posted by Spock
He is one creepy guy. Who tells a 10 year old girl that they are "good looking"?
Trump?
posted by ptown_trojans_1Trump?
To be fair, only when its his daughter...
posted by ptown_trojans_1Trump?
Ladies and gentlemen, TDS in action.
posted by supermanLadies and gentlemen, TDS in action.
Lol.
I've noticed, at least on social media, that the people who laugh and point and say "Trump Derangement Syndrome!!!" are the people who cried that hardest about Obama and shared every right wing propaganda piece around. Self awareness is touch to achieve.
posted by kizer permanenteI've noticed, at least on social media, that the people who laugh and point and say "Trump Derangement Syndrome!!!" are the people who cried that hardest about Obama and shared every right wing propaganda piece around. Self awareness is touch to achieve.
It'd be more aptly named "Partisan Derangement Syndrome". Several sufferers are right here on this site. Exhibit A: Quaker Oats.
posted by kizer permanenteI've noticed, at least on social media, that the people who laugh and point and say "Trump Derangement Syndrome!!!" are the people who cried that hardest about Obama and shared every right wing propaganda piece around. Self awareness is touch to achieve.
That may be true on social media, but TDS is clearly a very real thing. I've seen non-partisans, OK let's call them my parents, believe anything negative about Trump just because they hate him. I don't like the orange clown, either, but I'm a bit more concerned over how the media has abdicated ethics and standards. I'm very concerned over the abuses of power that, at this point, appears to being leveraged to conduct opposition research. The people crying about Trump ruining democracy are actually the ones trampling all over it.
The other day my dad was ranting about how Trump is a criminal and obstructing justice. I said "when and how"? He replied "right now!". I said the investigation is over, he can rightly invoke privilege and all those people already gave hours of testimony to Mueller's team.
The fact is, which is being run-over by most of the media, Mueller could have brought charges, or actually recommended impeachment, but declined to do so - the precedent/policy Mueller is supposedly hiding behind existed when Ken Starr laid out 11 grounds for impeachment against Bill Clinton. It's most likely because the standard or probable cause wasn't met. But he clearly laid out a case for impeachment, which standard is basically whatever Congress says it is. Trump is 100% correct to not cooperate with further inquiries into this matter - a special counsel is the gold standard of inquiry, and it's over. Even Chris Matthews agrees - Dems need to shit or get off the pot. If you want to conduct interviews and further investigation, then you need to open a formal impeachment proceeding.
By the way, for anyone who actually bothers to read the Exec Summary for Volume II of the Mueller report....Barr's controversial "summary" that outraged Dems is essentially 100% accurate. This is Comey's famous summary all over again - no reasonable prosecutor would take this case because it's not winnable. Mueller says they didn't really consider all these questions, while acknowledging the issues are difficult and complex....which is a long-winded, arguably politically slanted, way of saying "I don't know if there was a crime". Put another way, Mueller used thousands of words to dance around the fact there's simply not probable cause for prosecution.
For the life of me - and it's the same with Clinton's impeachment - I don't understand why you pull that pin on the grenade when impeachment is never going to happen. How is that justice and how is that good for the country? Why are we arguing what may or may not be a process crime with no underlying malfeasance?
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieIt'd be more aptly named "Partisan Derangement Syndrome". Several sufferers are right here on this site. Exhibit A: Quaker Oats.
Well, most recent Presidents have been rocked by real scandals in their second term, despite the "cleanest" being the only one to actually be impeached.
What's different with Trump is that started before he even took office, and it turned out to be completely fabricated.
posted by kizer permanenteI've noticed, at least on social media, that the people who laugh and point and say "Trump Derangement Syndrome!!!" are the people who cried that hardest about Obama and shared every right wing propaganda piece around. Self awareness is touch to achieve.
I wouldn't consider ptown's response as TDS. I would put his response along the lines of "but Trump" arguments. Just like we saw everyone use "but Bush" when Obama was president and we see people use "but Obama."
