Donald John Trump: 2016 President-Elect

[BuckeyeLou]

On 11/21/2016 at 11:20 AM, Ocean Chick said:

Oh, I think that that's Melania putting a "happy face" on it, and hiding the fact from the world that Donny Boy doesn't want her, or the kid, around.  He's got Ivanka there to do the hostessing part of the job.  And what if a "10" (or lots of "10") comes around?  How can he grope them in peace if he has to worry about the previous "10 - now 5 or 6" opening the door at the wrong moment?  Not that he's worried about her putting up a fuss.  I think she's well aware of his dalliances, and is quite happy that he's leaving her alone so she can enjoy her life.  What's got up her nose is that she was probably looking forward to being put out to pasture in the next year or so (she's past her expiration date, after all), and now feels that he's going to keep her in the wings until he's no longer president.  Which seriously cuts into her chances to find a sexy young boyfriend while enjoying her "child support"/payoff money.

Exactly!  And I've said all along, that Ivanka wants to be the "1st Lady"...she already is sticking her nose where it doesnt belong, like sitting in on meetings with Prime Ministers & taking phone calls from the Argentine President.  Ivanka says she want to be in charge of the Trump Hotel in DC, but I think she will really be in charge at the White House.

[sistermagpie]

4 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

 

I hate it when Trump says reasonable things. He's capable of being charming and even self-aware (like "right now, the Republicans love me". He sounds like he knows how fickle they are, and how fleeting their support). Because I know he's just saying these things to get that reaction of, 'oh, maybe he's not so bad after all.'

 

Exactly. And this is also just bland reasonableness he's projecting. He's still not actually saying anything but platitudes or disavowing any responsibility in what's going on, much less showing any understanding of any of the issues at stake. Asked about the first amendment he just says "I think you'll be happy" and says we have to "stop that craziness" in Syria which he has a "totally different view" on that everyone else. It's all just saying nothing in a way meant to imply he's got some great, awesome thing he's waiting to unveil when he's really just deflecting any question of substance.

I mean, the guy responded to questions about the white supremacists by basically acting like it was all news to him and had nothing to do with him, and that we've got Steve Bannon wrong. No actual response to the real, very logical fear that he's putting into people, or the logical meaning of working with this guy. Like he's not the president who's doing this, he's just still some celebrity whose opinions everyone wants to hear because he's so cool.  

[SoSueMe]

He's walking out and getting booed. He may think he can have the boo-ers summarily executed.

17 minutes ago, ClareWalks said:

I swear to god, the way Trump talks, this is what he must see when he looks in the mirror: 

Oh my goodness, thank you so much :)

[ClareWalks]

3 minutes ago, SoSueMe said:

Oh my goodness, thank you so much :)

You are WELCOME! I figured a shirtless Ryan Reynolds (who is himself a dirty, dirty immigrant that Trump hates so) would make everyone smile :)

[MulletorHater]

4 hours ago, fishcakes said:

Donald breaks promise to his supporters that he will LOCK HER UP.
 

First of all, Kellyanne Conway can go fuck herself.

Second, of course, the Trump Administration is not going to do any further investigation. They already know what's in the hacked emails (evidence that Hillary cares about Americans, John Podesta's risotto recipe, cat videos) because, as we saw during the campaign, Trump was able to announce beforehand when batches of emails would be released by WikiLeaks. He knew about the hacking before the public did, and it's not a stretch to conclude that he also knew there was nothing damning in those emails. And of course they're not going to investigate the Clinton Foundation because they know there was no pay-for-play, no misuse of funds, and that it has an A rating from Charity Watch and a 4 (out of 4) rating from Charity Navigator. Meanwhile, the Trump Foundation has been shut down by the New York state AG, pending the outcome of their fraud investigation against it. There is no way that Trump is going to pursue any further investigations against Hillary because he already knows there's nothing to find; not investigating allows his camp to continue to falsely assert that Hillary is a criminal, but that Donald, in his benevolence as our new Orange Overlord, showed mercy to her to "help her heal." And his fans will fall for this just like they fell for everything else.

The Crypt Mistress disgusts me every time she opens that worm-filled mouth of hers.  Her comment is patronizing and insulting.  Her offer to help Hillary "heal" is as genuine as her orange Sith lord's campaign promises.  How does someone with numerous personality disorders "heal" someone else?  

The Drumpf "administration's" lack of understanding of civil liberties (the presumption of innocence and the supposed independence of the DOJ and the FBI) is frightening.  All of this talk of jailing Hillary was nothing more than a banana-republic style political persecution.  It was nothing more than shit talking to get the base riled up.  And, now he has dropped that promise, effectively dropping the supporters riding around with signs reading, "Indict Hillary."  He knew good and well he had nothing to indict Hillary for but kept the lie going, just as he did the "birther" lie against President Obama.  And, like with every other lie of his, his more rabid supporters fell for it hook, line and sinker.

