Neonazis Love Trumps uncomdemnation

[Terry]

It's said that Bannon is one of the "Leakers"...

It wouldn't surprise me.

Kushner and Ivanka have leaked plenty of stories about how they have tried to influence various decisions Trump has made.

Apparently, there are plenty of White House staffers leaking, along with various "deep bureaucratic state" employees in the State Department, EPA, Department of Energy, etc. Trump, in his typical fashion, has gone out of his way to be a prick to everybody. His various Cabinet heads have followed suit. Pushback was inevitable. Jeff Sessions trying to root out the leakers is a Fool's Errand.

It wouldn't surprise me if Trump is doing plenty of off-the-record leaking. He has a long history of that.

It has also been said that Bannon is literally taking his role within the Administration day by day. Hey, everybody who signed on with Trump had to have known Trump has very, very few longstanding ties far as loyalty goes. Bannon's no dummy, wrongheaded as I think he is on a whole host of issues. Bannon knows Trump won't hesitate to ditch him in a heartbeat of [Trump] suddenly determines such a move serves his interests. This whole blather about Steve Bannon being some iconic, indispensable totemic figure to Trump's hardcore base is bullshit.

[Nickdfresh]

Bannon. Out.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/us/politics/steve-bannon-trump-white-house.html

[Nitro Express]

What counts as 'historical' anyway? How old exactly are these ancient relics, this isn't exactly the fucking pyramids we are talking about is it?

I would say the US Civil War was historical. Do you remove a monument just because some ass wipes throw a tirade? A tirade over something that has nothing to do with the monuments. Nobody gave a damn until the media hyped it anyways.

[Nitro Express]

Bannon. Out.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/u...ite-house.html

Think he will shave and shower now? He was one sloppy looking son of a bitch.

[Nitro Express]

It wouldn't surprise me.

Kushner and Ivanka have leaked plenty of stories about how they have tried to influence various decisions Trump has made.

Apparently, there are plenty of White House staffers leaking, along with various "deep bureaucratic state" employees in the State Department, EPA, Department of Energy, etc. Trump, in his typical fashion, has gone out of his way to be a prick to everybody. His various Cabinet heads have followed suit. Pushback was inevitable. Jeff Sessions trying to root out the leakers is a Fool's Errand.

It wouldn't surprise me if Trump is doing plenty of off-the-record leaking. He has a long history of that.

It has also been said that Bannon is literally taking his role within the Administration day by day. Hey, everybody who signed on with Trump had to have known Trump has very, very few longstanding ties far as loyalty goes. Bannon's no dummy, wrongheaded as I think he is on a whole host of issues. Bannon knows Trump won't hesitate to ditch him in a heartbeat of [Trump] suddenly determines such a move serves his interests. This whole blather about Steve Bannon being some iconic, indispensable totemic figure to Trump's hardcore base is bullshit.

What got Trump elected was people were just tired of career politicians. They were willing to give an outsider a chance for the simple fact that it couldn't get any worse than it already was. Simple as that. It's not that Trump was that great it's that Hillary stunk so bad. The Dems shot themselves in the head running that bitch. Would Trump have beaten Bernie or someone else? Maybe not.

[Nickdfresh]

I would say the US Civil War was historical. Do you remove a monument just because some ass wipes throw a tirade? A tirade over something that has nothing to do with the monuments. Nobody gave a damn until the media hyped it anyways.

Except many monuments, like the Lee statue in Charlotte, were essentially put up by the KKK during its resurgence in the 1920's. Not like in the period of 1866-1900, of which most monuments I have no problem with. There's even monuments in the North at Gettysburg where thousands of Confederate soldiers bravely (and stupidly) died in Pickett's Charge. BTW, Gen. Lee wanted no Confederate monuments and refused to fly the Confederate (Army's battle) flag while he was a dean at a southern college...

And a bunch of nazi fucktards marching with Tiki torches, in their latently gay hipster haircuts and chanting "Jews will not replace us!", could give fuckall about the history of the American Civil War...

