We need to talk about Donald: cursing and swearing allowed

[Animavore]

More miscreance and incompetence from the scum-bag administration.

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/11/8/166 ... ata-career

[L'Emmerdeur]

More miscreance and incompetence from the scum-bag administration.

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/11/8/166 ... ata-career

It's not illegal though!

[Rum]

Trump's flip flop over China. As a candidate China was 'raping' the USA. Now...well more or less kissy kissy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-c ... date-trump

[L'Emmerdeur]

Trump's flip flop over China. As a candidate China was 'raping' the USA. Now...well more or less kissy kissy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-c ... date-trump

He doesn't talk so brave when he's face to face with the Chinese and not in front of a slavering crowd of supporters. Besides which, the Chinese wined and dined him in the Forbidden City, stroking his obese ego; they've got his number. Previous presidents have insisted on taking questions from the press on visits to China, but the Internet Tough Guy in Chief kowtowed to the Chinese and ignored questions.

During an event in Beijing on Thursday, President Trump broke with decades of precedent, refusing to allow questions from reporters. The president, who is currently on a 12-day trip across Asia, has spent the past few days meeting with Chinese premier Xi Jinping, whose government is known for its efforts to control the press.

During a conference billed as a news briefing, Trump appeared alongside Xi but failed to respond to queries from the media. When asked about the decision, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders explained the rationale behind the move.

“It was at the Chinese insistence there were no questions today,” Sanders said.

Xi rarely takes questions from press and media repression by the Chinese government is common (according to Freedom House, China is home to one of the most restrictive media environments in the world). But U.S. presidents typically challenge that norm while visiting China. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush insisted on taking questions from reporters at their respective press conferences. When President Barack Obama visited China in 2014, Xi, under duress, took one lone question from a member of the press belonging to a Chinese state newspaper. (He ignored another question from a U.S. reporter, who asked about visas for U.S. journalists.)

...

Trump’s decision to humor China’s press policies sparked criticism on social media. CNN anchor Jake Tapper detailed the numerous press briefings U.S. presidents have held in China where they have historically insisted on taking questions. Former White House press secretary Jay Carney noted the measures the Obama administration took in an effort to underscore the importance of media freedoms.

“I once had to tell Chinese officials that Pres. Obama would not show up for the press avail unless there would be a Q&A,” Carney tweeted. “They backed down.”

[L'Emmerdeur]

More on the Trump/Tillerson gutting of the Department of State, from Barbara Stephenson, former ambassador, president of the American Foreign Service Association, and former dean of the Leadership and Management School at the Foreign Service Institute:

'Time to Ask Why'

There is no denying that [State Department] leadership ranks are being depleted at a dizzying speed, due in part to the decision to slash promotion numbers by more than half. The Foreign Service officer corps at State has lost 60 percent of its Career Ambassadors since January. Ranks of Career Ministers, our three-star equivalents, are down from 33 to 19. The ranks of our two-star Minister Counselors have fallen from 431 right after Labor Day to 369 today—and are still falling.

These numbers are hard to square with the stated agenda of making State and the Foreign Service stronger. Were the U.S. military to face such a decapitation of its leadership ranks, I would expect a public outcry. Like the military, the Foreign Service recruits officers at entry level and grows them into seasoned leaders over decades. The talent being shown the door now is not only our top talent, but also talent that cannot be replicated overnight. The rapid loss of so many senior officers has a serious, immediate, and tangible effect on the capacity of the United States to shape world events.

...

As the shape and extent of the staffing cuts to the Foreign Service at State become clearer, I believe we must shine a light on these disturbing trends and ask “why?” and “to what end?”

Congress rejected drastic cuts to State and USAID funding. The Senate labeled the proposed cuts a “doctrine of retreat” and directed that appropriated funds “shall support” staffing State at not less than Sept. 30, 2016, levels, and further directed that “The Secretary of State shall continue A-100 entry-level classes for FSOs in a manner similar to prior years.”

Given this clear congressional intent, we have to ask: Why such a focus on slashing staffing at State? Why such a focus on decapitating leadership? How do these actions serve the stated agenda of making the State Department stronger?

Remember, nine in ten Americans favor a strong global leadership role for our great country, and we know from personal experience that such leadership is unthinkable without a strong professional Foreign Service deployed around the world protecting and defending America’s people, interests and values. Where then, does the impetus come from to weaken the American Foreign Service? Where is the mandate to pull the Foreign Service team from the field and forfeit the game to our adversaries?

Trump's reply to questions about this: "Let me tell you, the one that matters is me. I'm the only one that matters, because when it comes to it, that's what the policy is going to be. You've seen that, you've seen it strongly."