The only thing surprising about all this is that the con game is unraveling before the crook is even sworn in. 

[windsprints]

Being qualified clearly does not matter as much as being related to him:

 

[Padma]

Nice pic. :)  Thanks for the smile.  I'm pretty glum today thinking about our future.  That press meeting yesterday was unnerving, faking criticism of Zucker (a behind-the-scenes supporter) and calling out others.  Also, I hope they all learned something important:  Trump means it's "off the record" for YOU to talk about it. Meanwhile, he went and blabbed the spin he wanted to have on the event ("I told those liars off!") to Murdoch's NY Post. 

Don't make a deal with the devil, people.

Trump's efforts to intimidate the press are scary. Millions of his cultists now believe his every word and will continue to seek out the fake news he promotes on Breitbart, rightwing radio and the internet while disregarding any criticism of him from the MSM as "the dishonest, lying media".

I've never seen anything like this. He is truly dangerous and cannot be trusted with the powers of the presidency. When will someone start to say this?

[Danny Franks]

5 minutes ago, windsprints said:

Being qualified clearly does not matter as much as being related to him:

 

Well he can't have a formal role anyway. The president can't appoint, or recommend for appointment, family members. Nor can any elected official in the US, as I understand it. Trump may try to argue that 'son-in-law' isn't technically a relation, but I doubt that would convince many people.

And I'm sure that Israel, Iran, Jordan, Iraq and others would just love some mid-30s neophyte rich boy coming over and telling them how to achieve peace. Especially with his strong track record on... what? Inheriting things from daddy? Jimmy Carter couldn't secure lasting peace in the Middle East, I'm damned sure this little squirt won't be able to.

[SoSueMe]

1 minute ago, Padma said:

Nice pic. :)  Thanks for the smile.  I'm pretty glum today thinking about our future.  That press meeting yesterday was unnerving, faking criticism of Zucker (a behind-the-scenes supporter) and calling out others.  Also, I hope they all learned something important:  Trump means it's "off the record" for YOU to talk about it. Meanwhile, he went and blabbed the spin he wanted to have on the event ("I told those liars off!") to Murdoch's NY Post. 

Don't make a deal with the devil, people.

Trump's efforts to intimidate the press are scary. Millions of his cultists now believe his every word and will continue to seek out the fake news he promotes on Breitbart, rightwing radio and the internet while disregarding any criticism of him from the MSM as "the dishonest, lying media".

I've never seen anything like this. He is truly dangerous and cannot be trusted with the powers of the presidency. When will someone start to say this?

Yes yes yes

Apart from the millions (billions?) of $ of free TV time, I also resent that he is not being called out on his lies and in that way the press is helping to "normalize" him. Trump is not your friend, American Press. Don't grant him off-the-record pow wows. In my mind the President should need the press' goodwill more than they need his. Just one more facet of this Bizarro World of 2016.  

[Rapunzel]

24 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

Well he can't have a formal role anyway. The president can't appoint, or recommend for appointment, family members. Nor can any elected official in the US, as I understand it. Trump may try to argue that 'son-in-law' isn't technically a relation, but I doubt that would convince many people.

And I'm sure that Israel, Iran, Jordan, Iraq and others would just love some mid-30s neophyte rich boy coming over and telling them how to achieve peace. Especially with his strong track record on... what? Inheriting things from daddy? Jimmy Carter couldn't secure lasting peace in the Middle East, I'm damned sure this little squirt won't be able to.

The Anti-Nepotism laws also specifically exclude in-laws in addition to any other family, so technically, Trump can't appoint Jerrod to an official post anyway. In any case, it is becoming apparent that, in reality, he will attempt to skirt these laws by not giving his family or in-laws like Jerrod actual positions, but instead just claim he is "consulting" with them - that's why he wants them to have Security Clearance. He will call them "unofficial advisors" or some such, and the law is a bit grey there, however, combining this with the hoards of other offenses he has already committed, or is on the verge of committing, make it very likely for him to be impeached.

Impeachment, however, is not the end. He would still have to go through the impeachment proceedings and be found guilty in order to be forced out. If he were to be forced out, Pence, as VP, would serve out the remainder of Trump's 4-year term.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Rapunzel

[Padma]

I don't think Ryan has the spine to start impeachment. He will just take advantage of the Republican majority to pass through all the awful things he's wanted and figure Trump will be out in four years anyway (and "how much harm can he do, really?")