Now I consider TDS where people are legitimately getting depressed over a public servant holding office. I am sure there were some of those people under Obama, but it's much more prevalent with Trump. A dude just set himself (the third person by my count) on fire in protest/resistance against trump, you have people going to psychiatrists, and we have people who legitimately think they are in a resistance against Hitler. Those are just a few examples of TDS. Regardless, I don't understand why people choose to be so miserable.
posted by like_that...I don't understand why people choose to be so miserable.
Between Trump and Obama, I've come to realize that the POTUS doesn't really do anything and doesn't really matter.
If you set aside that Trump is a complete assclown and focus simply on cause/effect and accomplishments....is there really a difference from Obama? Foreign leaders may hate him, too, but it's the same calculus as any other POTUS - do I take this deal or wait it out and hope the next President gives me a better deal? Obama and Trump are basically talking heads that don't have any real long-term impact - Trump wiped out/reversed almost everything Obama did in less than 2 years.
posted by like_thatI wouldn't consider ptown's response as TDS. I would put his response along the lines of "but Trump" arguments. Just like we saw everyone use "but Bush" when Obama was president and we see people use "but Obama."
Now I consider TDS where people are legitimately getting depressed over a public servant holding office. I am sure there were some of those people under Obama, but it's much more prevalent with Trump. A dude just set himself (the third person by my count) on fire in protest/resistance against trump, you have people going to psychiatrists, and we have people who legitimately think they are in a resistance against Hitler. Those are just a few examples of TDS. Regardless, I don't understand why people choose to be so miserable.
Kinda. It was also partly tongue and cheek which jmog picked up on. But, we all know Trump is kind of a creeper like Uncle Joe.
posted by gutBetween Trump and Obama, I've come to realize that the POTUS doesn't really do anything and doesn't really matter.
If you set aside that Trump is a complete assclown and focus simply on cause/effect and accomplishments....is there really a difference from Obama? Foreign leaders may hate him, too, but it's the same calculus as any other POTUS - do I take this deal or wait it out and hope the next President gives me a better deal? Obama and Trump are basically talking heads that don't have any real long-term impact - Trump wiped out/reversed almost everything Obama did in less than 2 years.
One could say that. I would also state that in some regards Trump has brought out the worst in people, that includes his supports and detractors. Sure, some of that was alive and well during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama days, but is seems amplified now. Maybe that is due to Twitter and facebook now.
I'd also say if you are in a group that feels marginalized, things are worse as it appears no one gives a shit for you anymore. I've noticed that in some of my friend and family groups.
posted by gutThat may be true on social media, but TDS is clearly a very real thing. I've seen non-partisans, OK let's call them my parents, believe anything negative about Trump just because they hate him. I don't like the orange clown, either, but I'm a bit more concerned over how the media has abdicated ethics and standards. I'm very concerned over the abuses of power that, at this point, appears to being leveraged to conduct opposition research. The people crying about Trump ruining democracy are actually the ones trampling all over it.
The other day my dad was ranting about how Trump is a criminal and obstructing justice. I said "when and how"? He replied "right now!". I said the investigation is over, he can rightly invoke privilege and all those people already gave hours of testimony to Mueller's team.
The fact is, which is being run-over by most of the media, Mueller could have brought charges, or actually recommended impeachment, but declined to do so - the precedent/policy Mueller is supposedly hiding behind existed when Ken Starr laid out 11 grounds for impeachment against Bill Clinton. It's most likely because the standard or probable cause wasn't met. But he clearly laid out a case for impeachment, which standard is basically whatever Congress says it is. Trump is 100% correct to not cooperate with further inquiries into this matter - a special counsel is the gold standard of inquiry, and it's over. Even Chris Matthews agrees - Dems need to shit or get off the pot. If you want to conduct interviews and further investigation, then you need to open a formal impeachment proceeding.
