Pages

Friday, July 28, 2017

Priebus...


48 comments:

opie said...

Sure has been a great week for getting nothing done. Poor reince, bulldozed by another NY bully with a slick line of crap. Wonder who is next? At least he has given enough distraction to put the russian collusion on the second page. Mission accomplished.

Roger Amick said...

Your hero endorsed police brutality. Just make he sure does the Beaners rapists and of course, you know the n*****s.

How about getting the KKK to bring back lynching?

I'm sure you would write a 500 word justification.

opie said...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/07/28/this-is-what-you-get-when-you-elect-republicans/


Guess what, America: This is what you get when you elect Republicans.

It goes much further than their repugnant and disastrous effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but all the contemporary GOP’s pathologies could be seen there: their outright malice toward ordinary people, their indifference to the suffering of their fellow citizens, their blazing incompetence, their contempt for democratic norms, their shameless hypocrisy, their gleeful ignorance about policy, their utter dishonesty and bad faith, their pure cynicism, and their complete inability to perform anything that resembles governing. It was the perfect Republican spectacle.


It’s remarkable to consider that there was a time not too long ago when the Grand Old Party was known for being serious, sober, a little boring, but above all, responsible. They were conservative in the traditional sense: wanting to conserve what they thought was good and fearful of rapid change. You might not have agreed with them, but there were limits to the damage they could do. The devolution from that Republican Party to the one we see today took a couple of decades and had many sources, but its fullest expression was reached with the lifting up of Donald J. Trump to the presidency, this contemptible buffoon who may have been literally the single worst prominent American they could have chosen to be their standard-bearer. I mean that seriously. Can you think of a single person who might have run for president who is more ignorant, more impulsive, more vindictive and more generally dangerous than Donald Trump? And yet they rallied around him with near-unanimity, a worried shake of the head to his endless stream of atrocious statements and actions the strongest dissent most of them could muster.

The Grand old party has turned into the grand old white man party looking out for their elite donors. Sad how money rules the nest!!! Scaramouch exemplifies your party.....rich NYer's out for themselves and clueless.

caliphate4vr said...

Your hero endorsed police brutality

Then I guess you endorse MS-13 fuck you Roger, you've gone completely infuckingsane

wphamilton said...

Regardless of the latest lack-witted tweet from Trump, it's clear that his administration has gone completely off the rails. He has failed to show any executive competence, not even managerial competence.

That's kind of a good thing. The more he bumbles, the less he can actively screw up.

Commonsense said...

Your hero endorsed police brutality.

You're not going to get me feeling sorry for MS-13 thugs.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

After brutally raping and murdering 13 year-old girls as an initiation rite, do you really think I give a fuck if they are jostled a little bit by the police?

I wish we really were back at the days of frontier justice. To paraphrase Wyatt Earp; "If I see a MS-13 tattoo, I shoot the man who wears it."

wphamilton said...

I wonder if former Suffolk County Chief of Police James Burke agrees about "Feeling sorry for MS-13". The guy serving time for beating a suspect, who yanked high performers off of the MS-13 task force because he was worried about the Feds looking into his misdeeds?

This Trump is like the dumbest of internet trolls, blabbing out superficial opinions while never going to the trouble of actually learning anything about the subject. Not having the wit to even realize that there IS something to learn about it.

Commonsense said...

The other consideration in being in a General as COS is not being widely discuss.

Trump is forming a war cabinet.

wphamilton said...

With this "war cabinet" is Trump preparing to make sacrifices in South Korea to put an end to North Korea's nuclear ICBM ambitions?

It's pretty obvious how you'd have to go about that. You'd need to obliterate the artillery and rocket positions entrenched in the NK side of the DMZ, and then disrupt the NK deployment strategies. Which may take any or all of several different forms. But is Trump, or anyone in his Cabinet, capable of assessing the implications and potential consequences it? A real question in my mind is, does Trump even care about it?

Commonsense said...

Kelly was a 4 star Marine General, Mattis was a 4 star Army General.

I assume they have some expertise on the matter.

Caliphate4vr said...

Mattis is s jarhead

Loretta said...

"But is Trump, or anyone in his Cabinet, capable of assessing the implications and potential consequences it? A real question in my mind is, does Trump even care about it?"

LOL.

I love armchair warriors.

wphamilton said...

It's not the "warrior" part that is concerning. Warriors are trained to conduct the battle, all of the battles within the context of the war.

That's why we have, ultimately civilian control over the military. What are the regional ramifications, how will this impact the economies of Japan and South Korea, how are they likely to react to that? What is your plan of action with respect to each of those possible scenarios, and to each permutation of the scenarios. Do you have contingency plans regarding China's interference?

Or have you, like Trump probably, not even considered the possibility that you might ought to think about these things? Since that's all "arm chair warrior" stuff and all.

Loretta said...

Trump has made it perfectly clear that he's listening to the generals, the Pentagon and others regarding NK, China, Japan, SK.

He has also made it perfectly clear that he's not going to be Obama. He's not going to micromanage the military.

