Another one bites the dust - bannon

[PRmerger]

He doesn’t have any.

I should have put an emoji after my last sentence. Something like, or It was a poor attempt at wit on my part.

 

[josie_L]

So when someone complains about Obama it’s justified because “there was a lot to complain about”, but when someone complains about Trump it is “gratuitous”?

Now there’s a double standard!!!

No, the incessant complaining is gratuitous, i.e., I never said individuals couldn’t complain about Trump, but there are those who constantly complain, which I regard now as whining.

Trump has given lots of material to complain about.

Yes, and no, i.e., I think you are following, in part, the leftist media narrative, that incessantly complains about him, no matter what he does, and cannot give him credit where credit is due.

I get that the right doesn’t like Obama. You should get that the left, the middle and sensible moderate conservatives don’t like Trump. Heck even many Republicans don’t like him.

Yes, I didn’t like Obama, I also didn’t criticize him incessantly, and when I did criticize him it wasn’t because so and so left or resigned from the WH (which really doesn’t affect the average person), or so and so used profanity, or so and so is supposedly a white supremacist (speculation), and I didn’t dissect every word he said and/or manipulate it.

It’s called “freedom of speech”. Both sides get to complain about their political rivals. Even most politicians get this. It isn’t whining, it’s a fundamental aspect of democracy.

I’m all for freedom of speech, but whining is still whining.

The Republicans complained about Obama at every turn, and now the Democrats do the same for Trump. Quelle surprise! If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Yes, yet did you see them building up false narratives (Russia) because Obama won and/or living in a mass hysterical bubble since he was elected (even the media thinks it talks too much about Trump). I think you really need to read a lot more to understand what I mean (look at the covers of the Economist and the New Yorker and some other publications to understand what I’m getting at), i.e., the media paints him as someone who is racist, mysogynistic, fascist . . . etc. And the power that the media has affects how we think and perceive people, so if the media were more responsible in the manner they reported, i.e., less rhetorical, than we would have more honesty and less anti-Trump diatribes.

In short, yes I believe you are holding Trump opponents to a different standard than Obama opponents.

And you would know this because??

It makes rational discourse with you very difficult.

No, it makes rational discourse with people who can’t even find one good thing about Trump, difficult.

 

[ProVobis]

No, it makes rational discourse with people who can’t even find one good thing about Trump, difficult.

So why are you trying?

 

[ProVobis]

So wake up. Before it’s too late.

That’s just it. He won’t let us sleep. (As Arnold stated.)

 

[OraLabora]

No, the incessant complaining is gratuitous, i.e., I never said individuals couldn’t complain about Trump, but there are those who constantly complain, which I regard now as whining.

It’s not gratuitous. He gives us new material to work with on a weekly basis. You know, I had hope at the start. I hoped that his awful behaviour on the campaign trail was simply to get elected, and that he would become presidential once elected. I, and millions of others, have been proven wrong.

Yes, and no, i.e., I think you are following, in part, the leftist media narrative, that incessantly complains about him, no matter what he does, and cannot give him credit where credit is due.

I get my news from multiple sources, with and without spin. I fail to see how anyone can come to any other conclusion that he is incompetent.

Yes, I didn’t like Obama, I also didn’t criticize him incessantly, and when I did criticize him it wasn’t because so and so left or resigned from the WH (which really doesn’t affect the average person), or so and so used profanity, or so and so is supposedly a white supremacist (speculation), and I didn’t dissect every word he said and/or manipulate it.

The turnover rate at the White House is beyond normal.

I’m all for freedom of speech, but whining is still whining.

Aye aye, ma’am…

Yes, yet did you see them building up false narratives (Russia) because Obama won and/or living in a mass hysterical bubble since he was elected.

Yes. It was called the birther movement, and involved trying to stop his legislative agenda at every turn

I think you really need to read a lot more to understand what I mean (look at the covers of the Economist and the New Yorker and some other publications to understand what I’m getting at), i.e., the media paints him as someone who is racist, mysogynistic, fascist . . . etc.

This comment is just plain gratuitously insulting.

And the power that the media has affects how we think and perceive people, so if the media were more responsible in the manner they reported, i.e., less rhetorical, than we would have more honesty and less anti-Trump diatribes.

And somehow the right-wing media is more saintly in this regard?

And you would know this because??

