|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The boy wonder actually speaks! What a coincidence this happens a week after Maher called him out on Real Time.
|
On June 20 2017 10:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 08:55 Introvert wrote:On June 20 2017 08:04 Gorsameth wrote:On June 20 2017 07:55 Introvert wrote:On June 20 2017 07:47 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2017 07:41 Introvert wrote:At six in the morning, a man is startled awake by an insistent pounding on his front door. He opens it to find armed government agents. One group of them begins to ransack the man’s home. Two others take him outside and put him into the back seat of a nondescript government vehicle. One of the armed government agents sits on either side of him, trapping him. As he sits, blinking and confused in his pajamas, they begin to bark questions at him. Was he at a particular meeting, on a particular date, with a political figure who is under suspicion of wrongdoing? The man, confused and afraid and thoroughly intimidated, makes a bad choice — he answers, and he lies. He says he was not at the meeting. The armed government agents smile. They already have witnesses placing the man at the meeting. They already have a recording of the man at the meeting. His lie does not deter, mislead, or even mildly inconvenience them. But now they have him, whether or not he’s done anything wrong before — now he’s lied to the government, a serious crime.
That scenario is not from some totalitarian foreign country or some fictional dystopia. It’s from America, here and now. It happened just like that to one of my clients, interrogated at dawn by the FBI. It represents the vast power of law enforcement — especially federal law enforcement — to turn investigations of crimes into schemes to produce new crimes.
Federal criminal investigative power is in the news as President Trump and his associates face an investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Reports — and some ill-considered tweets by the president — suggest that Mueller’s focus may be not just Russian shenanigans but obstruction of the investigation into the same. Trump supporters are enraged; some Trump detractors are delighted. Nobody should be comfortable, unless they are at ease with vast and flexible law-enforcement power over citizens, especially controversial ones. Our system gives federal prosecutors and investigators — from locals across the country to the rare and elite like Mueller — extraordinary power to turn Americans’ lives upside down and prosecute not just prior crimes but any very common and human missteps their frightened targets make in reaction to the investigation. Read the second half at National Review In the first example the person has been seized without warning and is being held under some duress without access to legal representation. In the second example the person is the President of the United States and is tweeting while taking a shit. I don't think it's unreasonable to disagree with the first while still having no sympathy for the second. It's not about sympathy; I agree with you that the president's tweets are self-inflicted wounds. Then what is it about? The comparison makes no sense considering how divergent the two situations are. No one involved in the FBI investigation pressured Trump into firing Comney, unless you consider Sessions an inside mole working to oust Trump. I'll just leave the final paragraph here. And I don't agree with everything (you shouldn't be lying to the feds in the first place), but I think he makes an interesting point. Some Americans hope that the independent counsel’s investigation will end Trump’s presidency. But however much you hate the president, you should not love a process that often generates crimes rather than detecting and punishing them. If you support this president, then this experience should lead you to question — perhaps for the first time — such prosecutorial power.
Sure prosecutorial power can be an issue. And the example of people without access to a lawyer being pressured into a lie is bad. But none of that has anything to do with Trump firing the man investigating him and then bragging about it to 3e parties. The article makes no sense when this case has none of the signs of abuse of power in an attempt to make a crime where non exists.
People would disagree with this. This is about taking an original case (collusion, which is falling apart), and now switching full bore into obstruction, based on very little.
On June 20 2017 11:12 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 10:00 Gorsameth wrote:On June 20 2017 08:55 Introvert wrote:On June 20 2017 08:04 Gorsameth wrote:On June 20 2017 07:55 Introvert wrote:On June 20 2017 07:47 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2017 07:41 Introvert wrote:At six in the morning, a man is startled awake by an insistent pounding on his front door. He opens it to find armed government agents. One group of them begins to ransack the man’s home. Two others take him outside and put him into the back seat of a nondescript government vehicle. One of the armed government agents sits on either side of him, trapping him. As he sits, blinking and confused in his pajamas, they begin to bark questions at him. Was he at a particular meeting, on a particular date, with a political figure who is under suspicion of wrongdoing? The man, confused and afraid and thoroughly intimidated, makes a bad choice — he answers, and he lies. He says he was not at the meeting. The armed government agents smile. They already have witnesses placing the man at the meeting. They already have a recording of the man at the meeting. His lie does not deter, mislead, or even mildly inconvenience them. But now they have him, whether or not he’s done anything wrong before — now he’s lied to the government, a serious crime.
