Trump's Second Term

turingtest said:
From the same party that thinks taking down Confederate monuments and renaming Army bases is "erasing American history" (and not simply deciding to no longer celebrate its losers and villains), its reigning head has pronounced that mentions of how slavery was a bad part in our history must be erased.
Click to expand...
IOW, openly supporting the Confederacy, which was opposed by Lincoln, etc.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
No. Every time.
Click to expand...
Meh. It's more like he just doesn't care, just like his handling of truth in general. From many of his more private conversations that have been made public, he frequently knows what the truth is. What he says publicly usually just ignores it in favor of pushing some preferred narrative. It's possible that there's intersections with the truth in the narratives, but such are generally just opportunistic happenstance. This is true even when the consequences of his falsehoods are literally deadly. He has knowingly stated falsehoods about things that he knew would lead to many, many deaths... and, of course, proclaimed that he would take no responsibility for such at all.
 
Last edited:
I'll believe it when I see it.

www.cbsnews.com

House committee to make Epstein files public after Justice Department subpoena

The House Oversight Committee intends to release the documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein case, a spokesperson said.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com

Washington — The House Oversight Committee intends to release some of the documents from the Justice Department about the case involving convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a spokesperson said Tuesday.

The committee expects to receive the documents later this week after issuing a subpoena in August to the department for records related to Epstein, a well-connected financier who was convicted of sex trafficking and died in federal custody in 2019.
Click to expand...

Controversy has swirled around the Epstein files in recent months, after the Justice Department issued the findings of an internal review that was met with anger by many of President Trump's supporters. The review found no "client list" or evidence that Epstein had blackmailed prominent figures. Still, the issue divided Mr. Trump's base, spurring calls for greater transparency.

The committee spokesperson said the panel plans to release files after a review is conducted and redactions are made.
Click to expand...

The highlighted parts are the key to this. SOME files will be released, and they'll be REDACTED.

Does anyone really believe they'll release anything that reflects poorly on Schitler?
 
theprestige said:
Or maybe the next president will be a grown up and get to work without considering the decor.
Click to expand...
An odd take, again. Being a grown up has nothing to do with whether one "gets to work without considering the decor." It just makes it worse that there wasn't even the implication that work would actually be interrupted at all, just temporarily moved to another nearby location for the sake of maintenance and repairs.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
An odd take, again. Being a grown up has nothing to do with whether one "gets to work without considering the decor." It just makes it worse that there wasn't even the implication that work would actually be interrupted at all, just temporarily moved to another nearby location for the sake of maintenance and repairs.
Click to expand...
Setting up a temporary office for the president of the United States necessarily requires a significant expenditure of resources.

Obviously we live in a time when the president of the United States can do his job from anywhere, expenditure be damned. But surely the White House staff can be better employed than catering to an affected allergy to Trump's aesthetic. At the very least, they could be given a day off, rather than dealing with this extra task. Which has more value? The time of the staff, or the performative nonsense of the president?

"Gosh, I sure hope the successor to the performative nonsense president inaugurates their term with a gratuitous show of performative nonsense!"

Why are you preemptively judging the next president in terms of this one, instead of letting them prevail on their merits?
 
Of course a sane president could work from any functional office, but that would apply to the current president too, if he were sane, and the office he inherited was functional. It is customary for a new president to redecorate to taste, but if, as some might opine, the current demented rapist-in-chief has defaced the office so greatly that it becomes a symbol of his fascist folly, and an embarrassment to a rational person, it might well behoove a successor to step out of the office while it is restored to something reasonably consonant with presidential dignity and function. Especially if, as is quite possible, the only scenario in which a non-cult successor might be in such a position would be after a dramatic event such as a coup or and uprising. Of course it shouldn't take too long to get the office back to normal, but I could imagine that it would be easier to work without the distraction of workers and power tools and whatnot.
 
theprestige said:
Setting up a temporary office for the president of the United States necessarily requires a significant expenditure of resources.

Obviously we live in a time when the president of the United States can do his job from anywhere, expenditure be damned. But surely the White House staff can be better employed than catering to an affected allergy to Trump's aesthetic. At the very least, they could be given a day off, rather than dealing with this extra task. Which has more value? The time of the staff, or the performative nonsense of the president?

"Gosh, I sure hope the successor to the performative nonsense president inaugurates their term with a gratuitous show of performative nonsense!"

Why are you preemptively judging the next president in terms of this one, instead of letting them prevail on their merits?
Click to expand...
Again, your premises seem distinctly odd. This is a mix of things that are not in evidence, like the significant expenditure of resources, and odd assumptions, like that it's the normal White House staff who would would be doing this. As for that last line, I find myself wondering what strange delusion led you to think that that was in any way reasonable to try that line, given how disconnected it is from what was actually said?

Frankly, I somewhat feel the need to ask a simple question. Are you alright? No. Perhaps that's wrong. Your quality of argument has clearly declined lately, from what I've seen, but perhaps there may be something else more direct to ask. Are Trump and co disillusioning you about those you had considered your political allies (even if you chose not to vote for Trump specifically) by leaving you with little to no solid grounds to stand upon and you're still in a phase where you're trying to grasp onto straws?
 
bruto said:
Of course a sane president could work from any functional office, but that would apply to the current president too, if he were sane, and the office he inherited was functional. It is customary for a new president to redecorate to taste, but if, as some might opine, the current demented rapist-in-chief has defaced the office so greatly that it becomes a symbol of his fascist folly, and an embarrassment to a rational person, it might well behoove a successor to step out of the office while it is restored to something reasonably consonant with presidential dignity and function. Especially if, as is quite possible, the only scenario in which a non-cult successor might be in such a position would be after a dramatic event such as a coup or and uprising. Of course it shouldn't take too long to get the office back to normal, but I could imagine that it would be easier to work without the distraction of workers and power tools and whatnot.
Click to expand...
Personally, I find the new decor to be representative of and give the diplomatic impression that the superficial is what actually matters. It demeans the US, overall, as it emphasizes how rich and arrogant the US is, feeding the particularly negative versions of those stereotypes all the more. Emphasizing and celebrating the extremity of the wealth gap might seem nice for some of those in power, but it's really not a good thing overall for the country or for internal and external relations.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure the WH has the budget for overnight workers who can clear the crap out when it's requested. Dumpster the plastic trophies, rip out the "gold" foam, slap a coat of paint up. The bigger job will be restoring the rose garden.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Trump: "I want to try and get to heaven if possible. I hear I'm not doing well. I hear I'm really at the bottom of the totem pole."
Click to expand...


There's an episode of Lucifer where the devil is naming some of the people in hell, and when he comes to the fat clown, he corrects himself and says (paraphrasing), "Oh, he's not there right now, but he will be," and this was back in 2017 or so.
 
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge said:
Since DC's restaurants have lost 25% of their trade as a direct consequence of Trump lying about what a dangerous place the city was, and forcing his minions to repeat the lie, and putting troops on the streets like it was a war zone, those restaurants should join together and sue his ass, and furthermore they should ban the entire Trump cabinet from every restaurant in town in perpetuity.
Click to expand...
Or a ban from only McDonald’s if you really want to get at Trump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom