Page 5 of 6

Re: The White Man’s Last Tantrum?

Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2016 2:03 pm
by seemslikeadream
General Patton » Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:16 pm wrote:
seemslikeadream » Thu Oct 08, 2015 12:24 pm wrote:this is big...is a party that can't elect a leader a real political party in this country?

"i'm not John Boehner and I will NOT be speaker of the house.....McCarthy drops out of the speaker race

John Boenher is not allowed to quit :D


The old Reaganite/Buckley GOP is losing control very quickly. I (along with many others) have been doing my part by trolling GOP consultants and pundits on twitter, they're rather salty about how rapidly things are shifting.

What do you think fills the void that they are leaving?




"The GOP Is On The Verge Of A Meltdown": Senior Republicans Threaten To Vote For Hillary


With Donald Trump set for a yuuge victory in tomorrow's Super Tuesday slugfest - oddsmakers see 80% chance of Trump being the nominee - tensions are mounting dramatically within the Republican establishment. As The FT reports, many mainstream Republicans believe Mr Trump would struggle to beat Hillary Clinton and are urgently rallying around their man Rubio with some senior Republicans saying privately that they might consider voting for Mrs Clinton if Mr Trump were to end up as their party nominee as one conservative commentator exclaimed "we are on the verge of a real meltdown in the Republican party."

Trump's lead in the polls over his GOP nominee 'peers' continues to grow...


....

As panic is setting in within The GOP...

“We are on the verge of a real meltdown in the Republican party,” Hugh Hewitt, the influential conservative radio talk-show host told ABC television on Sunday.

Some senior Republicans have said privately that they might consider voting for Mrs Clinton if Mr Trump were to end up as their party nominee. “You’ll see a lot of Republicans do that,” Christine Whitman, the former New Jersey governor who previously compared Mr Trump to Hitler, told the New Jersey Star-Ledger.

“We don’t want to. But I know I won’t vote for Trump.”


.....

Re: The White Man’s Last Tantrum?

Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2016 3:11 pm
by General Patton
Yup, Ben Howe, Tom Nichols, ect have all pledged to vote Hillary if Trump gets nom. All of the neocons have shifted to Hillary. Most of the pro-Israeli faction has made it known they are defecting to Hillary.

Nichols is funny in particular because his career revolves around two things: the Soviets (now long gone) and shit talking Bill & Hillary Clinton. Over a decade of denouncing them as the evilest thing in the world and he immediately turns to vote for them.

Re: The White Man’s Last Tantrum?

Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2016 3:15 pm
by tapitsbo
What do you believe their long term plan is? Things don't seem to have been going their way quite as smoothly, lately.

Re: The White Man’s Last Tantrum?

Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2016 5:21 pm
by Iamwhomiam
Their long term plan, whatever it was, just went up in Trump smoke.

Re: The White Man’s Last Tantrum?

Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2016 5:26 pm
by tapitsbo
Unless Trump and Sanders are part of the plan for more wars and bullshit just like the other candidates.

Re: The White Man’s Last Tantrum?

Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2016 11:20 pm
by Joe Hillshoist
tapitsbo » 02 Mar 2016 07:26 wrote:Unless Trump and Sanders are part of the plan for more wars and bullshit just like the other candidates.


Does it matter if they aren't?

Will they really have any control once/if they get elected?

I think the way the US Federal gov "functions" is an institutional problem regardless of whop sits in the various seats of power.

Re: The White Man’s Last Tantrum?

Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2016 11:28 pm
by tapitsbo
Agreed

Re: The White Man’s Last Tantrum?

Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2016 3:51 am
by Iamwhomiam
We've been run since the '50s by the MI-MIC.

Kennedy proved the President has no power over them, though he might not have been aware of it at the time.

Re: The White Man’s Last Tantrum?

Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:38 am
by Nordic
Joe Hillshoist » Tue Mar 01, 2016 10:20 pm wrote:
tapitsbo » 02 Mar 2016 07:26 wrote:Unless Trump and Sanders are part of the plan for more wars and bullshit just like the other candidates.


Does it matter if they aren't?

Will they really have any control once/if they get elected?

I think the way the US Federal gov "functions" is an institutional problem regardless of whop sits in the various seats of power.



Well yeah, and I wish people would figure this out. It seems like people are on the verge of figuring this out when ---- ANOTHER ELECTION SEASON hits. Then Americans seem to forget EVERYTHING they've learned from every election they've seen in the past. It is literally like Charlie Brown and Lucy with the football. Except Charlie Brown usually thinks things over and decides to give Lucy the benefit of the doubt because he's intrinsically a nice guy. Americans just get Instant Alzheimers.

Re: The White Man’s Last Tantrum?

Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2016 4:40 pm
by Iamwhomiam
It's really quite interesting in a historic Malthusian sort of way.

Black President brings out the the white supremacists and no revolution...

Let's try a Jewish President next and see what happens.

Re: The White Man’s Last Tantrum?

Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 2:57 pm
by seemslikeadream
Trump

The White Man’s Last Tantrum?

