• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

The Trump Administration (just Trump) Thread

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Status
Not open for further replies.
MediumBaller said:
Firing Sessions might take me off the Trump Train.
Click to expand...

Firing Sessions would be the first thing I like that Trump does (and yeah, I realize he will only do it to get an AG to cover up his crimes)

Sessions is a terrible AG.

He is restarting the failed war on drugs, and he wants police to be able to seize your property. Let me say that again....he wants the police to be able to steal property from private citizens. Anyone with a Libertarian bone in their body should be 10x as upset at Jeff Sessions than anything Obama, Holder, or even W (looking at you Patriot Act) did for individual rights.

Jeff Sessions is one bad (edit: hombre)
 
Last edited:
Mr. Orange said:
Firing Sessions would be the first thing I like that Trump does (and yeah, I realize he will only do it to get an AG to cover up his crimes)

Sessions is a terrible AG.

He is restarting the failed war on drugs, and he wants police to be able to seize your property. Let me say that again....he wants the police to be able to steal property from private citizens. Anyone with a Libertarian bone in their body should be 10x as upset at Jeff Sessions than anything Obama, Holder, or even W (looking at you Patriot Act) did for individual rights.

Jeff Sessions is one bad cracker.
Click to expand...
Sessions was the only senator supporting him from the beginning. The others fell in line after it was clear he was getting the nomination. Firing him would signal to me that Trump doesn't give a shit about loyalty and would leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Those things aren't good, but they're not why Trump is thinking about firing Sessions. It seems like Trump's pissed because he recused himself and because Sessions isn't going after the Clintons, Obama, etc. All of that would be a waste of time and get in the way of the Trump Agenda.
 
Mr. Orange said:
I wanted to say hombre, but also wanted to embrace Trumps racism. Probably uncalled for.
Click to expand...

I get you on Sessions being an awful AG; you're 100% right. I just don't want him fired because he's recused.... If Trump fires him, he will be kept abreast of the Mueller investigation, which, as of right now, he's gotta find things out from the press. Most importantly, he could slowly kill the investigation; so I'd rather Sessions stay on for at least another year.
 
gourimoko said:
I get you on Sessions being an awful AG; you're 100% right. I just don't want him fired because he's recused.... If Trump fires him, he will be kept abreast of the Mueller investigation, which, as of right now, he's gotta find things out from the press. Most importantly, he could slowly kill the investigation; so I'd rather Sessions stay on for at least another year.
Click to expand...

I hear you. But Sessions is such a terrible human. This is very hard.
 
Apparently the Boy Scouts, just like the majority of white women, are racist, deplorable, stupid, sexist, etc.
Gotta be a weird world some of you live in...where your dug-in partisan politics forces you to see women as sexist and young people as Hitler Youth.
 
Whittaker said:
Apparently the Boy Scouts, just like the majority of white women, are racist, deplorable, stupid, sexist, etc.
Gotta be a weird world some of you live in...where your dug-in partisan politics forces you to see women as sexist and young people as Hitler Youth.
Click to expand...

What???
 
Whittaker said:
Apparently the Boy Scouts, just like the majority of white women, are racist, deplorable, stupid, sexist, etc.
Gotta be a weird world some of you live in...where your dug-in partisan politics forces you to see women as sexist and young people as Hitler Youth.
Click to expand...
Its like mad libs.

The story is a template, nazi, etc, we threw in boyscouts today.
 
The Human Q-Tip said:
It's ridiculous. There have literally been articles for years on that program, including multiple articles in the Post itself. That program was actually discussed in here. For the Washington Post itself to subsequently come out and accuse Trump of leaking that program....

This is why their credibility is in the toilet. A huge chunk of people rightly assume that every article they print about Trump is agenda-driven.

What's surprising is how easily they were goaded into making it so obvious.
Click to expand...


H'm. So I just read the Washington Post article about Trump ending the CIA program. Nowhere in the Post's article does it accuse Trump of revealing the existence of the program. It does state that Trump decided to end the program, but not that he revealed its existence. OTHER sources through Twitter, among others, twisted the article into one that accuses Trump of revealing the program. I'll agree what they did was bullshit and it is fair to criticize them. BUT, the criticism directed towards the Post is simply off them mark. A incredibly lazy accusation, to be sure. I'd think people would want to verify the facts before trying to present them as evidence. No?