[Nitro Express]

Except many monuments, like the Lee statue in Charlotte, were essentially put up by the KKK during its resurgence in the 1920's. Not like in the period of 1866-1900, of which most monuments I have no problem with. There's even monuments in the North at Gettysburg where thousands of Confederate soldiers bravely (and stupidly) died in Pickett's Charge. BTW, Gen. Lee wanted no Confederate monuments and refused to fly the Confederate (Army's battle) flag while he was a dean at a southern college...

And a bunch of nazi fucktards marching with Tiki torches, in their latently gay hipster haircuts and chanting "Jews will not replace us!", could give fuckall about the history of the American Civil War...

Ah someone engineered all this to get reactions out of people. Create some nazis for the left to hate and and then use that to motivate people to tear down Confederate monuments in hopes this creates a backlash of some sort while the media calls everyone the left hates racists. Especially Trump. It's all so contrived.

[Seshmeister]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/trumps-golf-course-plaque-honors-fake-civil-war-battle-w498383

Donald Trump's Golf Course Plaque Honors Fake Civil War Battle



A 2015 report about a factually inaccurate plaque featured at Donald Trump's Northern Virginia Trump National Golf Club has resurfaced this week in light of the president's controversial remarks about the violent weekend in Charlottesville – and his tweets about preserving Civil War memorabilia Thursday.

The New York Times story, published with the headline "In Renovation of Golf Club, Donald Trump Also Dressed Up History," historians disputed the veracity of a plaque that sits between the 14th hole and the 15th tee of one of the club’s two courses.

The plaque, which is attached to a flagpole on a stone pedestal overlooking the Potomac, reads: "Many great American soldiers, both of the North and South, died at this spot. The casualties were so great that the water would turn red and thus became known as 'The River of Blood.' It is my great honor to have preserved this important section of the Potomac River!"

A Trump family crest appears under the inscription, along with Trump's full name. The plaque purportedly designates that portion of the Potomac as "The River of Blood."

According to the Times story, three historians asserted that no such battle or designation has ever been given to that spot.

"No. Uh-uh. No way. Nothing like that ever happened there," Richard Gillespie, the executive director of the Mosby Heritage Area Association, told the Times. "The only thing that was remotely close to that" was something that took place 11 miles up the river. The conflict there was known as the Battle of Ball's Bluff, took place in 1861 and involved several hundred deaths on the Union side.

Trump was adamant about the accuracy of the plaque, however, and told the publication that he was certain the area was "a prime site for river crossings. So if people are crossing the river, and you happen to be in a civil war, I would say that people were shot – a lot of them."

The closest historic spot where crossings took place during the Civil War is indeed not too far from Trump's club, but according to the historians, no one died in a crossing at that point, or in any other notable battle in the nearby area.

Retorted real estate mogul: "How would they know that? Were they there?"

Trump, a self-professed "big history fan," was unable to name the historians he claimed had told him the site was known as the River of Blood.

[Seshmeister]

4 down...

[Va Beach VH Fan]

What got Trump elected was people were just tired of career politicians. They were willing to give an outsider a chance for the simple fact that it couldn't get any worse than it already was. Simple as that. It's not that Trump was that great it's that Hillary stunk so bad. The Dems shot themselves in the head running that bitch. Would Trump have beaten Bernie or someone else? Maybe not.

I agree in retrospect that the Dems put all of their eggs, in a DNC point of view, into the Hillary basket WAAAAAY too early. Their bias towards Hillary wasn't even hidden, it was TOO obvious....

That said, what would (or COULD is the better way to phrase it) she have done in her first six months in office that would have been so horrible, especially considering how obstructionist the Republican Congress was throughout the Obama presidency?

Raise taxes on millionaires? Nope, it would be blocked....

Attempt to tweak Obamacare? Nope, it would be blocked....

Infrastructure? Nope, it would be blocked....

The only thing she probably could have done is nominate Garland to the Supreme Court (assuming), although the Republicans would make that as painful as possible before finally relenting....

[Seshmeister]

I agree in retrospect that the Dems put all of their eggs, in a DNC point of view, into the Hillary basket WAAAAAY too early. Their bias towards Hillary wasn't even hidden, it was TOO obvious....

The "because it's her turn" slogan may be one of the worst ideas in electoral history.