That scenario is not from some totalitarian foreign country or some fictional dystopia. It’s from America, here and now. It happened just like that to one of my clients, interrogated at dawn by the FBI. It represents the vast power of law enforcement — especially federal law enforcement — to turn investigations of crimes into schemes to produce new crimes.
Federal criminal investigative power is in the news as President Trump and his associates face an investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Reports — and some ill-considered tweets by the president — suggest that Mueller’s focus may be not just Russian shenanigans but obstruction of the investigation into the same. Trump supporters are enraged; some Trump detractors are delighted. Nobody should be comfortable, unless they are at ease with vast and flexible law-enforcement power over citizens, especially controversial ones. Our system gives federal prosecutors and investigators — from locals across the country to the rare and elite like Mueller — extraordinary power to turn Americans’ lives upside down and prosecute not just prior crimes but any very common and human missteps their frightened targets make in reaction to the investigation. Read the second half at National Review In the first example the person has been seized without warning and is being held under some duress without access to legal representation. In the second example the person is the President of the United States and is tweeting while taking a shit. I don't think it's unreasonable to disagree with the first while still having no sympathy for the second. It's not about sympathy; I agree with you that the president's tweets are self-inflicted wounds. Then what is it about? The comparison makes no sense considering how divergent the two situations are. No one involved in the FBI investigation pressured Trump into firing Comney, unless you consider Sessions an inside mole working to oust Trump. I'll just leave the final paragraph here. And I don't agree with everything (you shouldn't be lying to the feds in the first place), but I think he makes an interesting point. Some Americans hope that the independent counsel’s investigation will end Trump’s presidency. But however much you hate the president, you should not love a process that often generates crimes rather than detecting and punishing them. If you support this president, then this experience should lead you to question — perhaps for the first time — such prosecutorial power.
Sure prosecutorial power can be an issue. And the example of people without access to a lawyer being pressured into a lie is bad. But none of that has anything to do with Trump firing the man investigating him and then bragging about it to 3e parties. The article makes no sense when this case has none of the signs of abuse of power in an attempt to make a crime where non exists. Stories like that are one of the few straws that Donald Trump voters have to fall back on. Stories about the political process and dialogue in America. It was the only basis a thinking conservative ever had to vote for Trump, so they need something to grasp at while it becomes abundantly clear, in the most predictable way possible, that they elected a president whose presidency is an attention getting endeavor, and who doesn't have a clue. + Show Spoiler +
Are you confusing me or the author for a Trump supporter? Is that the only way one could possible be concerned about any of this?
|
On June 20 2017 14:37 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 11:12 Doodsmack wrote:On June 20 2017 10:00 Gorsameth wrote:On June 20 2017 08:55 Introvert wrote:On June 20 2017 08:04 Gorsameth wrote:On June 20 2017 07:55 Introvert wrote:On June 20 2017 07:47 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2017 07:41 Introvert wrote:At six in the morning, a man is startled awake by an insistent pounding on his front door. He opens it to find armed government agents. One group of them begins to ransack the man’s home. Two others take him outside and put him into the back seat of a nondescript government vehicle. One of the armed government agents sits on either side of him, trapping him. As he sits, blinking and confused in his pajamas, they begin to bark questions at him. Was he at a particular meeting, on a particular date, with a political figure who is under suspicion of wrongdoing? The man, confused and afraid and thoroughly intimidated, makes a bad choice — he answers, and he lies. He says he was not at the meeting. The armed government agents smile. They already have witnesses placing the man at the meeting. They already have a recording of the man at the meeting. His lie does not deter, mislead, or even mildly inconvenience them. But now they have him, whether or not he’s done anything wrong before — now he’s lied to the government, a serious crime.