By the way, for anyone who actually bothers to read the Exec Summary for Volume II of the Mueller report....Barr's controversial "summary" that outraged Dems is essentially 100% accurate. This is Comey's famous summary all over again - no reasonable prosecutor would take this case because it's not winnable. Mueller says they didn't really consider all these questions, while acknowledging the issues are difficult and complex....which is a long-winded, arguably politically slanted, way of saying "I don't know if there was a crime". Put another way, Mueller used thousands of words to dance around the fact there's simply not probable cause for prosecution.
For the life of me - and it's the same with Clinton's impeachment - I don't understand why you pull that pin on the grenade when impeachment is never going to happen. How is that justice and how is that good for the country? Why are we arguing what may or may not be a process crime with no underlying malfeasance?
I'd also say Mueller did not find anything that said nothing to see here move along, Trump is clear. He said there was something amiss, he just could not prove it in the court of law, which you highlight above.
I agree it would be dumb to pursue impeachment, which is Pelosi's line of thinking. It would take up too much time, effort, and political capital. Plus, would be pointless as the Senate would not convict. It would be Clinton in 99 all over again. I'm sure Trump's approval ratings would go up (which is why I'm sure he is begging for impeachment)
posted by ptown_trojans_1Kinda. It was also partly tongue and cheek which jmog picked up on. But, we all know Trump is kind of a creeper like Uncle Joe.
posted by gutBetween Trump and Obama, I've come to realize that the POTUS doesn't really do anything and doesn't really matter.
If you set aside that Trump is a complete assclown and focus simply on cause/effect and accomplishments....is there really a difference from Obama? Foreign leaders may hate him, too, but it's the same calculus as any other POTUS - do I take this deal or wait it out and hope the next President gives me a better deal? Obama and Trump are basically talking heads that don't have any real long-term impact - Trump wiped out/reversed almost everything Obama did in less than 2 years.
One could say that. I would also state that in some regards Trump has brought out the worst in people, that includes his supports and detractors. Sure, some of that was alive and well during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama days, but is seems amplified now. Maybe that is due to Twitter and facebook now.
I'd also say if you are in a group that feels marginalized, things are worse as it appears no one gives a shit for you anymore. I've noticed that in some of my friend and family groups.
I did too and jmog brought the lulz.
posted by ptown_trojans_1I'd also say Mueller did not find anything that said nothing to see here move along, Trump is clear. He said there was something amiss, he just could not prove it in the court of law, which you highlight above.
I agree it would be dumb to pursue impeachment, which is Pelosi's line of thinking. It would take up too much time, effort, and political capital. Plus, would be pointless as the Senate would not convict. It would be Clinton in 99 all over again. I'm sure Trump's approval ratings would go up (which is why I'm sure he is begging for impeachment)
That's not a prosecutors job.
posted by like_thatThat's not a prosecutors job.
I happened to hear some analysis from Dershowitz yesterday. One question is why was Mueller even investigating obstruction if there's no underlying crime and you can't prosecute even if Trump obstructed justice? Second, half the the "obstruction" charges are actual constitutional powers granted to the POTUS, therefore exercising the powers of the office can't be evidence of obstruction. However, there was no "exercising", but rather discussion of the use of those powers (which is only revealed because privilege was waived in allowing McGahn to be interviewed).
And you're exactly right. Mueller created, errrr Comey created, a new standard where there's not probable cause for a crime, but I don't like it so I'm going with "I can't exonerate". Once again we have a DOJ official putting their thumb on the political scale.
To me, if you look at what was actually done, and virtually complete cooperation with the investigation (aside from Trump not sitting for an interview)....there's really no case, at all, for obstruction. Mueller basically laid out an ad hominem case for impeachment. It's a pretty shitty thing he did - he's going to deny playing politics because he didn't reach a conclusion or recommend anything, but in failing to do so he's actually put his thumb on the scale. He couldn't prove a crime and that should have been the end of it, instead he's now manufacturing a case for impeachment.
posted by ptown_trojans_1I'd also say Mueller did not find anything that said nothing to see here move along...
