Cont: The Trump Presidency Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Minoosh said:
I only read the Business Insider story, but I don't see anything "explosive" there - it supposedly made it harder for the DEA to challenge pill shipments to high-use areas, but I'm not sure restrictions by area make sense to begin with. .
Click to expand...

The example in the 60 Minutes episode was a small town (pop 500?) with one pharmacy that placed an order for 9,000,000 OxyContin.
 
Minoosh said:
Plus, whether he confuses Niger with Nigeria.
Click to expand...

When I was in college, a good many years ago, I heard a local small-Montana-city radio announcer pronounce "Nigeria" with two hard g's. There was a civil war there at the time, with the breakaway province pronounced "Barfia".

Adding an on-topic element to this post, that civil war was essentially tribal. The same sort that Trump supporters are advocating today.
 
What a strange administration this is. The Republican president is currently feuding with a former Republican presidential candidate (McCain), the Republican Senate Majority Leader (McConnell) and the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Relations (Corker). And the cherry on the sundae is an IQ pissing contest with his own Secretary of State who called him a moron. Surreal only scratches the surface.
 
 
Last edited:
The 9 million figure is for hydrocodone pills, not OxyContin. There is potentially a very large difference.

ETA: It's still very wrong, I don't dispute that.
 
Last edited:
Stacko said:
His ability to create new lows is gut wrenching.
He's completely incapable of empathy. It's frightening that he views death this transactionally.
Click to expand...


Context please. Did he say it here during this dramatic paragraph?

Wilson witnessed as the widow, who is expecting their third baby in January, leaned over the U.S. flag that was draping his casket. Her pregnant belly was shaking against the casket as she sobbed uncontrollably. Their daughter stood next to her stoically. Their toddler waited in the arms of a relative. .
Click to expand...

Give. Me. A. Break.

This one?
Johnson's body made it to the U.S. Oct. 7 when Trump was playing golf with Sen. Lindsey Graham.
Click to expand...

Graham said it was Trump's strategy to distract reporters from the important questions about the deadly ambush in Africa.
Click to expand...

Ooookay.

"The broader question, of what the soldiers who were killed were doing and what went wrong, remains unaddressed by the president, and Trump’s jab at other presidents may, unfortunately, help to keep it that way," Graham wrote.
Click to expand...

Oh the outrage and the - the cover up and oh my gawd!

What a well written, unbiased, totally informative article!
 
Can't edit my post so just wanted to ask if there is a quote for what Graham supposedly said?
 
Minoosh said:
The 9 million figure is for hydrocodone pills, not OxyContin. There is potentially a very large difference.

ETA: It's still very wrong, I don't dispute that.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the correction, was going from memory and I keep forgetting not to trust my memory.

The actual drug is somewhat irrelevant, no matter what it is, the DEA can't do anything about it because of the new law.
 
Stacko said:
His ability to create new lows is gut wrenching.


He's completely incapable of empathy. It's frightening that he views death this transactionally.
Click to expand...

There's a lot wrong with Trump's attempts to interact with humans but the quote from the article is "he knew what he signed up for ... but when it happens, it hurts anyway". By no means the best thing he could have said but it has a massively different impact without the last bit.
 
Last edited:
The Constitution provides that the House may impeach a President in a process similar to indictment, and the Senate may convict him and remove him from office in a process similar to a trial. The 25th Amendment sets out a process for removal that starts with the vice president and cabinet. Question: Is there a process or mechanism by which the Senate could initiate a removal on its own?
 
mgidm86 said:
Can't edit my post so just wanted to ask if there is a quote for what Graham supposedly said?
Click to expand...
deleted.

The article was written by somebody named Graham. Probably no relation to Lindsey Graham.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
The Constitution provides that the House may impeach a President in a process similar to indictment, and the Senate may convict him and remove him from office in a process similar to a trial. The 25th Amendment sets out a process for removal that starts with the vice president and cabinet. Question: Is there a process or mechanism by which the Senate could initiate a removal on its own?
Click to expand...

No.
 
Civet said:
There's a lot wrong with Trump's attempts to interact with humans but the quote from the article is "he knew what he signed up for ... but when it happens, it hurts anyway". By no means the best thing he could have said but it has a massively different impact without the last bit.
Click to expand...