You don't need people who've trained in international diplomacy their entire professional lives when you're one of the smartest people with one of the greatest memories of all time who has the best words.

[Tero]

Just one tax bill! One more judge! Then they can dump Trump AND reverse Roe vs Wade
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... -in-the-us

[pErvinalia]

You don't need people who've trained in international diplomacy their entire professional lives when you're one of the smartest people with one of the greatest memories of all time who has the best words.

[Tero]

How does he get his instructions from Fox and Friends while in China?

[Brian Peacock]

“It was at the Chinese insistence there were no questions today,”

Well, he does have some Trump brand claims in the Chinese pipeline, so probably best not to upset his host. But that statement certainly let's us know who's in charge there - they insisted.

[Animavore]

This came up on my Facebook memories from a year ago. Pretty much nailed it.

So let's have a look at Trump's plan for the first 100 days.
Massive deregulation of corporations.
Cutting that pesky red tape blocking drugs reaching the market by the FDA, so Big Pharma can push out badly regulated drugs.
Big sell offs of oilfields, shale, natural gas and 'clean coal', whatever the fuck that is, which should delight the Koch Brothers and ExxonMobil.
Dismantling of the healthcare system and in it's place a new system which expects you to pay out of your savings.
Privatisation of roadworks which will increase toll booths.
Taking back some of Obama's Executive Orders, and you can be guaranteed that means stripping funding to Planned Parenthood and the ban on funding abstinence sex education, and maybe they'll even try reverse gay marriage.
Scrapping the green energy plan which would've seen over 100 billion dollars over ten years in developing jobs and research in the green sector. Meanwhile China is going through something of a green revolution and is fastly becoming a World leader in solar and wind and other technologies of the future.
Going full steam ahead with controversial pipelines, like DAPL for instance.
Massive tax breaks for the 1% which is supposed to magically trickle down to the working class.
The list goes on.
Did people really believe this known, dodgy businessman represented the common people and was going to stick it to the corporations?
You've been duped, you were told you were being, and you still voted for him. And now you can't blame the Left, or teh libruls, or the educated elite. You guys need to own this, and take responsibility for this, and push your leader down the right path.

And his supporters still haven't owned responsibility for their massive fuck up.

[pErvinalia]

I think the US might have to drop a nuke on itself and start again.

[Animavore]

Well there's quite a few have lost the plot in the US, but I've no idea how representative sample sizes are.

Take a look at this review of Daddy's Home 2. A movie which the reviewer says is mean-spirited and glorifies bullying, sexual harassment, and generally treating people like shit.

http://m.ign.com/articles/2017/11/10/da ... e-2-review

The comment section has erupted with Trumpettes calling the reviewer a "cuck", saying he has "sand in his vagina", and scoffing that he didn't use the term "toxic-masculinity" on a crap-looking comedy which isn't even political. There are people on there claiming they are going to watch this piece of shit because they believe it pissed off "libtards". I don't see a single "SJW" type on the comment section, in other words they are generating their own hate!

I did point out the irony of these morons enraptured by watchi ng a "mean-spirited" movie while they themselves have been shedding buckets over the "mean-spirited" SNL.

[Seabass]

[Brian Peacock]

Kimmel is a wily old fox.

[Forty Two]

Well there's quite a few have lost the plot in the US, but I've no idea how representative sample sizes are.

Take a look at this review of Daddy's Home 2. A movie which the reviewer says is mean-spirited and glorifies bullying, sexual harassment, and generally treating people like shit.

http://m.ign.com/articles/2017/11/10/da ... e-2-review

The comment section has erupted with Trumpettes calling the reviewer a "cuck", saying he has "sand in his vagina", and scoffing that he didn't use the term "toxic-masculinity" on a crap-looking comedy which isn't even political. There are people on there claiming they are going to watch this piece of shit because they believe it pissed off "libtards". I don't see a single "SJW" type on the comment section, in other words they are generating their own hate!

I did point out the irony of these morons enraptured by watchi ng a "mean-spirited" movie while they themselves have been shedding buckets over the "mean-spirited" SNL.

Aren't there more important things to talk about than a looney fringe of right wing Trumpettes getting all bunged about a movie reviewer who got all bunged up about dopey comedy?

I've been arguing for days against people saying that bringing up academic papers, peer reviewed and published, written by the "looney academic left..." is just to silly, fringe and insignificant to warrant discussion.... and here's a thread that goes without such comment from the same people about a reviewer who reviewed "Daddy's Home 2" and said that it "promotes bullying" and whatnot, and then a slew of comments from "Trumpettes" saying the reviewer is a big, fat pussy. Yes, indeed, that sounds crucial. That sounds like it presages the end of civilization....