Mattis is a brilliant man, both militarily and diplomatically.

You can think Trump is stupid, crazy, whatever, but you can't argue he hasn't put the best of the best in place when it comes to NK, China, etc.

Loretta said...

Personally, I'd offer every American company doing business in China a sweetheart deal to move to Mexico.

I'd rather "try" to fix that dump than keep enriching the Chinese.

wphamilton said...

What Trump "makes clear" and what he does are two different things. He didn't consult Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis about his transgender plan, let alone listen to him.

Is Trump asking anyone about anything before making his decisions? Who really knows, but it doesn't look like it from the outside.

Commonsense said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Commonsense said...

Or have you, like Trump probably, not even considered the possibility that you might ought to think about these things?

Trump has people around who think just such things.

They also think of the ramifications of doing nothing.

Do you?

wphamilton said...

I've been thinking of the ramifications of doing nothing for the past three administrations, all of whom declare that the US "will not tolerate" a nuclear NK, yet do nothing about it except the same old security council resolutions.

rrb said...

Blogger Roger Amick said...
Your hero endorsed police brutality.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


alky,

you are SUCH a fucking asshole...


President Trump made a joke while speaking to law enforcement officers that was portrayed in the media as an endorsement of police brutality.

The Daily Caller reports that while speaking about violent gang-members in a speech to law enforcement officers that focused on MS-13, Trump said officers shouldn’t be “too nice” when putting violent criminals in the “paddy wagon.”

He added: “Like when you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting their head, you know, the way you put the hand over. Like, don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody, don’t hit their head. I said, ‘You can take the hand away, OK.’”

Trump’s comment was clearly a joke and, as liberal website Slate pointed out, resembled a famous Jerry Seinfeld joke on the same topic.

Journalists immediately said that the joke was an open endorsement of police brutality.

“TRUMP ENDORSES POLICE BRUTALITY,” blared HuffPost’s front page, featuring a story titled: “Donald Trump Endorses Police Brutality In Speech To Cops.”

Other outlets took a similar tone. “Trump promotes police brutality in speech to cops,” reported The Daily Dot. “Trump praises police violence to audience of laughing cops,” left-wing ThinkProgress reported.

“Trump endorsed police brutality in a speech to law enforcement while officers laughed and cheered,” claimed Huffington Post editor Emma Gray. “In a country that already has a pretty pervasive problem with police brutality, Trump endorses their behavior,” wrote HuffPo editor Phillip Lewis.

Commentator Ben Shapiro was quick to push back against claims that Trump was endorsing police brutality.

“This is all exaggeration. Is it appropriate for Trump to encourage police not to be “too nice” to suspects? Not really. But it’s not police brutality to refrain from putting your hand on the head of a suspect to prevent them from bumping it on a car door. It’s police brutality if you slam their head into the car door,” Shapiro wrote.

He encouraged readers to “watch the tape yourself, rather than reading the headlines blared by an aggressively antipathy-laden media.”

What must it be like to go through life without once ounce of humor. Clearly, some humor is in bad taste and we will surely get some that attack us for seemingly defending the President’s words but seriously, is there so much hatred for President Trump and law enforcement that the clear joke cannot be seen?

Lt. Aaron Allen was shot and killed by a coward yesterday when all he was trying to do was to help the victims in a car crash. We didn’t see one of the aforementioned media outlets even discuss it and they won’t. President Trump made a joke and you would have to be a complete idiot to think anyone in that room thought otherwise.

http://lawofficer.com/news/president-trump-did-not-endorse-police-brutality/


Commonsense said...

I've been thinking of the ramifications of doing nothing for the past three administrations, all of whom declare that the US "will not tolerate" a nuclear NK, yet do nothing about it except the same old security council resolutions.

The I submit to you the time for "the same old security council resolutions" has run out.

rrb said...



that ran out long ago. UN security council resolutions are not worth the paper they're printed on.

wphamilton said...

And if Trump reasons that way, that's where he can screw up. Sanctions haven't worked, I talked to China that didn't work, OK generals lay out some plans and I'll pick one.

There is so much wrong with that train of thought that I won't even start. But I think that's what he did in Syria, achieving nothing, and he might do it again in North Korea. But this time the unintended consequences could be catastrophic.

wphamilton said...

Trump has people around who think just such things.

Who? Who specifically does Trump advising him that is even qualified to tell him what to consider? Pense? His son in law?

caliphate4vr said...

Come on a sternly worded letter signed by António Guterres is all that's needed

Commonsense said...

Who? Who specifically does Trump advising him that is even qualified to tell him what to consider?

Kelly, McMasters, Mattis, Tilman, any of these people ring a bell with you?

Please WP, just stop it.

caliphate4vr said...

Just think though, the NorKs got the guidance system from China, who got it from Loral/Hughes, who's chairman Bernard L. Schwartz gave $600K to the donks in '96.

So if LA is obliterated we can again thank the Clinton's

KD, Alky is the Dow Down 600 like you predicted it would be - OR Up like i said and invested said...

Kelly, McMasters, Mattis, Tilman, any of these people ring a bell with you?