Ryan is a spineless, ambitious, self-serving weasel.  There won't be any impeachment hearings--and McConnell is more of the same so even if there was an impeachment (which isn't quick) the senate would acquit him and, who knows?, Trump might even successfully use impeachment hearings to spin himself as the victim of the "establishment" who doesn't like it that "I'm fighting for you".  He's a con man and a liar. Anything is possible.

[candall]

4 hours ago, Aquarius said:

My sister-in-law, who voted for the man, was absolutely horrified when the teacher's aide in her daughter's class was let go.  Aghast!  How could this be, the kids loved him, her daughter was heartbroken, blah blah blah!

When I pointed out that Christie was always very consistent about cutting public education, and she must have known that when she voted for him.  I asked how she could have thought that a teacher's aide was safe when education was going to be cut.  They're usually the first to go.

Her answer?  "He said he was going to cut waste.  This teacher isn't waste!  The kids love him!"

This is such a perfect illustration, I can't stop thinking about it.

My (only) local friend has had One Great Issue for two years:  her hard-working daughter is penalized at tax time because she can't afford Obamacare for her family.  (Although I'm pretty sure the deadbeat sil is blowing the healthcare money at the pool hall.)  And there's no longer any Medicaid in this state because our legislature wanted to teach us a lesson about Obamacare. 

After the primaries, I made a pro-Hillary remark and my friend's response was to blurt out, "Obamacare is a SCAM!"  After that, I backed way off any political discussion because I couldn't bear to hear her say how she was voting, which undoubtedly was right in line with how everyone else around here voted.

So now I kind of want to ask her whether she wishes she'd put a little weight on the KKK support and the pussy-grabbing and the deportation and all the rest of the hate-poison that spewed.  She teaches high school, she's not an idiot, I think she's capable of putting two and two together, but again . . . I'm afraid of what I'd hear.

.

Edited November 22, 2016 by candall

[BuckeyeLou]

12 minutes ago, Padma said:

Nice pic. :)  Thanks for the smile.  I'm pretty glum today thinking about our future.  That press meeting yesterday was unnerving, faking criticism of Zucker (a behind-the-scenes supporter) and calling out others.  Also, I hope they all learned something important:  Trump means it's "off the record" for YOU to talk about it. Meanwhile, he went and blabbed the spin he wanted to have on the event ("I told those liars off!") to Murdoch's NY Post. 

Don't make a deal with the devil, people.

Trump's efforts to intimidate the press are scary. Millions of his cultists now believe his every word and will continue to seek out the fake news he promotes on Breitbart, rightwing radio and the internet while disregarding any criticism of him from the MSM as "the dishonest, lying media".

I've never seen anything like this. He is truly dangerous and cannot be trusted with the powers of the presidency. When will someone start to say this?

Truly!  He is scary and acting like a dictator already!  Bullying the press, allowing his relatives access to Government powers, making pronounements like whatever he says is the truth, everyone keeps saying "give him a chance", sheesh...he's already revealed what he is all about!

[Pixel]

Is anyone really surprised he's backing off of going after Clinton? First of all, he should back off. There's no there there.  Second, I never for a moment believed that was anything more than loudmouthed bluster designed to excite the lowest common denominator.  And it worked. The only surprise to me is that they actually thought he was going to do it.  His supporters may not realize he sees them as little more than rubes, but that's how he sees them.

[candall]

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

NYT reporter Maggie Haberman is live-tweeting the NYT meeting. Among other things, Trump says that "in theory" he can run his business and be president, that the law is totally on his side--the president can't have conflict of interest (not sure what that means--maybe like Nixon saying if the president does it it's not illegal?), says Bannon's been hurt by the mean press about him since that's not "who he is," laughs off the media being really into this question of white supremacy. Also if these groups are really energized he'd want to, you know, look into that and figure out why. 

Because it's such a mystery.

Also it seems like a lot of name-dropping and bragging about how people love him. She's live-tweeting it on her Twitter here:

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT

Thank you for posting this.  It was fascinating to see him slithering around in real time.

[MulletorHater]

16 minutes ago, Pixel said:

Is anyone really surprised he's backing off of going after Clinton? First of all, he should back off. There's no there there.  Second, I never for a moment believed that was anything more than loudmouthed bluster designed to excite the lowest common denominator.  And it worked. The only surprise to me is that they actually thought he was going to do it.  His supporters may not realize he sees them as little more than rubes, but that's how he sees them.

His decision also provoked a backlash from some conservatives, including Ann the Gollum Coulter and Judicial Watch.  I suspect that these clowns won't give up no matter what the Fanta Fuhrer wants.