That scenario is not from some totalitarian foreign country or some fictional dystopia. It’s from America, here and now. It happened just like that to one of my clients, interrogated at dawn by the FBI. It represents the vast power of law enforcement — especially federal law enforcement — to turn investigations of crimes into schemes to produce new crimes.
Federal criminal investigative power is in the news as President Trump and his associates face an investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Reports — and some ill-considered tweets by the president — suggest that Mueller’s focus may be not just Russian shenanigans but obstruction of the investigation into the same. Trump supporters are enraged; some Trump detractors are delighted. Nobody should be comfortable, unless they are at ease with vast and flexible law-enforcement power over citizens, especially controversial ones. Our system gives federal prosecutors and investigators — from locals across the country to the rare and elite like Mueller — extraordinary power to turn Americans’ lives upside down and prosecute not just prior crimes but any very common and human missteps their frightened targets make in reaction to the investigation. Read the second half at National Review In the first example the person has been seized without warning and is being held under some duress without access to legal representation. In the second example the person is the President of the United States and is tweeting while taking a shit. I don't think it's unreasonable to disagree with the first while still having no sympathy for the second. It's not about sympathy; I agree with you that the president's tweets are self-inflicted wounds. Then what is it about? The comparison makes no sense considering how divergent the two situations are. No one involved in the FBI investigation pressured Trump into firing Comney, unless you consider Sessions an inside mole working to oust Trump. I'll just leave the final paragraph here. And I don't agree with everything (you shouldn't be lying to the feds in the first place), but I think he makes an interesting point. Some Americans hope that the independent counsel’s investigation will end Trump’s presidency. But however much you hate the president, you should not love a process that often generates crimes rather than detecting and punishing them. If you support this president, then this experience should lead you to question — perhaps for the first time — such prosecutorial power.
Sure prosecutorial power can be an issue. And the example of people without access to a lawyer being pressured into a lie is bad. But none of that has anything to do with Trump firing the man investigating him and then bragging about it to 3e parties. The article makes no sense when this case has none of the signs of abuse of power in an attempt to make a crime where non exists. Stories like that are one of the few straws that Donald Trump voters have to fall back on. Stories about the political process and dialogue in America. It was the only basis a thinking conservative ever had to vote for Trump, so they need something to grasp at while it becomes abundantly clear, in the most predictable way possible, that they elected a president whose presidency is an attention getting endeavor, and who doesn't have a clue. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waFAkKYY6xE Are you confusing me or the author for a Trump supporter? Is that the only way one could possible be concerned about any of this?
Sure there's reason to be concerned, the idea of law enforcement creating crimes where none existed, pressuring people to so much as say the wrong thing, and preying on normal people is a terrifying thought. Not sure how it has much to do with Trump saying stupid, self-incriminating things every day though.
|
On June 20 2017 14:37 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 11:12 Doodsmack wrote:On June 20 2017 10:00 Gorsameth wrote:On June 20 2017 08:55 Introvert wrote:On June 20 2017 08:04 Gorsameth wrote:On June 20 2017 07:55 Introvert wrote:On June 20 2017 07:47 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2017 07:41 Introvert wrote:At six in the morning, a man is startled awake by an insistent pounding on his front door. He opens it to find armed government agents. One group of them begins to ransack the man’s home. Two others take him outside and put him into the back seat of a nondescript government vehicle. One of the armed government agents sits on either side of him, trapping him. As he sits, blinking and confused in his pajamas, they begin to bark questions at him. Was he at a particular meeting, on a particular date, with a political figure who is under suspicion of wrongdoing? The man, confused and afraid and thoroughly intimidated, makes a bad choice — he answers, and he lies. He says he was not at the meeting. The armed government agents smile. They already have witnesses placing the man at the meeting. They already have a recording of the man at the meeting. His lie does not deter, mislead, or even mildly inconvenience them. But now they have him, whether or not he’s done anything wrong before — now he’s lied to the government, a serious crime.
