Trump was empowered to humble the know-it-alls. He has been and will continue to be effective at it. Those who can't adapt and so fall by the wayside are acceptable losses. Collateral damage is a figment of the imagination. Don't complain. This is your life now.

*grins*

well done.

Thank you. :blush:

I think it's worth remembering that there are reasonable and engaging people on both sides of the political divide.

Trump only does one thing. Throws shit and lies at the wall. Whatever sticks in any one event becomes his new mantra.

He started as a potential Democratic politician. When his rhetoric created personal grief (especially at that famous correspondent's dinner), he then discovered his rhetoric worked better in the Republican party where others such as Ted Cruz did same - just not as well.

His agenda is to preach whatever makes him better to a core constituency. Does not matter if it is a lie. His constituents don't care what is reality - only emotions.

He should be hated by Christian Evangelicals. But he discovered what sticks to a wall best when preaching to them. It need not be truthful or accurate. Only what makes them feel better.

You and your candidate lost to him. :p:

hahahahahahhahaaaaa

I'm curious, how will President Trump characterize this news about his AG Sessions.

Fake news, or serious leak?

Is there anyone in Trump's gang that wasn't talking to the Russians during the campaign?

Bill was impeached by Republicans for lying (about sex) under oath in a deposition in a civil case. If that is their standard and where they place the bar, it seems like lying under oath to Congress about dealing with a foreign adversary is a bigger deal.

Response from the Republicans:

Cruz Calls Sessions' Meeting With Russian Ambassador A 'Nothing Burger'
Source: Talking Points Memo


By ALLEGRA KIRKLAND Published MARCH 2, 2017, 9:33 AM EDT

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Wednesday called Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ two meetings with the Russian ambassador during the 2016 campaign a “nothing burger,” breaking with several senior Republican leaders.

“What we are seeing is a lot of political theater,” Cruz said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” Cruz Calls Sessions' Meeting With Russian Ambassador A 'Nothing Burger'

Response from the Democrats:

McCaskill Calls For Attorney General Jeff Sessions To Resign
Source: Talking Points Memo


By MATT SHUHAM Published MARCH 2, 2017, 10:14 AM EDT

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) joined several other Democrats in calling for Attorney General Jeff Sessions' resignation Thursday, after the Washington Post reported that Sessions met twice with the Russian ambassador to the United States during the presidential campaign.

Sessions told the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation process in January that he had not met with any Russian during the campaign, though his spokesperson told TPM Thursday that Sessions “met with the ambassador in an official capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is entirely consistent with his testimony.”

McCaskill called for Sessions to resign Thursday, saying in a statement published by NBC's Frank Thorp “it’s clear Attorney General Sessions misled the Senate–the question is, why? I’ve been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for 10 years, and in that time, have had no call from or meeting with, the Russian ambassador. Ever. That’s because ambassadors call members of the Foreign Relations Committee. Attorney General Sessions should resign.”


I loved that well reasoned, thought provoking reply from Cruz on the Right. More proof that a steady diet of Fox is bad for the brain. :cool:

Yeah, but...



...



...



...



Make America Great Again?

I think you've touched on the difference. Like the old saying - "A thief who steals from a thief is pardoned for one hundred years."

A politician who lies to politicians ... etc.

An honest man always backs up this accusations with examples, facts, and numbers. Obama was spying on Trump. Somehow that proves the Russians were not operating in conjunction with the Trump campaign?

Apparently this latest lie (thrown to a wall to see if it will stick) created a major yelling match between Trump and some top administration people.

Nixon got this way in the last days of Watergate. Where is the football?

Never forget what top Nixon people did when Nixon was in denial.

I could not get on Nixon's enemies list. Is it easier to get on The Donald's enemy list?

The Donald needs just one person on his list and it isn't you. The only thing the Dems have really got going for them is the Obama legacy. When the Dems gang up on Trump, he doesn't need to fend them all off. He just attacks their base of influence, Obama. It's nothing personal, it's just business politics. The Dems won't wise up, not by the mid-terms, not by the next presidential election. They won't change their MO; because, you can't teach the old donkeys new tricks. Their fiasco with Hillary proved that.