You don’t stop giving evidence. Just read above about “false narratives”.

No, it makes rational discourse with people who can’t even find one good thing about Trump, difficult.

As I said above, I tried.

Between the double-standards, and now the insults, I am putting you on ignore before you become an occasion of sin for me.

 

[dixieagle]

What in the world?

This administration cannot get more bizarre.

Never say never.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s not gratuitous. He gives us new material to work with on a weekly basis. You know, I had hope at the start. I hoped that his awful behaviour on the campaign trail was simply to get elected, and that he would become presidential once elected. I, and millions of others, have been proven wrong.

I get my news from multiple sources, with and without spin. I fail to see how anyone can come to any other conclusion that he is incompetent.

The turnover rate at the White House is beyond normal.

Aye aye, ma’am…

Yes. It was called the birther movement, and involved trying to stop his legislative agenda at every turn

This comment is just plain gratuitously insulting.

And somehow the right-wing media is more saintly in this regard?

You don’t stop giving evidence. Just read above about “false narratives”.

As I said above, I tried.

Between the double-standards, and now the insults, I am putting you on ignore before you become an occasion of sin for me.

Yeah. This. ^^.

 

[PRmerger]

Never say never.

True, true.

 

[Peter_J]

The answer to your question is that no THINKING person is likely to have voted for Trump. (I am leaving a little wiggle room so as not to be accused of calling ALL Trump voters “deplorables,” and also because a very good friend of mine voted for Trump and he is a thinking person.) The vast majority of people in the United States are NOT thinking people. They respond based largely on emotions, if not loving one candidate then hating the other. And, even more significantly, they have several of the same characteristics as Trump, which you enumerated. Trump is merely a reflection of modern cultural attitudes, which have been in decline for many years.

As a lifelong Republican, I was hopeful that very few non-deplorable Americans (NDAs) wanted Trump for President. By about April of 2016 I knew that I had been wrong. (Then we all got into the whole question of “Which is the lesser of two evils, a Trump presidency or a Clinton presidency?” etc etc etc.)

 

[ProVobis]

As a lifelong Republican, I was hopeful that very few non-deplorable Americans (NDAs) wanted Trump for President. By about April of 2016 I knew that I had been wrong. (Then we all got into the whole question of “Which is the lesser of two evils, a Trump presidency or a Clinton presidency?” etc etc etc.)

About that, what Cicero actually stated was Primum, minima de malis (First, choose the least of evils).

Too bad this principle was not adhered to in the primaries.

 

[josie_L]

I get my news from multiple sources, with and without spin. I fail to see how anyone can come to any other conclusion that he is incompetent.

This, in his first 100 days in office:

The US Stock Markets are at record highs and millions of Americans are benefitting in their retirement savings accounts.

The DOW daily closing stock market average rose more than 15% since the election on November 8th. (On November 9th the DOW closed at 18,332 – on March 1st the DOW closed at 21,115).

• Since the Inauguration on January 20th the DOW rose 6.5%. (It was at 19,827 at January 20th and reached 21,115 on March 1st.)

• The DOW took just 66 days to climb from 19,000 to above 21,000, the fastest 2,000 point run ever. The DOW closed above 19,000 for the first time on November 22nd and closed above 21,000 on March 1st.

• The DOW closed above 20,000 on January 25th and the March 1st rally matched the fastest-ever 1,000 point increase in the DOW at 24 days.

• The US Stock Market gained $2 trillion in wealth since Trump was elected!

• The S&P 500 broke $20 Trillion for the first time in its history.

• In the history of the DOW, going back to January 1901, the DOW record for most continuous closing high trading days was set in January of 1987 when Ronald Reagan was President. The DOW set closing highs an amazing 12 times in a row that month. On February 28th President Trump matched President Reagan when the DOW reached a new high for its 12th day in a row!

President Trump decreased the US Debt in his first 100 days by $100 Billion. (President Obama increased the US debt in his first 100 days by more than $560 Billion.)

The US Manufacturing Index soared to a 33 year high in this period which were the best numbers since 1983 under President Reagan.

President Trump added 298,000 jobs in his first month alone (after President Obama said jobs were not coming back!).

Housing sales are red-hot. In 2011, houses for sale were on the market an average 84 days. This year, it’s just 45 days.

Illegal immigration is down 67% since President Trump’s Inauguration.