[ari333]

35 minutes ago, Rapunzel said:

The Anti-Nepotism laws also specifically exclude in-laws in addition to any other family, so technically, Trump can't appoint Jerrod to an official post anyway. In any case, it is becoming apparent that, in reality, he will attempt to skirt these laws by not giving his family or in-laws like Jerrod actual positions, but instead just claim he is "consulting" with them - that's why he wants them to have Security Clearance. He will call them "unofficial advisors" or some such, and the law is a bit grey there, however, combining this with the hoards of other offenses he has already committed, or is on the verge of committing, make it very likely for him to be impeached.

Impeachment, however, is not the end. He would still have to go through the impeachment proceedings and be found guilty in order to be forced out. If he were to be forced out, Pence, as VP, would serve out the remainder of Trump's 4-year term.

OK I loathe Pence. But I'd reluctantly  take him bc I actually HATE rump so much that there are no words. I've had my person lose elections before (I am  semi old) But I have never, NEVER felt this much fear for our country and hate for one person ever, as I feel for rump.

I fantasize about seeing rump go down HARD and humiliated. There. I said it . I don't want Pence but I'd take it just to watch Agent Orange get his.....

KARMA.

[ari333]

I'm sorry to sound so petty, but I loathe rump's adult demon spawn too....and the Ivanka spouse. GACK 

[ClareWalks]

16 minutes ago, MulletorHater said:

Ann the Gollum Coulter

I've had a shitty day and this made me snort-laugh, so thank you :)

[ari333]

1 minute ago, ClareWalks said:

I've had a shitty day and this made me snort-laugh, so thank you :)

Me too.... and I actually snort :-)

[fishcakes]

What he sees:

What we see:

[Padma]

14 minutes ago, ari333 said:

I'm sorry to sound so petty, but I loathe rump's adult demon spawn too....and the Ivanka spouse. GACK 

[[Edited because lol, picture.]]

It's not petty in my book. I don't trust any of them. Trump's idea that Jerrod should be involved in Middle East peace negotiations almost made me laugh--almost!!--but it's too scary to be funny! Because, crazy as it seems, this dangerous, lying, corrupt crazy person is really going to be our president.

I hate all that Pence stands for but I've lived through right-wing Republicans before and can do it again. Trump is something new and different and -very- dangerous.

* On a (possibly) lighter note, I caught a bit of Obama's Medal of Freedom award ceremony. Love our president! And you could feel it in the room.  Unfortunately, I thought about how the ceremony could go with Trump in charge, "...a great online innovator, Steve Bannon.....a terrific radio pioneer, Rush Limbaugh.....one of the greats of the motion picture industry, Chuck Norris....a woman who's turned history and journalism into best sellers...Ann Coulter.... and that actress I always wanted to grope but who'd never let me (until today, hehheh).... wait, Salma's not here? Damn!

Edited November 22, 2016 by Padma

[Rapunzel]

5 hours ago, Padma said:

I don't think Ryan has the spine to start impeachment. He will just take advantage of the Republican majority to pass through all the awful things he's wanted and figure Trump will be out in four years anyway (and "how much harm can he do, really?")

Ryan is a spineless, ambitious, self-serving weasel.  There won't be any impeachment hearings--and McConnell is more of the same so even if there was an impeachment (which isn't quick) the senate would acquit him and, who knows?, Trump might even successfully use impeachment hearings to spin himself as the victim of the "establishment" who doesn't like it that "I'm fighting for you".  He's a con man and a liar. Anything is possible.

I agree that Ryan is a piece of shit, however, impeachment is based on a vote (a vote based on who is present at the time) - the house speaker alone cannot make the decision (of course, it's not going to be easy even if he were supportive of it). If the House finds grounds for impeachment, meaning, primarily that he has committed or may have committed any act of treason, bribery or “other high crimes and misdemeanors,” they need to vote on whether or not he should be impeached. Trump’s relationship with Putin could potentially be treason, the issue of bribes exists given him pimping his hotels, and the high crimes and misdemeanors part is ambiguous enough to include a number of other things he has already done or plans to do, including the various conflict of interest issues, giving his kids security clearance while they manage his business, meeting with foreign leaders to advance his private agenda, etc.

The House would have hard time ignoring all of the things Trump had done, things that were captured on tape, things Trump appears to be proud of despite the fact that they spit in the face of the majority of Americans and everything this Country stands for. Assuming things like this continue once he officially takes office, they may have a hard time voting not to impeach, especially if they want to preserve the integrity of their party, which Trump really isn’t part of anyway. This is part of the reason, especially knowing Trump lost the popular vote, we need to write, call, e-mail, Tweet, etc. our representatives (especially those reps that are Republicans) and let them know that this is wrong and remind them who they work for. They work for us. If we want this man out, make it known - make it heard. Make it clear that any rep who continues to support him will not have your vote when they come due for re-election. Make it clear no money will be donated to them from you.