I anticipate a Presidential tweet where he says the CIA did all the hacking and blamed the Russians.

Even moderates routinely insult Trump. Long term Republicans, who only voted Republican, are disparaging that president.

Trump needs reams of paper for his enemies list. Since his tweets make enemies daily. Of course his list is secret - to everyone except the Russians. He knows where friends can be found.

Trump is now doing 'Wag the Dog'. America's dumbest citizens love wars such as 'Mission Accomplished' or VietNam. Trump will use war so that dumbest Americans will cheer him on. Marines are now being deployed for unrestricted combat in a war that is not our problem. We are now moving from a support function of friends into unrestricted combat on something that was not a threat. Expect larger deployments - just like Nam.

Trump may seek any excuse to invade N Korea. Trump sees destruction as a fast path to promotion. George Jr successfully massacred almost 5000 Americans to promote himself. Expect Trump to match and probably exceed that.

Campaigning for a position on his enemies list. Unfortunately there is plenty of competition.

No Trump tweet yet, but Hannity said it.

Its the weekend. He's down in FL drinking again.

"Did you hear what my man said today!" I can hardly wait.

:lol2: :eek: :mecry: :o

CNN Analyst citing anonymous sources that Flynn has made a deal with the FBI to testify against Trump.

Meanwhile, the press pool following Trump say he has been in a "meeting" at one of his tennis resorts for four hours, refuses to say with whom. They are getting tennis tips from instructors while they wait.

Oh my, do you think Trump grabbed Flynn's pussy?

After which she was madly in love with him, and her unrequited love drove her to testify.
Trump's lawyers will say her unrequited love drove her mad, so unfit to squeal testify. :haha:

That is not the point at all.

The point was, the common belief is that he is a narcissist, but narcissists of the variety he is suspected to be, do not have good, close relationships with their adult children.

From what I've heard in conversations of Celebrity Apprentice players, he does have a narcissist-level need to be liked. And his public actions certainly appear to be narcissistic. His children tell us that it is not so drop-dead simple. His particular variety of narcissism may be a little more complex.

Some narcissists will give you exactly that. When narcissists are successful, it's because they project a believable self-confidence. It IS stable and comforting, as long as they are at a distance. They are in sales, for that reason.




this post has been delayed for a month, to allow the poisonous emotional atmosphere of the thread to clear before making the point

Not on my watch, disagreeing scum! Your points are laughable--HA HA HA--I laugh.

Also, I largely agree that your interpretation of the political atmosphere is an accurate, real thing. I don't agree with the degree with which you're using it as a lens to seemingly interpret every single political discussion, but considering it's a thing that's worth saying, that isn't said often enough, maybe you're just eager for people to acknowledge the thing, thus mitigate the damage it might do. So, I acknowledge the thing.

But, I don't think it's going away, because people are upset about legitimate, real things, that are bad, and that do need to change. Whether that changes the minds of the 20% of angry idiots that it takes to elect a garbage president--of course it won't. But do we fear saying the right thing, because it make make angry idiots get angrier and stupider? Well, that might be strategic, but OF COURSE we don't just avoid saying what's true and right. Society doesn't get better by being polite in the face of bad judgement, by excusing bad ideas. It's like raising a kid--making excuses for a bad kid creates a monster.

Most content filled, most florid Flint - speak post this administration.

I approve of that message.

"Do we fear saying..."

No we do not. We're super into making sure everyone hears what we say, so we say it with bombastic proclamations. Because it is not about conversation, not about convincing others. It is entirely about

Virtue signalling


"...the right thing"

People don't say the "right thing". It is not important to say the "right thing". We say "the thing that we want to reinforce in our pack because our side believes in it and the other side doesn't".

Political people, when presented with facts or alternate points of view, just become angry. That's how you know. It's not about "right".