Mueller is very specific and careful with his words. "...if we had confidence Trump clearly did not commit a crime..." isn't any sort of legal standard or threshold.
That's a political hit-job. The equivalent statement of "we don't have confidence Trump committed a crime" would have been a clear declination, but the former allows Dems and their media to infer/suggest whatever suits their agenda.
Mueller opens his presser with a reminder of a "presumption of innocence"....then proceeds to say he can't assume Trump is innocent. Call a spade a spade - that's horseshit.
posted by gutWell, most recent Presidents have been rocked by real scandals in their second term, despite the "cleanest" being the only one to actually be impeached.
What's different with Trump is that started before he even took office, and it turned out to be completely fabricated.
Every president has and will have something about him/her that is less than ideal. That's because they're human. I'm sure if my life were scrutinized in that way, I'd be knee deep in some scandal or other. People who hate Trump will see him as always being guilty of whatever. Just like people who hated Obama or Bush or Clinton always saw them as guilty of whatever. Some are more steadfast about this than others.
I can't stand Trump. I think the only time I was willing to be "fair" to him was his speech in Poland, however long ago that was. 18+ months or so ago?
But I never really had *The Red Scare* that so many had. Even at that, it wouldn't have surprised me if it was found that he did collude. Admittedly it's because I wish he hadn't even made it to the office. Point being is that I would have accepted it. One could call that TDS I guess, loosely speaking.
What we have with this Mueller thing is that people were wanting him to prove a negative?
Trump the biggest "snowflake" you'll ever find, had to have the name of the ship he was on covered because of John McCain. As with most current politicians, should be a disgrace and embarrassment to any American.
posted by cbus4lifeTrump the biggest "snowflake" you'll ever find, had to have the name of the ship he was on covered because of John McCain. As with most currebt politicians, should be a disgrace and embarrassment to any American.
https://twitter.com/chinfo/status/1133918353490403329 Is it really that hard to verify?
posted by like_thathttps://twitter.com/chinfo/status/1133918353490403329 Is it really that hard to verify?
But I think the point remains the same....
posted by gutBut I think the point remains the same....
Trump is definitely easily butt hurt and his handling of McCain's death has been petty. This story was proven to be false though.
posted by like_thatTrump is definitely easily butt hurt and his handling of McCain's death has been petty. This story was proven to be false though.
Ah the USS McCain story. I read that the other day and thought no fucking way is that true. If it was, that is really fucking bad. So, good to know the poor dude that is the CIO has tried to reset the story. I think what gave it life was the fact Megan McCain ran with it, and it was first reported by the WSJ.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Ah the USS McCain story. I read that the other day and thought no fucking way is that true. If it was, that is really fucking bad. So, good to know the poor dude that is the CIO has tried to reset the story. I think what gave it life was the fact Megan McCain ran with it, and it was first reported by the WSJ.
I'm confused. Is the entire story false, or just the part about Trump ordering it? So some WH staffer didn't actually make the request worrying Trump might flip out?
posted by gutI'm confused. Is the entire story false, or just the part about Trump ordering it? So some WH staffer didn't actually make the request worrying Trump might flip out?
The CIO is disputing most of the story, mainly that the White House ordered the Navy to hide name USS McCain. The Navy is saying the name was under a tarp due to maintenance/ repair. They also say the picture taken was not from the day in question, but the day before.
Now, another Navy official did confirm some aspects of the story, mainly that some members of the White House staff did not want the President in pictures with the ship and informed the Navy of that. But, they dispute that the name was hidden on purpose on that day. Navy also disputes members of the McCain were barred from any events with the President.
Sounds like the classic the Navy was trying to be careful and it got misunderstood by the media.