Trump MAGAThread V: March Comes In Like A Lion

[Kravanica]

If they did have something I have a feeling it would have leaked by now. Now all they're relying on to rile people up is Jeff Sessions firing political appointees.

We should trust your "feeling" because...why, exactly? You're a Trump partisan.

I never said for you to trust me. I don't really give much of a shit if you do or don't. My "feeling" is based upon the fact that there have already been plenty of leaks from this investigation.

And am I supposed to take the Trump partisan thing as an insult or something?

[Kravanica]

We should trust your "feeling" because...why, exactly? You're a Trump partisan.

2016 has taught us that feelings are the only things that matter in society. *Nod*

Oh god, you're shitting out more strawmen than Gauthier.

[New haven america]

2016 has taught us that feelings are the only things that matter in society. *Nod*

Oh god, you're shitting out more strawmen than Gauthier.

Coming from someone who seems blind to how governments work...

So what's the latest non-scandal? That Jeff Sessions is firing political appointees? Wow, it's not like that happens whenever new presidents come in.

It's a scandal because of how Trump and his team have been going about the firings.

While yes, every President does like to fill the government with people who they think are best suited for the jobs they're appointed to, the firing and hiring process usually takes a while, due to the fact that sudden mass firings in the government can fuck up a lot of processes. Though, I doubt Trump and his supporters would care, they do seem to love fucking shit up for everybody else.

[Hittanryan]

We should trust your "feeling" because...why, exactly? You're a Trump partisan.

I never said for you to trust me. I don't really give much of a shit if you do or don't. My "feeling" is based upon the fact that there have already been plenty of leaks from this investigation.

And am I supposed to take the Trump partisan thing as an insult or something?

All right, let me explain to you how this works. Let's say you find a news article supporting your claim, we'll read it and determine the veracity of the source. Hell, you find a primary source, say a declassified intelligence report, you might even change some of our minds. But if all you tell me is that you have a "feeling," well...

[Ifreann]

Indeed. You asked about the latest non-scandal, whereas Trump's unfounded accusations against his predecessor are a very real scandal.

Scandal how?

Did you not read the post you quoted?

So what's the latest non-scandal? That Jeff Sessions is firing political appointees? Wow, it's not like that happens whenever new presidents come in.

Well several Republicans told Trump to either provide actual evidence of Obama wire tapping him, otherwise he should retract it.

That's how it's a scandal. Republicans defending Obama against Trump's accusations. Members of his own party, siding with the opposition.

Scandalous.

---

Still under investigation*

Must be the worst fucking investigation in years, since it's been months now and not an iota of incriminating evidence has been uncovered.

Has it really been years since they stopped investigating Benghazi? Gosh. How time flies. I suppose that explains how the 4th of March 2017 was months ago from today, the 13th of March 2017.

---

If they did have something I have a feeling it would have leaked by now. Now all they're relying on to rile people up is Jeff Sessions firing political appointees.

I doubt it. And that took a random turn.

Well Kravanica no doubt worked hard on his material in defence of Sessions and his sick burns against the liberals. Wouldn't want them to go to waste.

[Kravanica]

I never said for you to trust me. I don't really give much of a shit if you do or don't. My "feeling" is based upon the fact that there have already been plenty of leaks from this investigation.

And am I supposed to take the Trump partisan thing as an insult or something?

All right, let me explain to you how this works. Let's say you find a news article supporting your claim, we'll read it and determine the veracity of the source. Hell, you find a primary source, say a declassified intelligence report, you might even change some of our minds. But if all you tell me is that you have a "feeling," well...

My claim that they're investigating Trump?

Okay, take your pick.

[Galloism]

Has it really been years since they stopped investigating Benghazi? Gosh. How time flies. I suppose that explains how the 4th of March 2017 was months ago from today, the 13th of March 2017.

I'm told time is perceived differently depending on your frame of reference.

[Kravanica]

Oh god, you're shitting out more strawmen than Gauthier.

Coming from someone who seems blind to how governments work...

It's a scandal because of how Trump and his team have been going about the firings.

While yes, every President does like to fill the government with people who they think are best suited for the jobs they're appointed to, the firing and hiring process usually takes a while, due to the fact that sudden mass firings in the government can fuck up a lot of processes. Though, I doubt Trump and his supporters would care, they do seem to love fucking shit up for everybody else.

