Priebus - Press Briefings May Become Unnecessary

I won't go that far, but I do have two things to say about Marlin's post:

1). I have plenty of respect for what you might call "Main Street" Republicans. Hell, my parents are that, as well as plenty of people I like and respect. I like (and love) too many Republicans to ever hate anyone for being a Republican. I don't often see you on WE, but I always do try to treat everyone with respect.

That said, Trump really is a different animal. I have zero respect for Trump. I live in NY and have watched him for 30 plus years. He's not fit for the office. (Something I'd never say about, say, John McCain, even if I differ with him politically). He's never given a crap about the average guy, but he fooled just enough struggling people in just enough key states into thinking he does. As Rubio, Romney, and countless others of both parties pointed out, he's a con man. I've known that forever. And you should never listen to what to what a con man says, because a con man is always going to talk a good game - by definition. You should look at what a con man does. And Trump's actions for decades have shown he's never given the first crap about the average guy. Instead, he's steamrolled over the average guy. Fleeced the common guy. Stiffed the common guy. Bullied the common guy. Screwed the common guy nine ways to Sunday.

Emotionally he's 8 years old. (Again, not something I'd ever say about any other major party nominee from either party in my lifetime.) He's in way over his head, but too narcissistic to ever admit it - a particularly terrible (and potentially dangerous) combination.

Eventually the rest of the country is going to know what New Yorkers have known for years. His hardcore supporters will not desert him. I'm talking about those folks for whom Trump's racism and sexism etc. was a feature rather than a bug. (That's not most of his supporters, but let's not pretend it wasn't a significant, depressing chunk.) But for the others, especially those who voted for Obama in 2008 and/or 2012 and voted for Trump this time... they'll see it eventually.

2). Trump himself is part of the insult culture you rightly decry. This, too, is new. He is sullying the office itself.

There have been partisan bickerers for a long time (and especially since Gingrich actually codified it with his caucus), but the President himself has steered clear. Obama certainly never insulted opponents like this. George W. Bush indulged in some black-and-white "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric that was troubling sometimes, but otherwise stayed clear of the crude insults. So did Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Reagan, Carter, and on and on.

Not Trump. He thrives on them. He hurls them almost every damn day. And I don't think that will change. He promised us he "would be so presidential, you won't believe it," as soon as he clinched the nomination. But he didn't change. Then he promised it after he became President-elect. Again... nope. He is who he is. A man who can't stand to be criticized and who lashes out like a spoiled toddler whenever he is. And newsflash: the President (no matter who it is) is criticized for something every single day by someone.

He often hurls insults when he wasn't even insulted himself, just criticized (and often fairly and calmly). I'm sorry, but he's sullying the office itself, and he hasn't even been inaugurated. And when he is, he won't change. It's just that the consequences may grow. I mean, Chuck Schumer can take it. Can Kim Jung Un? Can Putin if that bromance ends badly?

And even when he's just insulting regular Americans, it sullies the office.

 

I have to bug out as well.
Agreeing with cutting my small fixed income and robbing me of medical care puts no one on my friends list. I cannot respect that anyone felt compelled to vote anti everything I have fought for since the 60's. There is far too much evidence that the man is not fit to hold public office, let alone the Oval Office.

 

What were the Nazis, if not a bunch of opportunistic politicians who decided that just maybe they could get everything they ever wanted if they just sided with the madman? So what if it meant throwing every last one of their principles out the window, and just as an unpleasant side note killing a few innocent swarthy people with a different religion, give or take six million?

You don't get any kind of absolution for this. What happens next is on every last one of you who pulled that lever for Trump, or else stayed home or voted for one of the third party ditz twins, because ewww Hillary and her nasty email server.

I hope the Rs can find enough backbone to impeach his sorry ass quickly. But history is pretty clear they won't. People like that never do.

