on someone via looks?

Im concerned that you can defend such a low blow.

 

[ok doser]

Please post a major news publication and its shameful pic of obama

this one's pretty shameful:

 

[Angel4Truth]

this one's pretty shameful:

I agree.

 

[Danoh]

I had no idea POTUS was in hands on control of the nuts and bolts of every operation.
Don't they have people in the Military in charge of Military stuff?

In his business life, his people were ever ending up having to fight with him on his obssession not only with micromanaging, but with his obsession for pointing out how smart he was, even as he was often doing things out of impulse rather than out of sound, carefully thought out plans.

It was how he drove so many of his business endeavors into the ground.

I suspect his tax returns would reveal the great extent of his massive ego's ever blinding, many self-inflicted financial wounds.

Thus, his equally rash action on that fool ban of his, and so on.

Still, his fool impulsive ways is forcing many spineless individuals from a cross section of "polite" opposition to have to grow a spine if they are to confront him on his win-lose terms.

 

[Town Heretic]

Please post a major news publication and its shameful pic of obama so i can condemn it also. Thanks.

So that's you saying that in the eight years of his presidency you can't recall it ever happening and your responding? I was just wondering.

Let's look at the preeminent conservative magazine for a bit of illumination on mature treatment:
View attachment 25248 View attachment 25249 View attachment 25250 View attachment 25251 View attachment 25255

Just a few and he's the actual president then, not a cabinet appointee. I'm sure they mostly passed on the lower down the totem pole sort...

View attachment 25252 View attachment 25253 View attachment 25254

Well, I'm sure they were as juvenile and hard on their own.

View attachment 25256

Or maybe not. lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

Just to pick up the additions.

Its just as cheap to do that, as someone taking shots at your family,

You think a less than flattering framing of a public figure is on par with taking shots at someone's family? Can't agree with you. He's a public figure who, without election or substantive service that would qualify him for the power of being on the preeminent security counsel, advising and framing policy on matters of national security, has been a part of "restructuring" that bumped serious people off of it, as I noted in my last.

but you think one is ok? Quite hypocritical.

I think satirizing people in power is a very different animal and that it has to be. Now I'd say that treatment doesn't extend to their kids and outlying family members.

Do you bash other peoples looks, or just those you dont like?

I didn't bash his looks. I made a Hitler comparison by inference, which was a comment on the tone I read into the posing coupled with the blurb.

Do you often in a disingenuous manner, take pics and purposely present them in a bad light in order to cast disparity on someone via looks?

:think: I can't think of ever doing that. I also don't think that's what happened here.

Im concerned that you can defend such a low blow.

I'd say the photo simply makes the fellow look ominous. He probably thought he looked grave and serious. I suppose his supporters could choose to see it that way too and likely would have if not for the inclusion of "The Great Manipulator"...which tells you it isn't the photo, but the context and it isn't a juvenile shot at his looks. It's a framed criticism of the messenger.

 

[kmoney]

A new Quinnipiac poll released last week shows more American voters support President Trump's executive order to temporarily suspend immigration from several Middle Eastern and North African countries.

By a margin of 48 percent to 42 percent, voters supported "suspending immigration from terror prone regions, even if it means turning away refugees."


Something doesn't quite match here.

I saw a poll that had similar numbers, almost half support it. But then only roughly 1/3 think it makes us safer. I'm sort of wondering what the thinking is for those in that difference, people who support it but don't think it's leading to more safety.

 

[annabenedetti]

I had no idea POTUS was in hands on control of the nuts and bolts of every operation.
Don't they have people in the Military in charge of Military stuff?

He's the Commander in Chief. The buck stops with him. That's what you wanted, right?

 

[annabenedetti]

I saw a poll that had similar numbers, almost half support it. But then only roughly 1/3 think it makes us safer. I'm sort of wondering what the thinking is for those in that difference, people who support it but don't think it's leading to more safety.