That scenario is not from some totalitarian foreign country or some fictional dystopia. It’s from America, here and now. It happened just like that to one of my clients, interrogated at dawn by the FBI. It represents the vast power of law enforcement — especially federal law enforcement — to turn investigations of crimes into schemes to produce new crimes.
Federal criminal investigative power is in the news as President Trump and his associates face an investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Reports — and some ill-considered tweets by the president — suggest that Mueller’s focus may be not just Russian shenanigans but obstruction of the investigation into the same. Trump supporters are enraged; some Trump detractors are delighted. Nobody should be comfortable, unless they are at ease with vast and flexible law-enforcement power over citizens, especially controversial ones. Our system gives federal prosecutors and investigators — from locals across the country to the rare and elite like Mueller — extraordinary power to turn Americans’ lives upside down and prosecute not just prior crimes but any very common and human missteps their frightened targets make in reaction to the investigation. Read the second half at National Review In the first example the person has been seized without warning and is being held under some duress without access to legal representation. In the second example the person is the President of the United States and is tweeting while taking a shit. I don't think it's unreasonable to disagree with the first while still having no sympathy for the second. It's not about sympathy; I agree with you that the president's tweets are self-inflicted wounds. Then what is it about? The comparison makes no sense considering how divergent the two situations are. No one involved in the FBI investigation pressured Trump into firing Comney, unless you consider Sessions an inside mole working to oust Trump. I'll just leave the final paragraph here. And I don't agree with everything (you shouldn't be lying to the feds in the first place), but I think he makes an interesting point. Some Americans hope that the independent counsel’s investigation will end Trump’s presidency. But however much you hate the president, you should not love a process that often generates crimes rather than detecting and punishing them. If you support this president, then this experience should lead you to question — perhaps for the first time — such prosecutorial power.
Sure prosecutorial power can be an issue. And the example of people without access to a lawyer being pressured into a lie is bad. But none of that has anything to do with Trump firing the man investigating him and then bragging about it to 3e parties. The article makes no sense when this case has none of the signs of abuse of power in an attempt to make a crime where non exists. Stories like that are one of the few straws that Donald Trump voters have to fall back on. Stories about the political process and dialogue in America. It was the only basis a thinking conservative ever had to vote for Trump, so they need something to grasp at while it becomes abundantly clear, in the most predictable way possible, that they elected a president whose presidency is an attention getting endeavor, and who doesn't have a clue. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waFAkKYY6xE Are you confusing me or the author for a Trump supporter? Is that the only way one could possible be concerned about any of this?
We will soon have automatons to take the job of making every post another sign of a desperate Trump voter. Cosby mistrial? Sounds like one of the few straws Trump voters fall back on.
You're just not allowed to talk about broad topics until Trump is impeached or until after you've confessed faith in his culpability of obstruction collusion or both.
|
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — The publicity and uproar in the days before Sunday’s broadcast of Megyn Kelly’s interview with conspiracy theorist Alex Jones didn’t translate into ratings.
The NBC program was seen by 3.5 million viewers, according to Nielsen, an audience dwarfed by CBS rival “60 Minutes,” a rerun which drew 5.3 million viewers. “Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly” had 6.2 million viewers for Kelly’s interview of Vladimir Putin on the show’s June 4 debut.
In the days preceding her segment on Jones, Kelly had received widespread criticism for giving a platform to a man whose false allegations only added to the pain of the Newtown tragedy and even encouraged people to harass relatives of the victims. In the interview, Jones never gave a direct answer when Kelly pressed him to admit he was wrong and continued to raise questions about the shootings.
A parent of one of the children killed in the 2012 Connecticut school shootings says she won’t view the Megyn Kelly interview of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones that aired on NBC’s “Sunday Night With Megyn Kelly.”
Nicole Hockley’s 6-year-old son, Dylan, was among the 20 children and six educators killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. She said Monday she won’t watch the interview for “obvious” reasons; Jones has called the school shooting a hoax.
