Good King Trump

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Why, TLR? What useful idea does it convey? What good would it do?

Is it OK to punch a Nazi in the head? - Freethought Forum

[Zehava]

Originally Posted by JoeP

Is it OK to punch a Nazi in the head? - Freethought Forum

I was thinking more of a rebuke of his "grab them by the pussy" remark.

[Watser?]

Rebuke 'm in the balls!

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Originally Posted by Watser?

Rebuke 'm in the balls!

Misread rebuke as nuke.

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by Kamilah Hauptmann

Misread rebuke as nuke.

Rebuke 'm from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

[Watser?]

That would be a tad much...

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Originally Posted by Watser?

That would be a tad much...

Everything’s a tad much these days.

Also, lolswamp

Trump Financial Regulator Mulvaney Pushed CFPB To Back Off Industry That Bankrolled Him

[Watser?]

Trump's Transition Team Colluded With Israel. Why Isn't That News?

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Now Joe Arpaio wants to run for Jeff Flake’s Senate seat

But of course.

[erimir]

It sure is weird how there are some people for whom Russian collusion and meddling are fake news despite all the evidence involving numerous major Trump campaign people, but one discovery about (((Kushner))) trying to undermine the Obama admin to benefit Israel and they're all in on "Israeli collusion."

But really, ¿Porqué no los dos?

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Not shy about throwing Roy Moore shit into this toxic waste dump:

Richard Shelby on Roy Moore: 'The Republican Party can do better' | AL.com

"I didn't vote for Roy Moore. I wouldn't vote for Roy Moore. I think the Republican Party can do better," Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., told CNN's Jake Tapper.

That’s Alabama’s GOP senior senator.

[Watser?]

Finally news?

IsraelGate: The Arrogance of Jewish Power in the United States - American Herald Tribune

[erimir]

I've never heard of American Herald Tribune. You sometimes link to weird news sites. But assuming it's a good site, it's not particularly popular in the US, so I'd say no, it doesn't mean much. But:

December 1, Buzzfeed: It Was Kushner Who Told Flynn To Make Calls About Israel UN Vote, Source Says

December 7, Salon: https://www.salon.com/2017/12/07/fly...ussia_partner/

Your own friends at the Intercept also count as the news.

I suppose none of those sites count as "mainstream news", but Buzzfeed and Salon are certainly far more well-known than the American Herald Tribune...

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Can’t bring yourself to vote for a Democrat? Write in a football coach!

[erimir]

Why would a Democrat supporting group urge voters to vote for a third candidate?

Don't they know that those voters would be bravely standing up to the two-party system and thus helping to bring down the pernicious Democratic-Republican duopoly? They are sowing the seeds of their own downfall!

[erimir]

Anyway, I have it on good authority that as long as the New York Times covered the news, we must not question their editorial decisions to emphasize or de-emphasize stories.

Michael Flynn Pleads Guilty to Lying to the F.B.I. and Will Cooperate With Russia Inquiry - The New York Times

Originally Posted by NYT

According to prosecutors, on Dec. 22, Mr. Flynn discussed with Mr. Kislyak an upcoming United Nations Security Council vote on whether to condemn Israel’s building of settlements. At the time, the Obama administration was preparing to allow a Security Council vote on the matter.
Mr. Mueller’s investigators have learned through witnesses and documents that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel asked the Trump transition team to lobby other countries to help Israel, according to two people briefed on the inquiry. Investigators have learned that Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kushner took the lead in those efforts.

Well, case closed, it has been covered by major US media. Any criticism of their coverage would just be intended to exonerate Clinton for being a shitty candidate because it's never her fault. What would you have them do, not cover it? Dedicate the entire front page to it for a month? These are the only other options.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

I'm not sure non-attorneys fully understand how horrifying this video clip really is, so allow me to explain a few things about this... https://t.co/vJrLclifBf

— Respectable Lawyer (@RespectableLaw) December 15, 2017

Smol Thrad

[davidm]

Originally Posted by erimir

Anyway, I have it on good authority that as long as the New York Times covered the news, we must not question their editorial decisions to emphasize or de-emphasize stories.

I never said that. You're a fucking idiot.

I didn't even bother to read your post in response to my post about the Times Comey coverage because I know you're a fucking idiot and didn't want to waste my time on your usual clueless whining.

I just happened to run across your latest vomit, quoted above, by happenstance. Here is my response. You're welcome.