If the vote in the House to impeach passes, things are passed to the Senate and they will make the decision on whether or not he should be booted from office. The Republicans hold a very slim majority there and I've heard some of them already speaking out against Trump.  I think that if Trump continues down his current path and the fact that he is most certainly not a real "Republican" may help sway some Republicans to help get him out of office. Again, impeachment itself doesn't automatically oust him, but he'd have a hard time arguing a case that would enable him to remain President given the offenses he has basically already stated he will commit and the Senate would have a hard time justifying keeping him in office given the facts (again, assuming he continues the way he has been once he has officially taken office).

The Republicans need to think first and foremost about their Party. As Trump continues to stick his foot in it every chance he gets, they will likely want more distance from him in order to preserve the Party itself. This will not happen overnight and, he may, on the surface, have their support today, but he can't hope to maintain it if he continually commits offenses that violate the essence of the Constitution, if not the Constitution outright, has continued conflict of interest issues, continues to have to deal with several active lawsuits, is called out even more about the abuse of his "charity,” continues to be way too cozy with Russia (that benefits no one - not even the Republicans and they should not be supportive of that relationship), is associated with white supremacists (again, benefits no one - not even the Republicans) and is completely unapologetic for it, reneging on his campaign promises (especially those that brought him his key voter base - he promised to bring back jobs, kick out immigrants, put Hillary in jail, be a "Washington outsider"), etc.

There will come a day, and I don't think it is too far off, where the Republicans, at least enough of them to make a difference, are going to see the complete and total harm Trump is doing to the party as a whole. If they expect to even stand a chance at having a Republican President after Trump's initial Term is up, they need to act to get him out.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Rapunzel

[ClareWalks]

I mean, look at this total stud. He is breathtaking, in the purest, most Seinfeld-y use of the term.

[ari333]

9 minutes ago, Padma said:

It's not petty in my book. I don't trust any of them. Trump's idea that Jerrod should be involved in Middle East peace negotiations almost made me laugh--almost!!--but it's too scary to be funny! Because, crazy as it seems, this dangerous, lying, corrupt crazy person is really going to be our president.

I hate all that Pence stands for but I've lived through right-wing Republicans before and can do it again. Trump is something new and different and -very- dangerous.

* On a (possibly) lighter note, I caught a bit of Obama's Medal of Freedom award ceremony. Love our president! And you could feel it in the room.  Unfortunately, I thought about how the ceremony could go with Trump in charge, "...a great online innovator, Steve Bannon.....a terrific radio pioneer, Rush Limbaugh.....one of the greats of the motion picture industry, Chuck Norris....a woman who's turned history and journalism into best sellers...Ann Coulter.... and that actress I always wanted to grope but who'd never let me (until today, hehheh).... wait, Salma's not here? Damn!

THIS!

I feel truly afraid of rump.

Some folks my bf works with threw a party for rump's "win." Then when they heard about the no overtime they freaked. "what? I cant pay my rent/ mortgage! without my overtime!!" I laughed my ass off. I know it's not funny.. but it kind of was.

I wanted to say, "you made your bed, fuckers."

What also kind of galls me is this. Was Bill Clinton impeached for getting a blowjob? rump has already far surpassed that in his crimes. I'm just stunned at all this. this is like the Twilight Zone. or Bizarro World

Edited November 22, 2016 by ari333

[Padma]

1 minute ago, Rapunzel said:

I agree that Ryan is a piece of shit, however, impeachment is based on a vote (a vote base on who is present at the time) - the house speaker alone cannot make the decision.

Yes, I know. But he leads the majority (a big majority, largest apparently since 1929 per Tim Ryan) and as long as the public doesn't turn on Trump (in their red districts), they won't impeach him.  If he can still get them reelected--and he's a great conman so probably he can, overall--these spineless wimps won't impeach him.

I mean, seriously. They saw him for 16 months in a completely disqualifying campaign and only a handful took a stand against him. With the power he'll have now, no one will.  Such a cowardly bunch.  He'll have to be more than crooked and incompetent to get this group to turn against him. It's not like many House Republicans were during the Watergate hearings. Far too many of these people are deplorable.

[ari333]

Poor Tiffany looks like her father with that small fish mouth. I feel bad for that young woman for several reasons.. Ivanka is queen and Tiffany is apparently ignored.  

[Aquarius]

13 minutes ago, fishcakes said:

What he sees:

What we see:

OMG!  Hysterical!  And no doubt true.  Thanks for the laugh.

[potatoradio]

Perhaps the press should learn to visit this site for a flattering photo: Can you tell the Donald Trump from the raw chicken?

So, I read the tweets from the bullshit meeting with the NYT and I'm just...goddamn it, what the fuck? Let me get this straight - the Times should go easy on poor widdle Donnie because that will make his JOB EASIER?? 