NATO announced Allied spending is up $10 Billion because of President Trump.

After being nominated by President Trump, Constitutionalist Judge Neil Gorsuch was confirmed and sworn in as Supreme Court Justice in early April.

The President has signed 66 executive orders, memoranda and proclamations as of April 19th, including:

• Notifying Congress of a strike on Syria after it was reported that the country used gas on its citizens.
• Dismantling Obama’s climate change initiatives.
• Travel bans for individuals from a select number of countries embroiled in terrorist atrocities.
• Enforcing regulatory reform.
• Protecting Law enforcement.
• Mandating for every new regulation to eliminate two.
• Defeating ISIS.
• Rebuilding the military.
• Building a border wall.
• Cutting funding for sanctuary cities.
• Approving pipelines.
• Reducing regulations on manufacturers.
• Placing a hiring freeze on federal employees.
• Exiting the US from the TPP.

thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/draft-complete-list-of-president-trumps-accomplishments-in-his-first-100-days/

Yeah, he doesn’t have any competencies whatsoever.

 

[CatholicFireman]

I see chum is on the menu again.

 

[PRmerger]

I see chum is on the menu again.

What does this mean?

 

[petra22]

I guess if he could say that he could grab someone’s p***y, and still get your vote, (and note that I’m not even willing to type out that word, when here’s a man who *said *it, and claims he can grab it…in the Oval Office, the highest position in the land)…everything else he’s done isn’t going to remove your loyalty either.

That does seem logical. I shouldn’t even have asked.

Have you watched any movies lately? Have you watched any stand up comics? Listened to any pop/rap music? Read any current best sellers? The language in all these genres can be filthy and suggestive to say the least. Our children talk like sailors. Sorry to confess it but I have used filthy language in my past and my DH family thinks it’s their HERITAGE. Now you are going to say, but he DT is the President of the US. Yes, and he was caught in a private conversation that went public. It was awful. It was not respectful. But I’m not casting the first stone for this one. Just so you know I’ve made mistakes and I’m sure you have too. Men do talk like that when they are trying to make a worldly, macho impression. Say it isn’t so… sad yes but also true…

Hilary told me she was going to put a lot of coal companies and coal miners out of work. She told me she didn’t have ANY classified information on that secret server and that she turned over all her government business when she left the SOS… NOT…

 

[josie_L]

The turnover rate at the White House is beyond normal.

And you say this because you know what the turnover rate for other presidencies are:

**Are Trump’s Staff Turnovers Abnormal?
**

A look back at previous administrations shows that it’s too soon to tell. But Trump should heed some warning signs about in-house turmoil. In the past two weeks, the West Wing under President Trump has looked more like a revolving door than an optimally functioning office; three resignations and two new staff hires within ten days have drawn criticisms that the White House is abnormally chaotic and disorganized. But is it?

According to National Journal’s method of analyzing staff turnover, if Trump’s first year ended tomorrow, his current staff turnover rate would be in step with the average since Ronald Reagan. In an issue of their magazine called “Decision Makers,” National Journal looked at staffers from Reagan’s presidency through to Barack Obama’s. They identified the most influential ones as the “A” team and noted when (or if) each staffer left the White House. National Journal has ceased printing “Decision Makers,” but Brookings in 2013 offered a compelling analysis of the data available to that point.

Using the average of the four “A” lists, 11 percent of Trump’s key decision-making staff has shuffled through the White House, matching Clinton’s first-year losses and only exceeding the first-year average by 0.25 percent. Furthermore, the report notes that Reagan, Clinton, and Bush lost most of their staff in the first half of their first terms, with only Obama losing a majority in the second half. This suggests that early turnover while establishing and developing a White House staff is common in modern administrations, and history may look back on these firings as the ushering-in of a new Trump era.

Obama’s administration, notorious for having an exceedingly high rate of late-term staff turnover, should provide a lesson for Trump. By the week before Trump’s inauguration, Obama saw 20 cabinet departures — six fewer than FDR did in twelve years — and the movement or resignation of countless other aides and staffers. Even the Huffington Post couldn’t ignore it, publishing an article in 2014 attempting to explain away “a year of goodbyes at the White House.”

Read more at: nationalreview.com/article/450367/trump-staff-turnover-normal-abnormal-too-soon-tell

And somehow the right-wing media is more saintly in this regard?