One Newtown parent did appear on Kelly’s program: Neil Heslin, whose 6-year-old son, Jesse Lewis, was killed. When Kelly asked him if he had anything to say to Jones for Father’s Day, when the interview aired, he responded, “I think he’s blessed to have his children to spend the day with, to speak to. I don’t have that.”
Andrew Friedman, a representative for the Newtown victims’ families, said Monday that neither he nor Joshua Koskoff, the lawyer for the families in a lawsuit against gun maker Remington Arms, had any comment on the Jones interview.
Connecticut’s NBC affiliate did not air Sunday’s report and lawyers representing 12 people who lost loved ones at Sandy Hook urged NBC News officials not to air the interview. NBC News Chairman Andy Lack told The Associated Press that the Jones story would be edited with its critics in mind.
Source
|
So how long do you think we'll have to wait for the book?
|
|
|
It is nice to see that the Alex Jones interview was a ratings bomb. Now if someone could just figure out how to get that man off Youtube.
|
|
|
Looks like Spicey is out, if reports are to be trusted, and will lead the search for a replacement.
|
On June 20 2017 14:37 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 10:00 Gorsameth wrote:On June 20 2017 08:55 Introvert wrote:On June 20 2017 08:04 Gorsameth wrote:On June 20 2017 07:55 Introvert wrote:On June 20 2017 07:47 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2017 07:41 Introvert wrote:At six in the morning, a man is startled awake by an insistent pounding on his front door. He opens it to find armed government agents. One group of them begins to ransack the man’s home. Two others take him outside and put him into the back seat of a nondescript government vehicle. One of the armed government agents sits on either side of him, trapping him. As he sits, blinking and confused in his pajamas, they begin to bark questions at him. Was he at a particular meeting, on a particular date, with a political figure who is under suspicion of wrongdoing? The man, confused and afraid and thoroughly intimidated, makes a bad choice — he answers, and he lies. He says he was not at the meeting. The armed government agents smile. They already have witnesses placing the man at the meeting. They already have a recording of the man at the meeting. His lie does not deter, mislead, or even mildly inconvenience them. But now they have him, whether or not he’s done anything wrong before — now he’s lied to the government, a serious crime.
That scenario is not from some totalitarian foreign country or some fictional dystopia. It’s from America, here and now. It happened just like that to one of my clients, interrogated at dawn by the FBI. It represents the vast power of law enforcement — especially federal law enforcement — to turn investigations of crimes into schemes to produce new crimes.
Federal criminal investigative power is in the news as President Trump and his associates face an investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Reports — and some ill-considered tweets by the president — suggest that Mueller’s focus may be not just Russian shenanigans but obstruction of the investigation into the same. Trump supporters are enraged; some Trump detractors are delighted. Nobody should be comfortable, unless they are at ease with vast and flexible law-enforcement power over citizens, especially controversial ones. Our system gives federal prosecutors and investigators — from locals across the country to the rare and elite like Mueller — extraordinary power to turn Americans’ lives upside down and prosecute not just prior crimes but any very common and human missteps their frightened targets make in reaction to the investigation. Read the second half at National Review In the first example the person has been seized without warning and is being held under some duress without access to legal representation. In the second example the person is the President of the United States and is tweeting while taking a shit. I don't think it's unreasonable to disagree with the first while still having no sympathy for the second. It's not about sympathy; I agree with you that the president's tweets are self-inflicted wounds. Then what is it about? The comparison makes no sense considering how divergent the two situations are. No one involved in the FBI investigation pressured Trump into firing Comney, unless you consider Sessions an inside mole working to oust Trump. I'll just leave the final paragraph here. And I don't agree with everything (you shouldn't be lying to the feds in the first place), but I think he makes an interesting point. Some Americans hope that the independent counsel’s investigation will end Trump’s presidency. But however much you hate the president, you should not love a process that often generates crimes rather than detecting and punishing them. If you support this president, then this experience should lead you to question — perhaps for the first time — such prosecutorial power.