The only thing that's "different" is that he didn't fire them immediately after taking office. Still fired 93 attorneys, and replaced them all. Political appointees are often fired after a new president comes in. It isn't unusual or scandalous.

[Ashmoria]

All right, let me explain to you how this works. Let's say you find a news article supporting your claim, we'll read it and determine the veracity of the source. Hell, you find a primary source, say a declassified intelligence report, you might even change some of our minds. But if all you tell me is that you have a "feeling," well...

My claim that they're investigating Trump?

Okay, take your pick.

you really have a problem following your own train of thought.

there are 2 things

1) the accusation that president Obama unilaterally ordered the wiretapping of the trump tower

2) the possible legitimate investigation of the trump campaign's ties to the Russians.

they are 2 entirely different things. you jumped from track 1 to track 2 when it started seeming like you would lose.

track 1 is the new "non scandal" where prominent republicans are telling the president to put up or shut up.

[Kravanica]

Scandal how?

Did you not read the post you quoted?

Well several Republicans told Trump to either provide actual evidence of Obama wire tapping him, otherwise he should retract it.

That's how it's a scandal. Republicans defending Obama against Trump's accusations. Members of his own party, siding with the opposition.

Scandalous.

That's... not scandalous. You must have a pretty thin definition as to what constitutes a scandal. And anyway, I was asking what the latest non-scandal was. It was a rhetorical question since it seems to be Jeff Sessions firing Obama's political appointees. There, does that clear it up? Would you like me to feed you supper as well?

Must be the worst fucking investigation in years, since it's been months now and not an iota of incriminating evidence has been uncovered.

Has it really been years since they stopped investigating Benghazi? Gosh. How time flies. I suppose that explains how the 4th of March 2017 was months ago from today, the 13th of March 2017.

You, as well as half the people in this thread, seem to have a trend for bringing up things that have literally nothing to do with the discussion. You seem to think I'm part of some GOP hivemind that will automatically defend anything they do. I'm not. Benghazi is in no way related to this discussion anyway. It's stupid the investigation took so long. There, that was easy. What's next?

I doubt it. And that took a random turn.

Well Kravanica no doubt worked hard on his material in defence of Sessions and his sick burns against the liberals. Wouldn't want them to go to waste.

Lol, I enjoy have notoriety around here, no matter how minimal it may be.

[New haven america]

Coming from someone who seems blind to how governments work...

The only thing that's "different" is that he didn't fire them immediately after taking office. Still fired 93 attorneys, and replaced them all. Political appointees are often fired after a new president comes in. It isn't unusual or scandalous.

No, it is unusual, considering that... basically every other President and official takes time to fire and hire new people to work in government, they don't suddenly fire almost 100 people with only a 1 day notice. Do you know why they don't? Because they want the transition to be as seamless as possible, and firing almost 100 people in a very sensitive part of the government will fuck up a lot of stuff and be far from seamless. (Also the fact that Trump and his team have been firing people they said they wouldn't)

And I'm not surprised that Trump, his team, his supporters, etc... don't care or are trying to defend this decision, fucking everything up for everybody else seems to be their specialty.

[Kravanica]

My claim that they're investigating Trump?

Okay, take your pick.

you really have a problem following your own train of thought.

there are 2 things

1) the accusation that president Obama unilaterally ordered the wiretapping of the trump tower

2) the possible legitimate investigation of the trump campaign's ties to the Russians.

they are 2 entirely different things. you jumped from track 1 to track 2 when it started seeming like you would lose.

track 1 is the new "non scandal" where prominent republicans are telling the president to put up or shut up.

The two are tied to one another. Any wiretaps would be part of the investigation.

[Ashmoria]

you really have a problem following your own train of thought.

there are 2 things

1) the accusation that president Obama unilaterally ordered the wiretapping of the trump tower

2) the possible legitimate investigation of the trump campaign's ties to the Russians.

they are 2 entirely different things. you jumped from track 1 to track 2 when it started seeming like you would lose.

track 1 is the new "non scandal" where prominent republicans are telling the president to put up or shut up.

The two are tied to one another. Any wiretaps would be part of the investigation.

no they aren't

one is a very serious crime the other is the investigation of a very serious crime.