Two, one can argue about the use of the terms secretive or covert to label the program. See another article by the Post that appears a week later from the previous mentioned article, one titled: Is the covert CIA program to arm Syrian rebels still secret? If one bothers to take the effort to read beyond the headline before making and assumptions or accusations, one will see that the article discusses the notion of how secretive or cover was the program when it was an open secret for years, but that no one was authorized to talk about it. This harkens to the idea of something being an open secret.

The criticism against the Post is nonsense. More bullshit vomiting of FAKE NEWS, FAKE NEWS regarding the Post.

Trump's ego, raging more terribly each day, demands vast tribute. God knows how he feeds it himself. The shamelessness of it is a marvel. And if things don't jibe with his version of the universe he is more than willing to create his own through alternative facts, and criticize those challenges to it as being fake. I am amazed how others humilate themselves to champion his cause so willingly.
 
Last edited:
Sumac13 said:
Two, one can argue about the use of the terms secretive or covert to label the program. See another article by the Post that appears a week later from the previous mentioned article, one titled: Is the covert CIA program to arm Syrian rebels still secret? If one bothers to take the effort to read beyond the headline before making and assumptions or accusations,
Click to expand...

That's crap. Here's the first freaking sentence of that article after the headline:

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump seemed to blow the lid on the cancellation of a covert CIA program in Syria when he tweeted about it this week. But, intelligence agencies still won’t talk about it.

That's misleading and biased as hell. And when that's your headline and lead sentence, it isn't an accident that it the angle picked up by other media sources. You draft your headline and lead sentence to set the tone of the piece - they're the most important part when it comes to create a mindset in readers.

This has been more than an open secret talked about only in the press. It was talked about in Presidential Debates, and nobody claimed it was secret then. So why now? Here's Hillary in the December 2015 primary debate:

Clinton had faced that sort of questioning before, in September, on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” when John Dickerson led her into a swamp of platitudes. When he brought up “arming the Syrian rebels” and asked if “this a bad idea … or was this a good idea, poorly executed?,” the former Secretary of State sounded somewhat passive: “I did recommend that, at the beginning of this conflict, we do more to help train those who were in the forefront of leading the opposition against Assad”—Bashar al-Assad, the President of Syria—“looking to try to bring the moderates together.” She continued, “A lot of these rebels, originally, they were—they were businesspeople, they were professional people, they were students. They had no training in going up against the Syrian army, which Assad clearly was going to use to the ultimate effect.” Eventually, she said that “A lot of what I worried about has happened…. So where we are today is not where we were. And where we are today is that we have a failed program.”

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/hillary-clintons-baffling-foreign-policy-problem

Where was the outcry about the former Secretary of State confirming the existence of that covert program?? Why is it only an issue now, when everyone has known about it for years?

It was another hatchet job on Trump. The WaPo knew it was garbage to describe it as Trump "blowing the lid" off a covert program. Weasel-words and qualifications deeper in the article don't undo the deliberate impact of the headline and first sentence.

The WaPo is garbage.
 
The Human Q-Tip said:
That's crap. Here's the first freaking sentence of that article after the headline:

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump seemed to blow the lid on the cancellation of a covert CIA program in Syria when he tweeted about it this week. But, intelligence agencies still won’t talk about it.
Click to expand...

A bit of an overreaction given the entirety of the article. The article talks about how much of an open secret the program was. Really, the article simply states that Trump acknowledges the program. They are not critical in the least of him doing so. But, they point out the intelligence agencies sill won't talk about it.

I will argue its a matter of semantics. If they wanted to be provocative. The headline would have read: "President Donald Trump blows the lid on... ", not "President Donald Trump seemed to blow the lid on.." Two point being one: One, did he actually blow the lid when it was already acknowledge by many? Two, if he did blow the lid, then why aren't the intelligence agencies talking about it? If they aren't, can it be said that he blew the lid on it? ... thus the 'seemed to'.

So, the article challenges the very notion that be blew the lid on the program, in two different ways.

So on the one hand you have a headline that can be interpreted different ways. Easy enough to twist it to push an agenda. But, again, if you bother to read the article itself, then you can put the headline in context, where it doesn't seem so alarming.

If you are intent on seeing the Post as trash, then you will see what you want.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-15: "Cavs Survive and Advance"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:15: Cavs Survive and Advance
Top