Sure prosecutorial power can be an issue. And the example of people without access to a lawyer being pressured into a lie is bad. But none of that has anything to do with Trump firing the man investigating him and then bragging about it to 3e parties. The article makes no sense when this case has none of the signs of abuse of power in an attempt to make a crime where non exists. People would disagree with this. This is about taking an original case (collusion, which is falling apart), and now switching full bore into obstruction, based on very little. Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 11:12 Doodsmack wrote:On June 20 2017 10:00 Gorsameth wrote:On June 20 2017 08:55 Introvert wrote:On June 20 2017 08:04 Gorsameth wrote:On June 20 2017 07:55 Introvert wrote:On June 20 2017 07:47 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2017 07:41 Introvert wrote:At six in the morning, a man is startled awake by an insistent pounding on his front door. He opens it to find armed government agents. One group of them begins to ransack the man’s home. Two others take him outside and put him into the back seat of a nondescript government vehicle. One of the armed government agents sits on either side of him, trapping him. As he sits, blinking and confused in his pajamas, they begin to bark questions at him. Was he at a particular meeting, on a particular date, with a political figure who is under suspicion of wrongdoing? The man, confused and afraid and thoroughly intimidated, makes a bad choice — he answers, and he lies. He says he was not at the meeting. The armed government agents smile. They already have witnesses placing the man at the meeting. They already have a recording of the man at the meeting. His lie does not deter, mislead, or even mildly inconvenience them. But now they have him, whether or not he’s done anything wrong before — now he’s lied to the government, a serious crime.
That scenario is not from some totalitarian foreign country or some fictional dystopia. It’s from America, here and now. It happened just like that to one of my clients, interrogated at dawn by the FBI. It represents the vast power of law enforcement — especially federal law enforcement — to turn investigations of crimes into schemes to produce new crimes.
Federal criminal investigative power is in the news as President Trump and his associates face an investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Reports — and some ill-considered tweets by the president — suggest that Mueller’s focus may be not just Russian shenanigans but obstruction of the investigation into the same. Trump supporters are enraged; some Trump detractors are delighted. Nobody should be comfortable, unless they are at ease with vast and flexible law-enforcement power over citizens, especially controversial ones. Our system gives federal prosecutors and investigators — from locals across the country to the rare and elite like Mueller — extraordinary power to turn Americans’ lives upside down and prosecute not just prior crimes but any very common and human missteps their frightened targets make in reaction to the investigation. Read the second half at National Review In the first example the person has been seized without warning and is being held under some duress without access to legal representation. In the second example the person is the President of the United States and is tweeting while taking a shit. I don't think it's unreasonable to disagree with the first while still having no sympathy for the second. It's not about sympathy; I agree with you that the president's tweets are self-inflicted wounds. Then what is it about? The comparison makes no sense considering how divergent the two situations are. No one involved in the FBI investigation pressured Trump into firing Comney, unless you consider Sessions an inside mole working to oust Trump. I'll just leave the final paragraph here. And I don't agree with everything (you shouldn't be lying to the feds in the first place), but I think he makes an interesting point. Some Americans hope that the independent counsel’s investigation will end Trump’s presidency. But however much you hate the president, you should not love a process that often generates crimes rather than detecting and punishing them. If you support this president, then this experience should lead you to question — perhaps for the first time — such prosecutorial power.
Sure prosecutorial power can be an issue. And the example of people without access to a lawyer being pressured into a lie is bad. But none of that has anything to do with Trump firing the man investigating him and then bragging about it to 3e parties. The article makes no sense when this case has none of the signs of abuse of power in an attempt to make a crime where non exists. Stories like that are one of the few straws that Donald Trump voters have to fall back on. Stories about the political process and dialogue in America. It was the only basis a thinking conservative ever had to vote for Trump, so they need something to grasp at while it becomes abundantly clear, in the most predictable way possible, that they elected a president whose presidency is an attention getting endeavor, and who doesn't have a clue. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waFAkKYY6xE Are you confusing me or the author for a Trump supporter? Is that the only way one could possible be concerned about any of this?