[Kravanica]

The only thing that's "different" is that he didn't fire them immediately after taking office. Still fired 93 attorneys, and replaced them all. Political appointees are often fired after a new president comes in. It isn't unusual or scandalous.

No, it is unusual, considering that... basically every other President and official takes time to fire and hire new people to work in government, they don't suddenly fire almost 100 people with only a 1 day notice. Do you know why they don't? Because they want the transition to be as seamless as possible, and firing almost 100 people in a very sensitive part of the government will fuck up a lot of stuff and be far from seamless. (Also the fact that Trump and his team have been firing people they said they wouldn't)

And I'm not surprised that Trump, his team, his supporters, etc... don't care or are trying to defend this decision, fucking everything up for everybody else seems to be their specialty.

No, it's really not.

McClatchy explained it like this: "Mass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration. Prosecutors are usually appointed for four-year terms, but they are usually allowed to stay on the job if the president who appointed them is re-elected."

Gee, for someone who accused me of not knowing how the government works, you really don't seem to know how it works. There is nothing unusual here except maybe that it didn't occur right when he got elected.

But hey, I just wanna fuck everything up. It's what I live for, fam.

[Kravanica]

The two are tied to one another. Any wiretaps would be part of the investigation.

no they aren't

one is a very serious crime the other is the investigation of a very serious crime.

Wiretaps can be part of an investigation. FFS.

[Ashmoria]

no they aren't

one is a very serious crime the other is the investigation of a very serious crime.

Wiretaps can be part of an investigation. FFS.

you are making it very hard for me to avoid flaming you

Donald trump accused barack Obama of personally wiretapping his phones (or whatever he meant by his wires being tapped). that is a crime. that would by rights land the former president of the united states in prison.

trump didn't mean that he might be under serious investigation by the justice department or NSA who went to the FISA court with significant evidence that the trump organization or campaign was breaking international law. only an idiot would want to bring THAT to light when he is the one who would be under investigation.

if you think the 2 are the same or are connected you might want to wonder why john McCain is demanding proof.

[Ifreann]

Did you not read the post you quoted?

That's how it's a scandal. Republicans defending Obama against Trump's accusations. Members of his own party, siding with the opposition.

Scandalous.

That's... not scandalous. You must have a pretty thin definition as to what constitutes a scandal. And anyway, I was asking what the latest non-scandal was.

Yes, I know. I said that. You really need to work on your reading.

It was a rhetorical question since...

Since you have your material all worked out and don't want it to go to waste. I said that too.

There, does that clear it up? Would you like me to feed you supper as well?

No thanks. I've eaten.

Has it really been years since they stopped investigating Benghazi? Gosh. How time flies. I suppose that explains how the 4th of March 2017 was months ago from today, the 13th of March 2017.

You, as well as half the people in this thread, seem to have a trend for bringing up things that have literally nothing to do with the discussion. You seem to think I'm part of some GOP hivemind that will automatically defend anything they do. I'm not. Benghazi is in no way related to this discussion anyway. It's stupid the investigation took so long.

Again, you really need to work on your reading. I was just commenting on how time flies. Like I said.

There, that was easy. What's next?

Maybe you want to reassess your comments about the investigation, since what you thought was months was actually just over a week.

Well Kravanica no doubt worked hard on his material in defence of Sessions and his sick burns against the liberals. Wouldn't want them to go to waste.

Lol, I enjoy have notoriety around here, no matter how minimal it may be.

I'm not sure that being able to read your name from the quote chain constitutes notoriety. But then, reading isn't a big deal to me.

[New haven america]

No, it is unusual, considering that... basically every other President and official takes time to fire and hire new people to work in government, they don't suddenly fire almost 100 people with only a 1 day notice. Do you know why they don't? Because they want the transition to be as seamless as possible, and firing almost 100 people in a very sensitive part of the government will fuck up a lot of stuff and be far from seamless. (Also the fact that Trump and his team have been firing people they said they wouldn't)

And I'm not surprised that Trump, his team, his supporters, etc... don't care or are trying to defend this decision, fucking everything up for everybody else seems to be their specialty.

No, it's really not.

