Resigning? Let's hope so!

Do you honestly believe that Kim is going to toss away his power and family legacy?

The relatively well-sourced folks at Axios seem to think Guliani may well be the next Scaramucci:
https://youtu.be/8EEScKttVW8

I thought Carson was pretty safe.

At least The Mooch had the excuse of being drunk.

I honestly believe no democrat would be able to stop these dictators. Democrats are cowards and seem to have a soft spot for people like this. The leave them alone and they’ll leave us alone crap.

Trump on the other hand seems to be able to break these walls down, he has the knowledge to make these things happen. I know dems hate it and probably will soon be routing for Kim, which will also be fun to watch.

Yeah, and he had that superfluous third nipple too.

What an insane contention. I'm one who has never believed party has much to do with foreign relations. Trump hasnt stopped a single dictator. He embraces them. Putin, Duterte, Erdogan. Trump keeps proving he is all hot air and little else.

He not only embraces them, he envies them. That's how he'd like to rule.

Trump referred to Kim as an honorable man. This guy executed his uncle with a canon in front of his wife and children

Nice rant, how about answering the question?

Now you are just ****-stirring.

If you can find a way to say this sort of nonsense on 'Fox and Friends', then Trump may offer you a job as one of his lackeys.

Edited- never mind my intended comment. I was just stating the obvious...

Trump stop those dictators?
Hell, Trump envies them...

Ninja'd!

I forget, which party did Roosevelt and Truman belong to. Remind me.

How dare you use actual history to frame the way you think about current events. You are supposed to treat the future of political leadership as a team sport where history, ethics, and morality are irrelevant as long as your side wins. Who wins is the only thing that matters. **** the future or any sense of principled reasoning.

I really don't think any references to party affiliation prior to 1972 are going to reflect the composition and motivations of the major parties in the U.S. at present.

By the way, ...

Jeff Sessions is once again at the top of the Trump crap list, so Sessions may be the next lackey to get his walking papers.

https://www.npr.org/2018/05/30/61543...-than-sessions

Trump: 'I Wish I Did' Pick A Different Attorney General Than Sessions

President Trump resumed his attacks against Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Wednesday following reports that he had asked Sessions to un-recuse himself from the Russia investigation — and after more erosion of Trump's claim that the FBI spied on his campaign.

...

Trump quoted Gowdy and added his own epigram: " ' ... There are lots of really good lawyers in the country, he could have picked somebody else!' And I wish I did!"

...

I'll state this more politely than I might have: have you ever flushed a toilet and had a piece of toilet paper just circle, circle the drain multiple times without ever quite going all the way down and out? Just when you think it is finally going down the drain it floats up again or catches against the side? Sessions reminds me of that piece of toilet paper.

However for all his other deep flaws I do appreciate Sessions's recusing himself and his resistance to firing Mueller.

“BOLTON IS NOT A BIG TEAM PLAYER”: INSIDE THE LOOMING BOLTON-POMPEO SHOWDOWN
As Trump prepares to meet Kim, administration sources worry that the president’s two boldest advisers are on a collision course. “State is just out in the pastures,” says a current staffer—and Bolton is not here to make friends.

Rumors regarding Pompeo and Bolton butting heads....consensus is Bolton loses if that happens.

Thunderdome!

Two blowhards enter. Only one leaves. (If we have to keep one, then let it be Pompeo.)

To bad Roosevelt and Truman are irrelevant. It wasn’t principled reasoning, it was to prove my point and continue to show he’s in denial.

Pruitt is in play again with the WAPO's Chick A Filet story...

This one?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...c4c_story.html

They are not irrelevant.

But we can also add Clinton to that list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operat...hold_Democracy

Yup.
Penny Ante stuff as corruption goes,but it's more that the new stories about Pruitt never stop that are wrecking him.
In any normal administration, he would have been gone a long time ago.

All Bolton needs to do is convince Trump that bombing Pyonyang and Tehran on the same day will guarantee him the Nobel. And he's right there in the West Wing. And Trump is dumb enough to believe it.

In normal administration he never would have been nominated or made it through vetting or confirmed or...

I am very disappointed in the Bitch Queen of the Briefing Room. She was handed more than one golden opportunity to damage the president by resigning in protest over being forced to lie behind the podium and she has refused to take them. To not take an opportunity to damage Trump is unpatriotic and a betrayal of her country.

Aside from the fact that Pruitt loathes the EPA, why wouldn't he make it through vetting? I don't recall any scandals of this sort when he was in Oklahoma.

He seems to think that federal dollars are free for the spending, of course.

She's a believer. I think much as I despise her, she's telling the truth as she knows it. She works hard not to know much of it, but there are few times that I suspect she lies rather than was lied to.

Still, we'd be better off without her and with someone more principled in reporting facts.

How many are a "few"?

How few are too many?

One would have to be a drooling moron to believe the lies Trump tells, particularly since they change all the time resulting in contradictions.

Those lies are expired. They were past their Use By date. (Or time, mebbe, if they happened to be in the same sentence. Not that that would ever happen. :rolleyes:)

They have been appropriately discarded and are no longer in service.

There's no occasion that I can say, with anything approaching certainty, that Sanders lied. She works hard not to know much, I think, so that she can't say much. Some of what she's said is false, no doubt, but I don't have any evidence that she knew so.

She's a horrible person, but she seems to be doing her job without lying. She's not doing it with any responsibility for the press or nation, but I can't name a single time that she's knowingly said something false. (There are times she might have done so, but we aren't in a position to know what she knew.)

That's a point, but her job isn't to determine when Trump lies but to express his views in public.

It's not a noble profession.

How is this guy still around?

I asked Scott Pruitt a quick question about the reports he tried to help his wife become a Chick-fil-A franchisee.

"With great change comes, I think, opposition...I love, she loves [Chick-fil-A]"

That is an amazing collection of non sequiturs in defense of blatant corruption.

This, if you wanted to dismantle the EPA, there are much more subtle and less obivious way to do it. You don't proclaim that, you say you just want to make it more "efficient" and " cost effective".
WIth Pruitt it's a case of,in the words of Bart Simpson, "Way Too Obvious, Dude".