Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
So they cancelled using Trumps golf resort for the G-7, blaming evil media of course. Here's Mulvaney explaining it.
The president was honestly surprised at the level of pushback, he considers himself still in the hospitality business. He just wanted to put on the best show and was confident doing it at Doral
Imagine having this level of shamelessness. Without a care in the world describing this self dealing bullshit
Now they will have to 'search' for other options. But when he first announced it he said it was selected after a rigorous selection procedure, just because Doral was simply the best and pure coincidence it was also Trump property. /s
That procedure was said to have other options. So why not take the second candidate? Probably because they were all Trump locations too or the whole thing was a lie?
is mick mulvaney purposely trying to undermine trump or what? how did he think saying trump considered himself to be in the hospitality business was going to be a good thing? there are so many clowns in government its fucking ridiculous
On October 21 2019 14:29 evilfatsh1t wrote: is mick mulvaney purposely trying to undermine trump or what? how did he think saying trump considered himself to be in the hospitality business was going to be a good thing? there are so many clowns in government its fucking ridiculous
Garry Kasparov often describes these kind of outrageous acts by authoritarians as a test. For one it's testing the boundaries of what they can get away with. If there is no consequence for doing it they will make it the new norm, and go one step further next time. And secondary it's a loyalty/purity test. Even if they don't get away with it, they can see who would defend them regardless of the bad act.
The sentiment is echoed by the former White House ethics director + Show Spoiler +
On October 23 2019 01:35 Mohdoo wrote: Trump invoking "lynching" makes me think something damaging will happen today, even if it isn't a breaking point or anything.
I don't think so, he is just kinda crazy with what he says.
A insane trump tweet isnt a sign of anything more than trump is insane these days
How is Tulsi still around? She didnt Make the 3rd debate, only appeared on the 4th debate for approx 5minutes, and now all of the sudden she has the Hillary Clinton gas-lighting her. Meanwhile Tulsi is showing up on Fox News of all places spouting all sorts of cunning cliches trite phases about how their is no civility in the democratic process. I cannot comprehend why the media is highlighting a candidate that is polling at 0.7% so prominently.
On October 23 2019 02:16 redlightdistrict wrote: How is Tulsi still around? She didnt Make the 3rd debate, only appeared on the 4th debate for approx 5minutes, and now all of the sudden she has the Hillary Clinton gas-lighting her. Meanwhile Tulsi is showing up on Fox News of all places spouting all sorts of cunning cliches trite phases about how their is no civility in the democratic process. I cannot comprehend why the media is highlighting a candidate that is polling at 0.7% so prominently.
She's being artificially inflated because the media wants additional dramatic storylines for people to tune into the same way they'd watch a soap opera. She's just the next Jill Stein. Same reason media companies seem to insist on asking every single nominee if they would consider a run as a 3rd party if they don't win. A super small number of candidates would ever consider that, but the media likes to pretend it is a valid question.
On October 23 2019 01:35 Mohdoo wrote: Trump invoking "lynching" makes me think something damaging will happen today, even if it isn't a breaking point or anything.
Bill Taylor, the diplomat that said in the texts with Sonderland "I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign" is being interviewed by the impeachment inquiry today
Apparently he directly confirms the link between the aid and the Biden stuff
So he probably thought it was better that people talk about his disgusting comparison to a lynching than this
The lynching story is just a politician (or other prominent figure) casually using a phrase that probably should not be used casually, but often is. It seems pretty stupid to make a big deal out of it now, when it usually amounts to nothing. But of course the twitter mob has to get outraged and give us the holier than thou history lesson rather than focus on what’s important.
Bill Taylor is important. I don’t think Trump does this on purpose, but his ability to induce stupid outrage provides a lot of cover for his actual crimes.
On October 23 2019 04:48 RenSC2 wrote: The real story is Bill Taylor.
The lynching story is just a politician (or other prominent figure) casually using a phrase that probably should not be used casually, but often is. It seems pretty stupid to make a big deal out of it now, when it usually amounts to nothing. But of course the twitter mob has to get outraged and give us the holier than thou history lesson rather than focus on what’s important.
Bill Taylor is important. I don’t think Trump does this on purpose, but his ability to induce stupid outrage provides a lot of cover for his actual crimes.
Indeed. If Trump was not to one’s taste politically but relatively squeaky-clean I could understand jumping on something like this, as this manifestly is not the case it just feels like it redirects energy away from his more egregious conduct.
So let's say we have sworn testimony saying Trump directed all the bad shit we think he did. But no recording or whatever. What counts as evidence? Post meeting notes? How does this work?
There’s certainly a transcript, so there’s no issue in terms of evidencing Taylor’s testimony, it’s more a question of how the testimony is disseminated.
On October 23 2019 05:43 farvacola wrote: There’s certainly a transcript, so there’s no issue in terms of evidencing Taylor’s testimony, it’s more a question of how the testimony is disseminated.
So you're saying Taylor's recollection is considered evidence?
EPT