No, I mean the liberal/Leftist MSM, where most individuals get their news is living in a liberal echo chamber of its own making, that influences others:

And the thing is, conservatives have a point. Study after study has shown that the mainstream media leans left, and that, as economists Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo have written, “an almost overwhelming fraction of journalists are liberal.” The extent of this bias, of course, depends on what your definitions of liberal and conservative. And the media has other, arguably more important, biases: towards controversy and producing content that is profitable. But it is safe to say that the median journalist in America is to the left of the median American voter, and that this affects how the news is presented to the public.

fortune.com/2015/11/02/liberal-media/

And then there’s this, to show how overwhelmingly journalists donated to the Hillary campaign:

Journalists Have Donated Nearly $400K to Hillary Clinton’s Campaign

Members of the news media are helping bank roll Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

So says a report Monday from the nonprofit journalism outfit the Center for Public Integrity.

Between Jan. 1 2015 and Aug. 30 2016, those who identified themselves in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors – and others known to be working in journalism – donated more than $396,000 combined to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to the report.
The vast majority of those funds – about $382,000, or 96% – went to the Democratic nominee. Only about $14,000 went to the Republican.

time.com/money/4533729/hillary-clinton-journalist-campaign-donations/

Are you seriously going to contend that there isn’t an ANTI-TRUMP bias.

 

[PRmerger]

Have you watched any movies lately? Have you watched any stand up comics? Listened to any pop/rap music? Read any current best sellers? The language in all these genres can be filthy and suggestive to say the least.

This is, frankly, as absurd an apologia for DT as I’ve ever heard.

Movies and comics and rap music and best sellers also talk about serial killers.

If you’re going to say that it’s just the way the world is, and that this gives permission for the POTUS to be a serial killer, well, then, I have nothing more to say to you.

Now, if you’re going to say that of course no POTUS should be a serial killer, even if movies and comics and rap music and best sellers talk about serial killers… then you’ve got to explain how you hold such a double standard.

“It’s ok to talk about grabbing someone’s p***y because, you know, movies and stand up comics and rap music and best sellers glorify this!”

And

“Of course it’s not ok to be a serial killer even if movies and stand up comics and rap music and best sellers glorify this!”.

Our children talk like sailors

Please don’t include my children in this. If yours do, I’m sorry about that.

But my children most certainly do not talk in this way.

 

[PRmerger]

Men do talk like that when they are trying to make a worldly, macho impression.

And it causes me great concern that a man who’s so desperate “to make a worldly, macho impression” has his hands on the nuclear football.

And that Christian folks voted for a man who they acknowledge is “trying to make a worldly, macho impression.”

Christian folks should be objecting vehemently that a man is “trying to make a worldly macho impression”, as this is pretty anti-Christian, right?

Worldly, macho men are exactly what get women in the position that they need an abortin, no?

 

[josie_L]

Yes. It was called the birther movement, and involved trying to stop his legislative agenda at every turn.

Oh, yes, I forgot about that birther movement, a movement, by the way. that I took NO PART IN, but, hey, since we’re on the subject of conspiracies, can you explain me this:

**That willingness to believe the worst about officials of the opposite party is a common feature of presidential rumor-mongering: In 2006, an Ohio University/Scripps Howard poll found that slightly more than half of Democrats said they suspected the Bush Administration of complicity in the Sept. 11 attacks.

politico.com/story/2011/04/birtherism-where-it-all-began-053563**

Or how about this one, Oralabora:

Then, as Obama marched toward the presidency, a new suggestion emerged: That he was not eligible to serve. (See: Birther debate alive across U.S.)

That theory first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship.

politico.com/story/2011/04/birtherism-where-it-all-began-053563

Republicans, indeed. Well, there’s goes your double standard down the drain.

You don’t stop giving evidence. Just read above about “false narratives”

“Liar, liar, pants on fire.”

Between the double-standards, and now the insults, I am putting you on ignore before you become an occasion of sin for me.

Too late.

 

[Peter_J]

About that, what Cicero actually stated was Primum, minima de malis (First, choose the least of evils).

Too bad this principle was not adhered to in the primaries.

I’ve observed that sometimes on internet discussion forums, bad posts actually make the poster *more *popular …

… perhaps there is a similar phenomenon in primary elections.

 

[josie_L]

Yeah. This. ^^.

You don’t say. I never would have thunk it.