McClatchy explained it like this: "Mass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration. Prosecutors are usually appointed for four-year terms, but they are usually allowed to stay on the job if the president who appointed them is re-elected."

Gee, for someone who accused me of not knowing how the government works, you really don't seem to know how it works. There is nothing unusual here except maybe that it didn't occur right when he got elected.

But hey, I just wanna fuck everything up. It's what I live for, fam.

A. Clinton actually waited until they had replacements. (And actually helped those that were fired in finding what they wanted to do afterwards)
B. Yes, you do, thanks for admitting that.

[Lady Scylla]

Scandal how?

Did you not read the post you quoted?

Well several Republicans told Trump to either provide actual evidence of Obama wire tapping him, otherwise he should retract it.

That's how it's a scandal. Republicans defending Obama against Trump's accusations. Members of his own party, siding with the opposition.

Scandalous.

---

Must be the worst fucking investigation in years, since it's been months now and not an iota of incriminating evidence has been uncovered.

Has it really been years since they stopped investigating Benghazi? Gosh. How time flies. I suppose that explains how the 4th of March 2017 was months ago from today, the 13th of March 2017.

---

I doubt it. And that took a random turn.

Well Kravanica no doubt worked hard on his material in defence of Sessions and his sick burns against the liberals. Wouldn't want them to go to waste.

If only they burned.

[Lady Scylla]

Did you not read the post you quoted?

That's how it's a scandal. Republicans defending Obama against Trump's accusations. Members of his own party, siding with the opposition.

Scandalous.

That's... not scandalous. You must have a pretty thin definition as to what constitutes a scandal. And anyway, I was asking what the latest non-scandal was. It was a rhetorical question since it seems to be Jeff Sessions firing Obama's political appointees. There, does that clear it up? Would you like me to feed you supper as well?

Has it really been years since they stopped investigating Benghazi? Gosh. How time flies. I suppose that explains how the 4th of March 2017 was months ago from today, the 13th of March 2017.

You, as well as half the people in this thread, seem to have a trend for bringing up things that have literally nothing to do with the discussion. You seem to think I'm part of some GOP hivemind that will automatically defend anything they do. I'm not. Benghazi is in no way related to this discussion anyway. It's stupid the investigation took so long. There, that was easy. What's next?

Well Kravanica no doubt worked hard on his material in defence of Sessions and his sick burns against the liberals. Wouldn't want them to go to waste.

Lol, I enjoy have notoriety around here, no matter how minimal it may be.

You've pointed out this supposed notoriety before. Only you've made these claims that I'm aware of -- that speaks volumes of you. None of it good.

[Lady Scylla]

Trump aides attack Congress Budget Office

In a series of television interviews, White House budget director Mick Mulvaney and top White House economic adviser Gary Cohn said the CBO was focusing on the wrong metrics with the estimates it will provide on the number of people who are insured. Cohn and Mulvaney said the CBO should instead should analyze whether patients can actually afford to go to a doctor.

I could afford to go to the doctor too if I didn't want food for a month.

"I love the folks at the CBO, they work really hard, they do, but sometimes we ask them to do stuff they're not capable of doing, and estimating the impact of a bill of this size probably isn't the - isn't the best use of their time," Mulvaney told ABC's "This Week" program.

It's a office dedicated to analysing things that affect the budget. I'm pretty sure this is right up their alley.

The Trump administration's criticisms of the CBO are unusual. Prior administrations, both Republican and Democratic, steered clear of attacking the credibility of the agency, which many lawmakers regard as a neutral arbiter. The CBO's current director, Keith Hall, was appointed by Republicans in 2015.

Wow.

[Corrian]

The administration doesn't know how to end in being ridiculous.

[Vassenor]

Conway seems to think a microwave was bugged.

Despite that being kind of impossible without massive amounts of interference from the device's normal operation.

[Gauthier]

Conway seems to think a microwave was bugged.

Despite that being kind of impossible without massive amounts of interference from the device's normal operation.

Alternative Technology.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Oh god, you're shitting out more strawmen than Gauthier.

Coming from someone who seems blind to how governments work...

May I ask how the ignorance of another is relevant to the fact that you constantly spit out strawmen? (Assuming that Kravanica is correct in his claim.) Unless you are insinuating that because of this ignorance he takes part in straw manning, which would be quite the stretch.