Note that I almost never bother reading what you write, except by accident. So there is really no reason for you to respond further, unless you want to continue to make a fool of yourself.

[davidm]

Note that in the post in question, in which you displayed the front page of the Times on the Comey story, you said nothing about emphasis, but merely about reporting. Your clear implication was that you would have had the Times not report the news.

Now you've shifted over to a claim of emphasis. Sorry, Comey's decision to reopen the Clinton email investigation was big news and deserved the coverage it got. Shooting the messenger is stupid but then you are stupid.

Finally, did you actually read that lead story, plus the analysis?

Oh, I'm betting not.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by davidm

Note that I almost never bother reading what you write, except by accident. So there is really no reason for you to respond further, unless you want to continue to make a fool of yourself.

I'm pretty sure that your continued posting is revealing far more negative about you than it is about me.

You should probably stick to playing for cheap laughs against delusional conspiracy theorists like peacegirl.

Originally Posted by davidm

Note that in the post in question, in which you displayed the front page of the Times on the Comey story, you said nothing about emphasis, but merely about reporting.

Bold move, making such a stupid statement right after you called me a fucking idiot.
Here are the relevant portions of the post in question:

Originally Posted by erimir

I can think of a few more humiliating debacles for the US media in the past month or in the past year.
[...]
Past year (give or take):

show spoiler

I didn't say anything about reporting or emphasis. In fact, I said nothing about the image at all. I understand that this makes my meaning a little vague, but that is no basis for you to claim that I meant one thing and not another as a rebuttal to my own clarifications, you fucking idiot.

Your clear implication was that you would have had the Times not report the news.

Please, go ahead and unpack how the fuck that works. You have the post right there. There is no such clear implication - there's no possible argument that what I said conveys that implication at all, much less that it's the only or most plausible interpretation.

Your behavior is so rancid that I have to conclude that it's not mistakes but active dishonesty and bad faith.

Now you've shifted over to a claim of emphasis.

See this projection here? The claim that one should've taken from my original post was that I thought the NYT's coverage of the Comey letter was a debacle in some aspect. I can see how you wouldn't realize I was using it as a metonym for the media's coverage of the email scandals in general. But I got more specific about my meaning in response to your criticisms (but you claim you didn't read that post). But you're depicting me as the dishonest one here.

Sorry, Comey's decision to reopen the Clinton email investigation was big news and deserved the coverage it got. Shooting the messenger is stupid but then you are stupid.

In other words, you're basically arguing that the narratives that the media creates and editorial decisions of emphasis are inherently justified. It's a big story because the media decided it was a big story, thus it affected the election, making it a big story. You have no argument that the substance of the scandal or the evidence described in the Comey letter were important for voters or governance or anything like that. Just a bare assertion that it was a big story. Like I said, you would never accept such arguments if they concerned anything but coverage of Hillary Clinton (or other Democrats you hate). If the subject were Israel-Palestine or the Iraq War, you would criticize similar decisions.

You have no response to this, so you set up dishonest straw men of my arguments, insult me and wave off the whole thing.

Like I said before: my god, you're full of shit.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

A few threads for this, so I’ll put it here:

Jayda Fransen: Twitter suspends Britain First leader retweeted by Donald Trump | The Independent

[Ari]

Does Trump even know when he's born?
Trump was an entire month off his birthday selecting July instead of June. Meanwhile Melania forgot to sign her ballot envelope, Ivanka sent it in a day late and Kushner didn't bother returning it.
Donald Trump got his birthday wrong while filling out a voting form for the New York mayoral election | The Independent

[lisarea]

I could tell it was bad because I knew one of the answers.

[Stephen Maturin]

Jesus Christ. What a fucking donkey that judge nominee is.

Sen. Kennedy: Do you know what a motion in limine is?

: Yes, again, that's not something I deal with on a daily basis, but please keep in mind that I'm on the FEC and we do lots of litigation and have lots of lawyers and America is great and look at the monkey! Look at the silly monkey!! And ....

Sen. Kennedy: 'Scuse me, but I've only got 5 minutes here. Do you know what a motion in limine is?

: No.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

This whole thing reminds me more and more of Chavez’ takeover in Venezuela. Purge old competent officials and administrators, and replace with loyalists, lackeys, and ideologues who have no competence in that area.

Related reading: Tascon List. Coming to an America near you.