Say no, NYT. For the love of all that is free in this country, SAY NO and say it with some American pride. 

Get after this fuckhead. Call him out. Don't let him be right when he says he can and will do anything he pleases. 

He doesn't know jack shit about much except how to decipher the world as "winners" and "losers" and "suckers." Like any good psychopath. He's a bigly, yyyugely good sociopath. I realize we're a great melting pot, but sociopath tastes awful even covered in chocolate.

[fishcakes]

19 minutes ago, ClareWalks said:

I mean, look at this total stud. He is breathtaking, in the purest, most Seinfeld-y use of the term.

Eek. Now we know what those women who were on the receiving end of "I don't even wait. Just kiss," had to see right before they mercifully went blind.

[Rapunzel]

2 minutes ago, potatoradio said:

Perhaps the press should learn to visit this site for a flattering photo: Can you tell the Donald Trump from the raw chicken?

So, I read the tweets from the bullshit meeting with the NYT and I'm just...goddamn it, what the fuck? Let me get this straight - the Times should go easy on poor widdle Donnie because that will make his JOB EASIER?? 

Say no, NYT. For the love of all that is free in this country, SAY NO and say it with some American pride. 

Get after this fuckhead. Call him out. Don't let him be right when he says he can and will do anything he pleases. 

He doesn't know jack shit about much except how to decipher the world as "winners" and "losers" and "suckers." Like any good psychopath. He's a bigly, yyyugely good sociopath. I realize we're a great melting pot, but sociopath tastes awful even covered in chocolate.

Agreed. The First Amendment exists for a reason. Use it, members of the Press. What would have happened if Woodward and Bernstein hadn't acted and done their jobs when Nixon was in office? They weren't afraid, and members of the current press shouldn't be either. This man is a flat out bully (meaning he's just really weak, fragile and constantly feels inadequate and incompetent - because he is) and the Press cannot let him threaten to cut off one of our fundamental rights and freedoms. The Press owes it to report to the American people the true state of things (use bigger words in your stories so he 'll have a harder time understanding them if you have to). If the American Press won't report things fairly and accurately, then bring over more reporters from the BBC and other foreign news agencies. That's where I'll get my news then because at least they will report things as they actually happen - not however Trump decides things need to be told because, clearly, he realizes that he's an asshat who is violating the rules, not to mention his fragile little ego and the fact that he can't even take constructive criticism. If he didn't, he wouldn't be afraid of the Press.

[Apprentice79]

16 minutes ago, Rapunzel said:

Agreed. The First Amendment exists for a reason. Use it, members of the Press. What would have happened if Woodward and Bernstein hadn't acted and done their jobs when Nixon was in office? They weren't afraid, and members of the current press shouldn't be either. This man is a flat out bully (meaning he's just really weak, fragile and constantly feels inadequate and incompetent - because he is) and the Press cannot let him threaten to cut off one of our fundamental rights and freedoms. The Press owes it to report to the American people the true state of things (use bigger words in your stories so he 'll have a harder time understanding them if you have to). If the American Press won't report things fairly and accurately, then bring over more reporters from the BBC and other foreign news agencies. That's where I'll get my news then because at least they will report things as they actually happen - not however Trump decides things need to be told because, clearly, he realizes that he's an asshat who is violating the rules, not to mention his fragile little ego and the fact that he can't even take constructive criticism. If he didn't, he wouldn't be afraid of the Press.

Don't forget that our esteemed president elect was described in a New York Times article, as a bottomless pit of need for attention..So, we have a president that is capricious at best and a megalomaniac at worst...Well, this will be a bizarre presidency that will be talked about for generations to come...I hope that we will have journalists with balls of steel to counter this man and his lunacy.. 

[MulletorHater]

32 minutes ago, fishcakes said:

What he sees:

What we see:

LOL!! Thanks so much for this laugh!  I can't remember who it was, but someone made a very valid point yesterday that it's usually the most unattractive men who set such high standards for women when it comes to beauty.  For Drumpf, it even spills over into a woman's fitness to lead.  I despise Snarly Fiorina, but Drumpf's "Look at that face!" commentary struck a nerve with numerous women.  He's made similar remarks about other women.  Of course, he tried to walk it back later and claim he was talking about Fiorina's persona."

Judging Heidi Cruz' appearance and comparing it to Milignia as a barometer as to whether Mrs. Cruz should be first lady...WOW!  Newsflash, Drumpf.  There is a reason your wife's resume was padded with a nonexistent degree in architectural design.  There's a reason she plagiarized FLOTUS' convention speech.  There is a reason you don't even want her ass in D.C. with you.  It's because deep down inside, you're not that proud of her; she isn't a help to you beyond the most superficial of reasons.  She looks "good" on your arm.  And, that is her sole qualification.  Meanwhile, you want to elevate your favorite child as FLOTUS as if somebody elected her and your equally vile son-in-law.