The Nitro statement about people voting for Trump because 'it couldn't get any worse than it already was' is exactly correct and the same reason that Brexit too happened, both on very narrow majorities but anyhoo.

That people could think that things couldn't get any worse is astonishing. Things can always get much much worse. I wonder if it's a lack of knowledge of history but then in both the Trump vote and Brexit it was the old people that voted for it. Here's a thought after another atrocity in Spain yesterday, terrorist murders in Europe are a small fraction now than they were in the 1970s. Public disorder, killings in the US, again a small fraction of what they were.

Bullshit however is up big time.

[Terry]

What got Trump elected was people were just tired of career politicians. They were willing to give an outsider a chance for the simple fact that it couldn't get any worse than it already was. Simple as that. It's not that Trump was that great it's that Hillary stunk so bad. The Dems shot themselves in the head running that bitch. Would Trump have beaten Bernie or someone else? Maybe not.

Apparently, at least in terms of the popular vote and the registered voters who bothered to turn out, three million more people weren't tired of career politicians than the ones who were. At least in terms of the choice being Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Could Hillary have been beaten by anybody other than Donald Trump?

[Terry]

I agree in retrospect that the Dems put all of their eggs, in a DNC point of view, into the Hillary basket WAAAAAY too early. Their bias towards Hillary wasn't even hidden, it was TOO obvious....

That said, what would (or COULD is the better way to phrase it) she have done in her first six months in office that would have been so horrible, especially considering how obstructionist the Republican Congress was throughout the Obama presidency?

Raise taxes on millionaires? Nope, it would be blocked....

Attempt to tweak Obamacare? Nope, it would be blocked....

Infrastructure? Nope, it would be blocked....

The only thing she probably could have done is nominate Garland to the Supreme Court (assuming), although the Republicans would make that as painful as possible before finally relenting....

Had she been elected, Congressional investigations over The Clinton Foundation and everything else under the sun would have taken off immediately.

However, if the Congressional Republicans approached those hypothetical investigations with the same competency as they did with the "repeal and replace" health insurance reform, Hillary would have had little to worry about.

I mean, 7 years to get their shit together, they control all three branches of government and they can't even convincingly explain their strategy, rollout, funding/financing and the basic math of it in a way that convinced enough people it would be worth supporting? McConnell couldn't even get the fucking VOTES in line? Some "Master of the Senate"

Thankfully these republicans are proving to be as inept, disorganized and dysfunctional as the democrats: if either faction actually had their shit halfway together, they could possibly do us all some real damage.

[Seshmeister]

I try to avoid being in a bubble and to read stuff from all sides, I think that's important.

This just popped up on my feed and it really just shows the ridiculous point things have got to now...

http://theconservativetruth.com/just-discovered-obama-gave-neo-nazis-5-billions-of-taxpayers-dollars/

[Terry]

I try to avoid being in a bubble and to read stuff from all sides, I think that's important.

This just popped up on my feed and it really just shows the ridiculous point things have got to now...

http://theconservativetruth.com/just...ayers-dollars/

I think it's important to read informed commentary/articles/editorials from a wide range of viewpoints. Bubble-groupthink, regardless of which end of the political spectrum it encapsulates, isn't useful for much other than reinforcing beliefs one already holds to be true. You have to be prepared to challenge the assumptions you have made, as it's pretty tough to learn anything new if you already think you know it all.

The key word, though, is "informed" as in verifiable information. As opposed to a reality created from opinion-based perceptions, where the opinions often can't be articulated by the opinion-holders as to...you know...WHY they hold those opinions to be true, what FACTS they have utilized in formulating those opinions. I think what I'm really describing are belief-based opinions derived from faith-based facts in terms of the ridiculousness of what is passing for 'news' these days in some quarters.

You know, how many times has Sean Spicer or Huckabee Sanders made a glib reply along the lines of "well, the President believes it to be true" when asked about Trump's incorrect assertions on a number of issues? So, therefore, if somebody only believes strongly enough in something that has been proven demonstrably false, it isn't a lie if somebody keeps repeating the untruth because their level of belief in the falsehood is unshaken? Where the fuck does that leave us?