This is more primal as sports. People are behaving as the apes that they are, dividing into packs and establishing alphas.

I have no idea what to think of this:

Mike Flynn Offers to Testify in Exchange for Immunity

That sounds like he doesn't think the investigation is going away, though it's hard to say what could force Nunes to do anything. Maybe he thinks that FBI indictments are coming?

He can't count on a Presidential pardon, sooooooo...

Maybe he want's enough publicity to give him "authenticity" so he can write a book.

Trump the job creator.

By giving testimony to a friendly committee, he then gets immunity from others who are more interested in reality and can prosecute him for crimes.

Never confuse this with Clinton's murder of Vince Foster. Or intentional lies of Kerry's Swift Boat. Those were invented by fake news. And believed by the "easiest to brainwash".

Clear evidence, from people not playing politics and not from bots creating lies, suggest Flynn is quite likely guilty. (Exactly what needs better definition.) Sounds so much like Bridgegate - where purpose was to protect a guilty boss. They also did not get immunity because honest people suspected crimes existed. Conclusion: crimes did exist - which says so much about attitude and knowledge of that boss.

BOOM goes the dynamite.

He put his missiles where his mouth was. I hope we don't look back on this episode and realize this is where we made a mistake.

a few hours earlier: Clinton: US should take out Syrian airfields

I'm not reeeealy in favor of a she said he said with a former candidate but we always sorta forgot that she was a big hawk.

probably got it from the livestream of the tapp on Trump.

I wonder if she was tipped off in advance, she has a lot of friends in the government and military?

Oh I know, Trump called her up and asked her to say that so critics wouldn't beat him up. :lol2:

Yep, he pulled a Clinton.

I'm not super comfortable with the universal love Trump got for the missiles. He's getting hate for everything else. They (the press and deep state) are shaping his behavior towards blowing shit up.

It's a trick. They're just trying to get him so enthusiastic about blowing shit up that he'll become a suicide bomber. :D

After he was asked about the gassing incident in Syria, he said he was elected Potus of the US, not Potus of the world. I don't think it's universal love, but approval of the signal he sent allies, so they could breath a sigh of relief, and enemies to wonder WTF would this nut do next.

The attack itself wasn't very effective, but the signal was strong.http://cellar.org/2017/twocents.jpg

Did anyone think of sending a 'Dear John' letter to the president? Or would that be too personal?

Happy Easter tw. The Easter Bunny decided The Donald needs your input and left this link for you:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/reorganiz...ecutive-branch

No hurry, you have until June 12th. Have a good time!

Oh that's cute. Now they can weedwack the way they've told by the corporate masters and blame it on the public.
But, but, this is what the people wanted. I'm sure every lobbyist's staff is busy ghostwriting posts. :rolleyes:

You would think there would be a lot of conversation about this past remarkable week.

There's everything to say, but at the same time, where do you even begin? So there is not much to say.

Except that none of this is normal.

You guys, this isn't normal.

It's not.

Normal for him, though.

Trump is the new black. :(

This has always been normal for Trump. Nothing new. As obvious in the presidential campaign over 1 year ago.

When was the last time you got the impression that tw liked you; or, valued your opinion and wasn't just feigning interest so you'd continue to listen to his rhetoric [rhetorical]? Tw is just a propagandist abusing this venue. Nothing new. As obvious in the Cellar since over 1 year ago.

He is beginning to send the stock market the other way. That is the only sin in modern 'merica.

meh, what's 'normal'?
 

Here's what you got, multiple times...

An unnamed source ponies up unsubstantiated information to a propagandist rag, one overtly skewed against Trump.

Promptly, other propagandist outlets, all overtly skewed against Trump, snatch up on the story, each and every one declaring him guilty (without real investigation, without trial).

Sound and fury, signifying nuthn'.

Trump ain't goin' nowhere.

And even if he does...