It's an article that draws a false equivalency between Trump and another (despite your lack of an argument addressing those who have called out the false equivalency) while expressing sympathy for Trump, so it's not entirely unreasonable to conclude it's written by a Trump supporter.
|
Spicer was never really the problem, but he is the fall guy. I feel bad for whoever takes that role.
|
It is too bad that we have to revert back to failed tactics to deal with addiction and drug abuse in this country. But this is exactly what Sessions said he would do, so no one in congress can whine about it.
|
President Trump on Monday continued an apparent pattern of selectively commenting on hate crimes and terrorist attacks, leading White House critics to accuse him of failing to personally condemn violence carried out by non-Muslims.
Nearly 14 hours after a driver plowed through Muslim worshippers outside of a London mosque, killing at least one, Trump’s usually noisy personal Twitter account was uncharacteristically silent. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said in an off-camera press briefing that the administration’s “thoughts and prayers” were with those affected, but Trump personally had not weighed in on any format.
Trump, as president, has repeatedly promised to heal cross-racial divisions, but his slow reaction to violence against minorities or hate-related violence not perpetrated by Muslims is drawing scorn.
www.msn.com
|
On June 20 2017 22:56 Plansix wrote:
Spicer was never really the problem, but he is the fall guy. I feel bad for whoever takes that role.
Well nobody is forced to do it after all. At least Spicer could hope it would go all right. Would have to have lived under a rock to think that this is a good idea to take the job now.
I actually wonder how they will find someone at all. I can't imagine anyone of the required calibre who would want to commit such a political and professional seppuku.
|
He found a lawyer and depending on how you'll do it can also be a kickstarter for a career in comedy.
|
On June 20 2017 23:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 22:56 Plansix wrote:
Spicer was never really the problem, but he is the fall guy. I feel bad for whoever takes that role. Well nobody is forced to do it after all. At least Spicer could hope it would go all right. Would have to have lived under a rock to think that this is a good idea to take the job now. I actually wonder how they will find someone at all. I can't imagine anyone of the required calibre who would want to commit such a political and professional seppuku.
I'd take the job. If only to see what this circus looks like from the inside. But I dont think I have the profile they are looking for.
|
On June 20 2017 23:18 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 23:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 20 2017 22:56 Plansix wrote:
Spicer was never really the problem, but he is the fall guy. I feel bad for whoever takes that role. Well nobody is forced to do it after all. At least Spicer could hope it would go all right. Would have to have lived under a rock to think that this is a good idea to take the job now. I actually wonder how they will find someone at all. I can't imagine anyone of the required calibre who would want to commit such a political and professional seppuku. I'd take the job. If only to see what this circus looks like from the inside. But I dont think I have the profile they are looking for.
I'd take the job too for the lulz, I'd be fired within a week anyways for not getting along with the boss (or rather, I'd never be hired in the first place). I'm sure they can find someone if they dig low enough, the pool of people in the world is pretty large after all.
|
United States43877 Posts
Middle aged, male, white, able to tell jokes with perfect deadpan delivery.
|
On June 20 2017 23:22 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 23:18 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:On June 20 2017 23:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 20 2017 22:56 Plansix wrote:
Spicer was never really the problem, but he is the fall guy. I feel bad for whoever takes that role. Well nobody is forced to do it after all. At least Spicer could hope it would go all right. Would have to have lived under a rock to think that this is a good idea to take the job now. I actually wonder how they will find someone at all. I can't imagine anyone of the required calibre who would want to commit such a political and professional seppuku. I'd take the job. If only to see what this circus looks like from the inside. But I dont think I have the profile they are looking for. I'd take the job too for the lulz, I'd be fired within a week anyways for not getting along with the boss (or rather, I'd never be hired in the first place). I'm sure they can find someone if they dig low enough, the pool of people in the world is pretty large after all.
You just repeat word for word what The Donald tells you, then add some well placed jk jk's at the end of the most ridiculous statements for comic relief.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