I read somewhere (sorry, can't remember where at the moment) that the demographic breakdown shows that older (65+) Americans were more likely to view the regulation of Muslims positively, so it would be interesting to see the poll's age breakdown.

 

[annabenedetti]

I'd say the photo simply makes the fellow look ominous. He probably thought he looked grave and serious. I suppose his supporters could choose to see it that way too and likely would have if not for the inclusion of "The Great Manipulator"...which tells you it isn't the photo, but the context and it isn't a juvenile shot at his looks. It's a framed criticism of the messenger.

I posted that cover for one reason only: I liked the caption "The Great Manipulator," because it reflected what I think about him and what I've been saying here. Amazing that his photo brought more consternation than what the puppet master says and does, some of which I quoted below the cover and which I hope, but rather doubt, that many will take the time to read.

 

[annabenedetti]

You’re Not Crazy, The Leaks Coming Out Of The Trump Admin Really Are YUGE

Many of these unflattering details about the turmoil at the White House and inner psychology of the President have come from a steady stream of anonymous leaks. Presidential historians and veteran political journalists agree they’re unlike anything they’ve seen before.

“I can’t recall having seen a situation where there appears to be so much leaking of such an intimate nature in such a short period of time,” Russell Riley, expert on presidential history at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, told TPM.

“I think typically there is an enormous amount of care on the part of the White House staff not to do anything to undermine the President,” he added.

Bill Keller, the longtime former editor of The New York Times and current editor-in-chief of the Marshall Project, said he’d seen “nothing remotely like” the leaks coming out of the Trump White House over the course of his career.​

 

[annabenedetti]

[h=1]Officials Warned Trump Against ‘Unprecedented’ Plan to Staff Cabinet Without Ethics Vetting[/h]

The federal government's ethics watchdog warned President Donald Trump's transition team last fall about its "unprecedented" and risky approach to staffing the cabinet, according to new emails obtained by NBC News.

Walter Shaub, Director of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) who has clashed with Trump's administration, wrote to the then-president-elect's top lawyer on Saturday, Nov. 19, with a warning about "imminent" cabinet appointments.

"I am not sure whether you are aware that announcing the cabinet without first coordinating with OGE is unprecedented," he wrote, "and creates unnecessary risk for both the President-elect and the prospective nominees."

Shaub stated that his ethics office had "not been involved in the process as to any of these individuals."

While the ethics office had been in contact with Trump aides during the campaign, Shaub recounted how after the election, the ethics "process we put in place has broken down."​

 

[fool]

In his business life, his people were ever ending up having to fight with him on his obssession not only with micromanaging, but with his obsession for pointing out how smart he was, even as he was often doing things out of impulse rather than out of sound, carefully thought out plans.

It was how he drove so many of his business endeavors into the ground.

I suspect his tax returns would reveal the great extent of his massive ego's ever blinding, many self-inflicted financial wounds.

Thus, his equally rash action on that fool ban of his, and so on.

Still, his fool impulsive ways is forcing many spineless individuals from a cross section of "polite" opposition to have to grow a spine if they are to confront him on his win-lose terms.

And yet, still a Billionaire and now the POTUS.

 

[fool]

He's the Commander in Chief. The buck stops with him. That's what you wanted, right?

Yer darn tootin.

 

[fool]

I think Bannon looks real.
I think they meant it as a slight, maybe even enhanced it a little bit.
But for me it makes him more relatable.

 

[ok doser]

interesting that it made town think of hitler



it puts me in mind of this:

Yer darn tootin.

maybe she should take some beano

 

[annabenedetti]

Yer darn tootin.

Okay, so the buck stops with him.

Remember when he said he knew more about ISIS than the Generals do?

Well - he doesn't. And this isn't just campaign rhetoric and braggadocio anymore, now it means lives lost.

"U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations."

 

[fool]

"U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations."

Who are "U.S. MIlitary Officials"?

 

[ok doser]

"U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations."

and is it the POTUS' responsibility that all that stuff is in place?