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/..._of_succession

Most of the stories have been substantiated numerous times over by multiple sources. They are unnamed only to the public. The newspapers know their names. If their names were shared, then they would stop talking freely.

Papers like the Washington Post and NYT may slant their stories by their choice of words, but they don't make shit up.

In fact, the White House comes out after these stories and say they are absolutely false, and then confirm them as they talk about each individual detail. Like the sharing top secret info with the Russians story.

"Most of the stories have been substantiated numerous times over by multiple sources. They are unnamed only to the public. The newspapers know their names. If their names were shared, then they would stop talking freely."

I see...I should 'trust' the propagandists...cuz they're 'reporters', have 'ethics', are 'moral'. And the anons, I should 'trust' them too...cuz they offer up 'fact' while wearing a mask.

Mueller, with the wide scope of his lent power, may just put an end to all that unnamed sourcing...hell, he'll have to...the accused always gets to face his accuser in court.

#

"Papers like the Washington Post and NYT may slant their stories by their choice of words, but they don't make shit up."

When the Post printed that Comey wanted more resources for the 'Russia Investigation' and AD McCabe sez 'no, that didn't happen, we have adequate resources', what was that?

When some rag reported the DoJ's Rosenstein had a conniption and threatened to quit, and Rosenstein sez 'no that didn't happen', what was that?

Honest mistake, or propaganda...the Shadow knows (and soon, so will we, by way of Mueller).

#

"Like the sharing top secret info with the Russians story."

Trump's sin here is bein' knocked off-kilter, gettin' flustered, shootin' his mouth off. That, and bein' surrounded by (perhaps) well-intentioned advisors givin' him god-awful advice. He does sumthn' well within the scope of his office and he gets slammed, supposedly cuz he outted Israel...funny, I ain't heard one word of complaint from Netanyahu...mebbe cuz he'd given his blessing to that disclosure before hand?

I don't know...I'm thinkin' the press doesn't know either (but, damned straight, they will write stories claiming they do).


Understand, I'm not a Trump apologist...he was, as I explained elsewhere, the lesser of two evils to me (and still is)...if he done wrong, let that wrong be aired, proven, and dealt with, in court. This flaying away at him, this declaration -- subtle or gross -- of his guilt by folks who are supposed to convey fact, not color it, is small and wrong. I'll no more climb up on that haywagon than I will the other where all riders say Trump can do no wrong.

I'll applaude when he does good; condemn when his wrong-doing is proven...till then: this cheese stands alone.

Apparently you were not around for Watergate. A seriously corrupt president was removed only because facts were provided in a same manner. This is democracy doing things right. Reporting facts. As learned from Watergate, it can take years of facts to finally get rid of a president - who even massacred tens of thousands of Americans in Vietnam to protect his legacy.

Some presidents work for a nation. Others work to promote themselves. At this point, nobody can deny it. Trump is the latter. The constant drip... drip... drip... necessary in a healthy democracy makes that obvious.

Trump is not an honest man. That much was obvious so long ago. So much so that psychiatrists even ask if his lying is a symptom of mental illness. Not yet known is if any impeachable crimes have been committed. And so we absolutely need a constant drip... drip... drip... At this point, it would be the only thing that keeps Trump from committing impeachable crimes.

Putin got the type of President he wanted. Trump is a perfect patsy for a chess player like Putin.

"Not yet known is if any impeachable crimes have been committed"

Bingo!

Nice of you to admit it.

It would be equally nice if 'the press' could admit it too.

Has he been impeached?

There's no such thing as an "impeachable crime"; it's purely up to Congress. Their guidance is "high crimes and misdemeanors", but in the end it's just whether 50%+1 of the Representatives, and 67% of the Senators want you out.

Actually, it's about half that. If 50% + 1 of the Representatives vote in favor of impeachement, the President is impeached. Period.

The Senate may or may not convict with a 2/3 vote in favor, but the President is still impeached, cf. Clinton.

There seems to be a disparity here.

There are impeachable crimes, they just aren't written into law.

You mean like fashion crimes?