Image

Re: The White Man’s Last Tantrum?

Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 7:30 pm
by seemslikeadream
The New Congress Is 91% Christian.
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/03/us/po ... tians.html



Germany sees 'overwhelming' sales of Hitler's Mein Kampf

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38495456

Re: The White Man’s Last Tantrum?

Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 8:27 pm
by Luther Blissett
Huh, I was under the impression that Mein Kampf was banned in Germany alongside Nazi imagery.

Re: The White Man’s Last Tantrum?

Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 8:49 pm
by kelley
the edition of 'mein kampf' in question is a facsimile of the original two-volume book reprinted with contemporary critical annotations, appendices, and other marginalia. by all current accounts it is of historic or scholarly interest, and the book has sold respectably. its publication wasn't designed to incite right-wing hatred or neo-nazi agitation; it's fairly reasonable to assume fringe groups have had access to samizdat-style copies for many, many years.

Re: The White Man’s Last Tantrum?

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:34 am
by seemslikeadream
Image

Trump Aides Keep Leaking Embarrassing Stories About How He Can’t Handle Embarrassment
By Eric Levitz

Trump’s Presidency Is the Twilight Zone Episode About a Terrifying 6-Year-Old

Trump Repeats Lie That Millions Voted Illegally in Meeting With Lawmakers

The president is a 70-year-old child whose TV time must be closely monitored — because any news story that upsets his ego will trigger a temper tantrum followed by irrational demands that his indulgent, overwhelmed guardians will be helpless to refuse.

Or so Donald Trump’s aides keep confiding to the nearest available reporter.

On Sunday, one of the president’s confidantes told Politico that his staffers have to “control information that may infuriate him,” a task made difficult by the fact that the leader of the free world “gets bored and likes to watch TV.”


That same day, some Trump aides provided the New York Times with a portrait of the president as a moody adolescent.

Mr. Trump grew increasingly angry on Inauguration Day after reading a series of Twitter messages pointing out that the size of his inaugural crowd did not rival that of Mr. Obama’s in 2009. But he spent his Friday night in a whirlwind of celebration and affirmation. When he awoke on Saturday morning, after his first night in the Executive Mansion, the glow was gone, several people close to him said, and the new president was filled anew with a sense of injury.
“The lack of discipline troubled even senior members of Mr. Trump’s circle,” the paper wrote, “some of whom had urged him not to indulge his simmering resentment at what he saw as unfair news coverage.”

And then, on Monday night, Trump’s staffers whispered an even more vivid account of his rough weekend to the Washington Post.

President Trump had just returned to the White House on Saturday from his final inauguration event, a tranquil interfaith prayer service, when the flashes of anger began to build.

Trump turned on the television to see a jarring juxtaposition — massive demonstrations around the globe protesting his day-old presidency and footage of the sparser crowd at his inauguration, with large patches of white empty space on the Mall. As his press secretary, Sean Spicer, was still unpacking boxes in his spacious new West Wing office, Trump grew increasingly and visibly enraged…Over the objections of his aides and advisers — who urged him to focus on policy and the broader goals of his presidency — the new president issued a decree: He wanted a fiery public response, and he wanted it to come from his press secretary.
The Post’s story is chock-full of remarkable details. To list just a few:

1. After forcing Spicer to baldly lie to the White House press corps about the size of his inauguration crowd, the president fumed that his press secretary’s performance was “not forceful enough.” According to Axios, Trump was also incensed by Spicer’s poor taste in suits, and is already considering treating the former RNC staffer to his signature catchphrase.

2. Trump already “feels demoralized that the public’s perception of his presidency so far does not necessarily align with his own sense of accomplishment.”

3. Some Trump aides think Kellyanne Conway is trying to undermine Spicer so as to steal his job.

4. Jared Kushner tried to prevent Conway from being invited into the White House at all, because he viewed her “as a possible threat to his role as Trump’s chief consigliere.”

5.
Jonathan ChaitVerified account
‏@jonathanchait

detail in the Washington Post about Trump being unhinged this weekend. Wildly unfit. Uncharted territory.
Image


Ultimately, though, the most astounding sentence in the Post’s write-up might be the following:

This account of Trump’s tumultuous first days in office comes from interviews with nearly a dozen senior White House officials and other Trump advisers and confidants, some of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations and moments.
Nearly a dozen of Trump’s closest confidantes helped plant an embarrassing news story about how their boss can’t handle embarrassing news stories. Which is to say: A president who prizes loyalty in his subordinates has already been betrayed by a huge swath of his inner circle.

It isn’t hard to understand why Trump’s aides would want to distance themselves from the mogul’s decision to begin his presidency by shouting self-aggrandizing delusions at CIA employees, congressional leaders, and the Fourth Estate. But we aren’t in the late days of a losing campaign, when it’s normal for advisers to start leaking dirt on the boss to save their reputations. We’re less than four full days into the Trump presidency, with (barring death, impeachment, resignation, or coup) at least 1,461 to go.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... adman.html