BTW--that first picture is a little chilling.  It looks like one of those caricatures of the Aryan "superman."  No wonder Drumpf can't bring himself to condemn his ardent admirer, Richard Spencer.

[callmebetty]

I'm still trying to figure out how nobody burst out laughing when he complained about the unflattering pictures of him being used on newscasts .  I would have been dragged out of there laughing my ass off into the nearest camp for disrespecting Der Fuhrer . 

[Padma]

Here are a couple of highlights from the NYT meeting (which, to their credit and Sulzberger's credit was completely on the record, including his participation):

He doesn't want to go after Hillary, "She's suffered enough." He wants to help her "healing". 

About keeping his businesses and the conflicts of interests they could cause, “The law’s totally on my side, the president can’t have a conflict of interest.”

• Mr. Trump suggested that under the law, “In theory I could run my business perfectly and then run the country perfectly. There’s never been a case like this.”

[numbnut]

I'll follow Padma with more from the NYT:

Pressed (again) to address racist groups, he denied that his campaign has energized the alt-right movement (seriously?) and disavowed it. “It’s not a group I want to energize, and, if they are energized, I want to look into it and find out why.” (We're not stupid. His lack of action speaks volumes.) Trump offered a robust defense of his campaign chairman and newly appointed chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon. “If I thought he was a racist or alt-right or any of the things, the terms we could use, I wouldn’t even think about hiring him,” he said. He said the charges bothered Mr. Bannon. “I think it’s very hard on him. I think he’s having a hard time with it. Because it’s not him." Trump also dismissed suggestions that Breitbart News, where Bannon is the executive chairman, was trafficking in racism and white nationalism. “Breitbart is just a publication,” he said. “They cover stories like you cover stories. They are certainly a much more conservative paper, to put it mildly, than The New York Times. But Breitbart really is a news organization that has become quite successful.” (Ugh.)

He's also flip-flopping (again) and walking back his stances on climate change (he'll “keep an open mind” on the Paris climate accord) and the NY Times (“I have great respect for The New York Times”). He's trying to save face after his behavior at the last press meeting was leaked.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/business/media/donald-trump-new-york-times.html?partner=msft_msn&mtrref=undefined&gwh=78C735B93FE0060ACFE252B7487A76FB&gwt=pay

Edited November 22, 2016 by numbnut

[Ocean Chick]

7 minutes ago, Padma said:

• Mr. Trump suggested that under the law, “In theory I could run my business perfectly and then run the country perfectly. There’s never been a case like this.”

Seriously?  He couldn't run his business "perfectly" even WHEN he WASN'T president!   Unless he's speaking in OppositeSpeak.  Then he'd be correct - he could run both his business AND the country into bankruptcy.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Ocean Chick

[BookWoman56]

I just read from an article about the NYT meeting, that Trump was also asked about his campaign promise to loosen up the libel laws. Apparently, his response was essentially that somebody has pointed out to him that if the libel laws were in fact "loosened," then it would be easier to sue him as well. So he's now supposedly backing away from that as well. So, the tenor of his presidency is apparently going to be he's pro anything that might benefit him personally, and anti anything that might cause him to lose money. Not that I expected anything different, but jeebus, he doesn't even try to hide his self-interest.

[stormy]

New CNN poll: 2/3 of Americans say trump will bring change.  But they don't know if that means good change or bad change.

Stop with your worthless polls.  He's going to make a mess.  He's so busy tweeting about SNL and a Broadway show that he'll never know what his minions are doing nor will he care.

[windsprints]

Catching up & I love you people.

Donor At The Center Of A Clinton Pay-To-Play Scandal Also Gave To Trump’s Foundation

[inkworks]

Well it's been two weeks and I still can't believe this is happening. America has elected that lunatic as president? Are we in an alternate universe?

Honestly, everything I've seen since election night has only confirmed my fear that this is going to be an absolute fucking nightmare.

The whole thing is a farce. It would be funny if it wasn't so bloody scary.

[izabella]

47 minutes ago, numbnut said:

He's also flip-flopping (again)

This is the scariest fucking thing about him!  He is flopping around like a fish out of water.  After all the flip-flopping in two weeks so far, does anyone have any idea where he really stands on anything, and where he might stand on that exact same issue an hour later?  The only thing the country can count on is that his guiding principles are just the most self-serving options at any particular moment, but that could change at some point, soon, maybe next week, maybe never, soon.