 

This tweetstorm, right here (click to read the whole thing):

 

While you guys won't shut up about a buffoon and blowhard I'm worrying about North Korea's weaponized nuclear mobilization. 8 years of Bush and then 8 more years of Obama and still that regime mobilizes unchecked. You won't need to worry about the stock market, idiotic tweets, woman's rights or pipelines once N.K. sends something to our S. Korean friends and then to us.

 

Well of course we know our whining about the buffoon/blowhard isn't doing a bit of good.

So how is your whining about North Korea going?

If this is a contest to see who has the best whine, I think the one my country inflicted on itself wins. YMMV.

 

But do you really think Mrs Clinton would have stepped up to deal with N K mobilization if elected? I am not saying the Buffon will during his time as president(low odds, I think) but I am saying there is no chance that Mrs. Clinton would stop the nuclear threat. Low chance vs no chance. Just something to ponder, that's all I'm saying

 

I still have no idea what you're saying, nor why I should ponder it.

When it comes to foreign policy, Clinton would've been embarrassingly more effective than Trump in every conceivable respect, including North Korea.

And I also think you're out of your mind if you think otherwise. She was Secretary of State. He's an inheritance brat with below-average intelligence and no clue how to even relate with humans.

What do you propose we do about North Korea? "Something" is not an answer. Be specific or GTFO.

 

A Secretary of State relies on diplomacy. Diplomacy will not work on rogue nations or those bent on terrorism. Hence the world "rogue". As for North Korea specifically, Mrs. Clinton's role as sec of state is meaningless and irrelevant since we have no relations with that country and they are threatening us with nuclear consequence, so there is no need to cite her credentials as a former top diplomat.

 

Nobody with political clout from the Bush days and nobody from the Obama times addresses the North Korean elephant in he room. And nobody today either appearantly.

 

All right then, I'll echo mawnck here; what should be done about North Korea, then? You obviously have a greater handle on this than anyone in either the Obama or Bush administrations, so surely you won't deprive the world of your wisdom.

 

Oh I dunna know. Hmmmm???What should be done about a country which has been openly threatening us with its nuclear arsenal for the last 15+ years, has an unhinged(likely bat crazy) authoritarian brute who is on the brink of having the ability to obliterate a few of our large population centers as well as seat of government?

Oh I know, let's sit back and wait Perl Harbour style.

 

Correct answer:
Preemptive military operations to eliminate the enemy's weapons program.

 

Weak. Once again you stated the problem, which everyone knows about, but didn't say what YOU think ought to be done about it. That's an awfully easy thing to do.

 

We overlapped.

So what form do these military operations take? Air only? Are you sure that would do it? After all, they could presumably build more.

Land war in Korea to take out Kim?

What exactly are you proposing?

 

Air and/or land tactical military intervention depending upon what the intelligence bears.

And far more important than Kim is the weapons program itself. Every day counts as that country is on the brink of controlling long range(as in easy to reach mainland USA)nuclear weapon delivery. Pretty scary stuff. Much more frightening than one single oompa loompa faced blowhard who likes to grab that _ u_ _y.

 

As for the opening poster's concern I guess I don't see anything chilling about this change in white house correspondence stuff. The president's actions mean everything, not his doctored up, spinned up, announcements and/or answers to the press.

 

Totally unhinged. #WASS.

 

Don't tell me let me guess... You have been playing war games on your computer haven't you? And no doubt you have been victorious a number of times doing those battles. OK, fair enough, however, I would ask you to find a program that actually fires back at you. One led by a tyrant and a group of indoctrinated followers that have no problem with sacrificing their own life for the cause. Oh, and they use real bullets that will puncture your head as soon as you look high enough for you to see where you are shooting. When dealing with a bat crazy dictator you only have one shot at ending the problem and you don't know what that bat crazy person is going to do. Oompa Loompa can and probably will manage to make Mr. Bat Crazy mad enough to take action against all of us. Diplomacy is slow, but, it is the only thing that even possibly guarantees that your children will live to see adulthood. Swinging wildly only creates a slight breeze. All Mr. Orange Glow knows is how to fire people. Saying.. you're fired to Kim whats his name, isn't likely to be very effective.