That's not quite the quote I saw. The ending I saw actually makes it seem much worse:

Trump said:
'Well, I guess he knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurt'
Click to expand...
 
Bob001 said:
The Constitution provides that the House may impeach a President in a process similar to indictment, and the Senate may convict him and remove him from office in a process similar to a trial. The 25th Amendment sets out a process for removal that starts with the vice president and cabinet. Question: Is there a process or mechanism by which the Senate could initiate a removal on its own?
Click to expand...
That seems like something you would already know.

I suppose there could be some kind of purely symbolic vote of no-confidence.
 
Civet said:
There's a lot wrong with Trump's attempts to interact with humans but the quote from the article is "he knew what he signed up for ... but when it happens, it hurts anyway". By no means the best thing he could have said but it has a massively different impact without the last bit.
Click to expand...
As an adult, much less the Commander-in-Chief, he should know how to express condolences to a grieving human being. Lacking even this simple skill, he stumbles and bumbles his way through yet another clueless, thoughtless gaffe. He should only be let out of his kennel for late night walks.

" . . . Despite the risks, he stood tall, defending his country with his very life. We owe these brave men and women so much, and I am so sorry for your loss."

How *********** hard is that?
 
Last edited:
Resume said:
As an adult, much less the Commander-in-Chief, he should know how to express condolences to a grieving human being. Lacking even this simple skill, he stumbles and bumbles his way through yet another clueless, thoughtless gaffe. He should only be let out of his kennel for late night walks.

" . . . Despite the risks, he stood tall, defending his country with his very life. We owe these brave men and women so much, and I am so sorry for your loss."

How *********** hard is that?
Click to expand...

I'm just surprised he didn't point out to her that he carried Florida in the election.
 
How in the hell did an unfit moron get elected president? I am in full support for impeaching the immoral idiot in the White House who is damaging the credibility of the United States of America.

Vodka must be flowing like a river in Russia.
 
Molinaro said:
That's not quite the quote I saw. The ending I saw actually makes it seem much worse:
Click to expand...

That is much worse. I hadn't seen that version until you mentioned it but a quick search shows both variants being reported by different news sources. Some have audio of Wilson giving the version you cite, so I'd guess that's probably the more accurate of the two.
 
Mrs Don has just finished reading this book for her book club:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jul/06/kill-president-sam-bourne-review

It's a thriller about a President's closest advisors planning to assassinate him because he s dangerous. It's pretty clear that the (leftist) author who wrote is based the Presidential character on Donald Trump - and he's no fan.

Towards the end of the book (no spoilers I promise) a Bannon-like character has a long speech where he berates other characters for failing to "get" and "understand" why the President was elected. In short it comes down to:

"The President says and does all the things you wish you could but you apply the filters of civiliation AND he's a winner who gets what he wants despite not acting in the so-called acceptable way"
Click to expand...

....and that's very appealing to middle-aged, middle and working class white men who feel that "their" country is slipping from their grasp.

IMO it's a lot more complicated than that - otherwise why would a majority of white women and so many young people vote for President Trump - but although it comes across as a little preachy and whiny to complain about this, there is a kernel of truth in it for some voters. Among those supporters President Trump is a hero because he says and does the things they wish they could (but can't because of societal mores) AND he seems to get everything he wants.

btw, Mrs Don quite liked the book but wouldn't have read it if it wasn't for book club....
 
You'd think that his daycare minders would've written something at least a little bit presidential sounding for something as sensitive as consoling a war widow. Then again Trump decided to use his chief of staff's dead son to bash Obama (and Bush) with.

Still some people rush to defend him. Absolutely disgusting! And these are supposed to be the American patriots?! They can't keep themselves from exploiting the dead to score some kind of "win"!
 
Last edited:
mgidm86 said:
Context please. Did he say it here during this dramatic paragraph?



Give. Me. A. Break.

This one?




Ooookay.



Oh the outrage and the - the cover up and oh my gawd!

What a well written, unbiased, totally informative article!
Click to expand...

Yes, because that's the real problem. The liberal bias of a reporter and not the steaming pile of empathy-free fecal matter who's the actual subject of the story.
 
Still getting caught up on the news. I had missed that President Trump had chosen to use General Flynn' son to attack Barack Obama and to back up his assertion that he is the first President to contact (all ?) the bereaved families of military personnel killed in action.