Edited November 22, 2016 by izabella

[Frisson]

Just rewatched the movie, "Game Change," that covered the McCain/Palin campaign against Obama. Some of the things the advisors in the movie said regarding the required star quality of our candidates, among other things, sounds so prurient. 

What shocked me was the way the press eviscerated Palin's lack of knowledge about politics, while supporters on the campaign loved her "everywoman" vibe. Almost like a prophecy of where we are now, with people accepting someone who seems accessible, maybe even because of their ignorance of the way things work.

[kassa]

On a lighter note (because God knows we need it)... every President (and first lady) has their portrait taken. You know, for hanging in post offices and classrooms and all purpose historical stuff.

After looking at the Trump "casual portraits" it occurred to me that he will pose for one, too.  But no suit and tie next to the flag picture for him -- maybe something on a horse?  

[Keepitmoving]

5 hours ago, Apprentice79 said:

I fear that the media may give in to his demands..If we see Rachel Maddow and Joy Reid start to soften their program in his favor, then, we should worry...

That's all I'm watching for, because I cracked up at Rachel's tone when she said I didn't go, my boss went, but not me... LOL 

Rachel will go back to fucking landscaping before she plays this game, hell no. 

You can add Chris Hayes and Lawrence O'Donnell to this list, watching these four for any changes.  

I think I heard/read that he was still bitching on Katy Tur, but was she invited? I didn't see her name on the list. Again, can't stop laughing, but poor Katy. 

Trump is the "gift" that keeps on giving to comedians, they have got to do this press meeting on SNL, they've got to. Who can play Chuck Todd? Because he gives a good WTF face, when he has to and I know he was at this meeting.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Keepitmoving

[izabella]

2 minutes ago, Frisson said:

What shocked me was the way the press eviscerated Palin's lack of knowledge about politics, while supporters on the campaign loved her "everywoman" vibe. Almost like a prophecy of where we are now, with people accepting someone who seems accessible, maybe even because of their ignorance of the way things work.

On a recent Saturday Night Live, Tom Hanks gave a monologue as "America's Dad," complete with Mr. Rogers sweater.  Perhaps he should run next time.

[windsprints]

Quote

After looking at the Trump "casual portraits" it occurred to me that he will pose for one, too.  But no suit and tie next to the flag picture for him -- maybe something on a horse?

 His gold toilet. Just kidding. Probably something gaudy though, a throne like chair or something.

[numbnut]

Just now, izabella said:

On a recent Saturday Night Live, Tom Hanks gave a monologue as "America's Dad," complete with Mr. Rogers sweater.  Perhaps he should run next time.

If Trump and Schwarzenegger (another womanizer) can win high political offices, any celeb can win. Alec Baldwin briefly considered it a while back. Dwayne Johnson is considering it. Bottom line, I just want someone who's intelligent, rational and cares about humanity more than his bank account.

[inkworks]

Thank god for SNL, and people like Seth Meyers and Stephen Colbert. 

Its good to see people on tv stand up and say what we're all fucking thinking!

[sistermagpie]

17 minutes ago, Frisson said:

What shocked me was the way the press eviscerated Palin's lack of knowledge about politics, while supporters on the campaign loved her "everywoman" vibe. Almost like a prophecy of where we are now, with people accepting someone who seems accessible, maybe even because of their ignorance of the way things work.

Someone once put the attitude very succinctly to me and I always remembered it. It's the claim, "My ignorance is as good as your knowledge!"

It's exactly the idea. Just today somebody I know on Facebook was talking about all the times "scientists" have been proved wrong, that they think they're so smart but nobody's that smart etc. And someone else was complaining about how "elites" think you can't be smart without a college degree.

Which completely misses the point. Scientists have been wrong, of course. A whole lot of the scientific method is about trying to correct wrong assumptions. That's why when scientists are proved wrong it's by other scientists. That's why they have to show evidence etc. It's not about scientists thinking they themselves are just smart. Likewise, of course you can be smart without a college degree. That doesn't mean any time somebody thinks you're being foolish they're talking about your not having a college degree. 

There's this push to talk about all higher education as if it's just mumbo jumbo secret priest cast stuff that's like a secret password instead of just people being interested enough in things to study and think about them. Often what people call "common sense" is common, and has some logical sense, but is still wrong. It's like if you were asking somebody what the weather was like, would you want the person who based their answer on the way the weather had always been that time of year, what their grandfather said about the weather this time of year, what the Bible says about rain or...the person who walked outside and saw, heard, smelled, tasted and touched rain--and you can do the same?

Trump's pushed this a lot, claiming just today that he thinks differently about ISIS than everyone else, suggesting his son in law for some reason could solve the Israeli-Palestine conflict. He's claimed he knows more than generals, dismissed what intelligence agencies said to him, has said climate change is a hoax etc. etc. He just tells people they're smart.