Please WP, just stop it. " CS

He is about as in-hinged as Roger, just slighty less.

opie said...

Trump has people around who think just such things.

Many....menstrsl talks, he really means it.....LOL

wphamilton said...

I would expect John Kelly to be qualified in subjects dear to infantry commanders, tactics, and Command and Staff College studies. You'd probably expect him to be a decent administrator. Why would you expect him to be an expert in the questions I'm raising? He's a General so he must know everything about our allies and enemies, is that how you see it?

"Tilman", who the hell are you talking about?

Do you think these are simple issues, that anyone who has had success in any arena can just pick up as they go along?

Commonsense said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Commonsense said...

Tillerman, (fat fingers). You really don't know the training and requirements of a modern military general officer involves more than just military tactics?

That military strategy just can't be divorced from statesmanship?

You are being obstinate.

If there anyone who knows the potential cost and pitfalls of any military option it would be those general officers.

They also fully appreciate the consequences of a nuclear North Korea under a truly mentally unstable leader who has the capacity to launch ballistic missiles at the continental US.

The nuclear destruction of San Francisco and Los Angeles is no longer just the stuff of dystopian novels.

rrb said...


Do you think these are simple issues, that anyone who has had success in any arena can just pick up as they go along?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

wp, pentagon staff has plans on the shelf to invade canada for chrissakes. virtually every contingency for every imaginable scenario has been studied. have they thought of everything? no.

regarding NK, there is no easy answer. the chi-coms and the russians are on their side. you launch an offensive against NK and you've started WW III. it's that simple.

anyhow, i'm very confident that the military experts are in place to guide trump's decisions, and to prevent him from making a bad one.

one thing is certain - the 'sleights of the round table' at the UN will assume it's traditional worthless role in the process, "remaining seized of the matter."




wphamilton said...

That military strategy just can't be divorced from statesmanship?

You are operating under a serious misconception if you believe this. It's hard to emphasize enough just how wrong this is, and how important it is to understand that it's wrong.

Few if any of our great military leaders have shown a broad understanding of the political dimensions of war, or the other requisites of statesmanship, but as important as that point is ... it's fundamental to the reason we have civilian control over the military. General command has a different perspective, different goals and objectives - we don't even want active command involved in statesmanship, diplomacy and politics. Why would you think that statesmanship is even a factor in military command, let alone integral to it?

We all understand the failures of political micromanagement of the conflict in Vietnam. That goes both ways.

wphamilton said...

Tillerman, (fat fingers).

You mean Tillerson?? Ex-CEO of Exon, yes that inspires absolutely no confidence as Secretary of State.

Generals, amateurs, political hacks and family members. Wonderful.

Commonsense said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Commonsense said...

You weren't do bother with amateurs of the Obama administration.

Look what that got us. The greatest foreign policy failures since the end of the cold war.

I'll take generals over Ivy league professors any day of the week.

wphamilton said...

wp, pentagon staff has plans on the shelf to invade canada for chrissakes.

A decision tree for military conflicts.

Do you suppose that the Pentagon has plans regarding tit-for-tat trade escalations with China resulting from, say, a limited strike in the DMZ to "send a message" like Trump did in Syria, and in the case those escalations will include Chinese restriction of the use of the trade routes by our allies in the South China Sea, and how our anticipated economic and diplomatic response to that will conform to domestic economic policy and to our international diplomatic strategy?

I highly doubt it.

Commonsense said...

Few if any of our great military leaders have shown a broad understanding of the political dimensions of war, or the other requisites of statesmanship

Washington, Eisenhower, Grant, to name a few.

Commonsense said...

We all understand the failures of political micromanagement of the conflict in Vietnam. That goes both ways.

Just so you know, the Vietnam war was brought to you by the Washington chapter of the Harvard alumni club.

opie said...

I'll take generals over Ivy league professors any day of the week.

Funny coming from the uneducated fraud of floriduh.......

Commonsense said...

See above.

wphamilton said...

And Grant and Eisenhower are your models of good Presidents, CH?

wphamilton said...

Just so you know, the Vietnam war was brought to you by the Washington chapter of the Harvard alumni club.

Am I being unclear? Politicians managing battlefield decisions is as Battlefield tacticians managing political decisions. I do not approve of either one. You seem to extol the virtues of the latter.

wphamilton said...

Scaramucci didn't even last two weeks. Trump's choices in advisers leave a lot to be desired. Even by his standards.

Commonsense said...

Starting a war in Vietnam wasn't a military decision.

It was a political decision.

You have never read Clausewitz have you?

"War is the continuation of politics by other means."

wphamilton said...

There are certain questions for which either of those two sentences may be answers. They aren't part of this conversation however.

rrb said...

Do you suppose that the Pentagon has plans regarding tit-for-tat trade escalations with China resulting from, say, a limited strike in the DMZ to "send a message" like Trump did in Syria,
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

i think you get china's attention without firing a shot. start taking actions to make SK and Japan nuclear in response to NK's threats, and suddenly the chi-coms have given the situation their full attention.