US President Donald Trump has suggested that President Barack Obama did not call his chief of staff's family when their son was killed in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41658819

Of course in typical President Trump fashion he is constantly muddying the waters and/or moving the goalposts. It's not entirely clear whether he's claiming that he's

  • The first President to contact bereaved families - doubtful, that claim is clearly and ridiculously false
  • The first President to contact all bereaved families - possible he is making that claim
  • The first President to both write to, and phone, all bereaved families - if that's the claim then he backs down from that one

President Trump has said:

"I don't know what Obama's policy was. I write letters and I also call," he contended, adding that he has called "virtually everybody" during his time in office.
Click to expand...

So as far as I can tell, he's claiming to have called almost every bereaved family by phone but it's not clear whether this is addition to, or instead of, writing.

In the case of General Kelly, is President Trump claiming that the Kelly family was not contacted at all, or that the family only received a letter and are dissatisfied that they didn't also get a call ?

This should be a fairly simple thing to clear up. If the Kelly family are dissatisfied with the way in which President Obama handled the way in which the family was consoled then they should say now (though why they've waited 7 years to bring this up if it's so painful is a puzzler). If they feel it was handled in an acceptable fashion then they should make that clear.

Once again I'm questioning whether the "noble warrior" narrative still applies or whether the generals aren't there to protect the country but are willing accomplices in President Trump's "project".
 
Many people living in his hair have told him that other Presidents didn't call gold-star families.
They can't all be wrong.
 
The Don said:
Still getting caught up on the news. I had missed that President Trump had chosen to use General Flynn' son to attack Barack Obama and to back up his assertion that he is the first President to contact (all ?) the bereaved families of military personnel killed in action.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41658819

Of course in typical President Trump fashion he is constantly muddying the waters and/or moving the goalposts. It's not entirely clear whether he's claiming that he's

  • The first President to contact bereaved families - doubtful, that claim is clearly and ridiculously false
  • The first President to contact all bereaved families - possible he is making that claim
  • The first President to both write to, and phone, all bereaved families - if that's the claim then he backs down from that one

President Trump has said:



So as far as I can tell, he's claiming to have called almost every bereaved family by phone but it's not clear whether this is addition to, or instead of, writing.

In the case of General Kelly, is President Trump claiming that the Kelly family was not contacted at all, or that the family only received a letter and are dissatisfied that they didn't also get a call ?

This should be a fairly simple thing to clear up. If the Kelly family are dissatisfied with the way in which President Obama handled the way in which the family was consoled then they should say now (though why they've waited 7 years to bring this up if it's so painful is a puzzler). If they feel it was handled in an acceptable fashion then they should make that clear.

Once again I'm questioning whether the "noble warrior" narrative still applies or whether the generals aren't there to protect the country but are willing accomplices in President Trump's "project".
Click to expand...

Kelly’s son it was.
 
Sideroxylon said:
Kelly’s son it was.
Click to expand...

Derp :o

So many generals....

In any case, this should be an easy thing to clear up.

If the Kelly family feel that they were treated inappropriately then they should come out and say it, though IMO it's interesting that they've chosen to wait 7 years to do so. If they don't feel that they were treated inappropriately then they should make that clear.
 
We would have heard from Kelly not long after Trumps words if it was not the load of codswallop it sounded like when he tried to defend it.
 
The Don said:
Derp :o

So many generals....

In any case, this should be an easy thing to clear up.

If the Kelly family feel that they were treated inappropriately then they should come out and say it, though IMO it's interesting that they've chosen to wait 7 years to do so. If they don't feel that they were treated inappropriately then they should make that clear.
Click to expand...

Kelly and his wife were invited to a White House Dinner for Gold Star parents by Obama not long after the death of their son.

He might not have called Kelly right at the time, but it is doubtful there was no letter.
 
Sideroxylon said:
We would have heard from Kelly not long after Trumps words if it was not the load of codswallop it sounded like when he tried to defend it.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, which is why I think that any suggestion that Generals Mattis and Kelly are honourable warriors putting aside their personal reservations to work for the benefit of the country is well wide of the mark. Instead I see willing enablers actively supporting President Trump's behaviour.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom