MAGAThread XVII: All Things NOT Impeachment

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Previous presidents, all judicial appointments:

Pres	Appt's	per year
Carter	262	131
Reagan	402	101
Bush	197	99
Clinton	387	194
Bush	340	170
Obama	334	167

Source pdf

So saying that "itS GamE ovER FoR [X political party] BeCAuSE PreSIDenT [Y] ApOinTeD [Z many judges]" Is just random nonsense?

Hmm, almost like Anti SJW NPCs don't care about facts when they see an opportunity to dab on there political opponents.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Previous presidents, all judicial appointments:

Pres	Appt's	per year
Carter	262	66
Reagan	402	50
Bush	197	49
Clinton	387	48
Bush	340	43
Obama	334	42

Fixed now.

Source pdf

So saying that "itS GamE ovER FoR [X political party] BeCAuSE PreSIDenT [Y] ApOinTeD [Z many judges]" Is just random nonsense?

Hmm, almost like Anti SJW NPCs don't care about facts when they see an opportunity to dab on there political opponents.

Hypocritical of you to dismiss real concerns about due process in appointments as "random nonsense". Republicans did in fact hold up judicial appointments when they could.

All I'm saying is that it's not as big a deal as the article makes out. An extra 80 or so appointments this administration gets to make, which really should have been made under Obama.

[Cossack Peoples]

Previous presidents, all judicial appointments:

Pres	Appt's	per year
Carter	262	131
Reagan	402	101
Bush	197	99
Clinton	387	194
Bush	340	170
Obama	334	167

Source pdf

Those numbers don't make any sense. How can an 8 year president make 334 appointments but it be 167 per year?

The appointment of judges is not a fixed rate. Obama is not a machine, he's just Obama Bin Laden (that's his last name, right?). Although it is not stated in the document the yearly average at which the presidents appoint judgeships, it can be assumed that it is an average of all terms served.

The poster's point still stands, however. Trump is only above Gerald Ford, who was the idiot who pardoned Nixon.

[Fartsniffage]

Those numbers don't make any sense. How can an 8 year president make 334 appointments but it be 167 per year?

The appointment of judges is not a fixed rate. Obama is not a machine, he's just Obama Bin Laden (that's his last name, right?). Although it is not stated in the document the yearly average at which the presidents appoint judgeships, it can be assumed that it is an average of all terms served.

The poster's point still stands, however. Trump is only above Gerald Ford, who was the idiot who pardoned Nixon.

What?

[Zurkerx]

Nobody said we can't do both.

They are getting a whole 1,500 instead of 25,000. One gets the feeling Ms. Cortez is auditioning for the role of Baghdad Bob!

I'm a not fan of subsidies for big businesses like Amazon so I'm glad they came back without the need for incentives. However, it's for only 1,500 employees, a small number compared to 25,000 so AOC bitching is just her getting attention.

[Cossack Peoples]

The appointment of judges is not a fixed rate. Obama is not a machine, he's just Obama Bin Laden (that's his last name, right?). Although it is not stated in the document the yearly average at which the presidents appoint judgeships, it can be assumed that it is an average of all terms served.

The poster's point still stands, however. Trump is only above Gerald Ford, who was the idiot who pardoned Nixon.

What?

Did you not get the words, the sentence, or the joke?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Those numbers don't make any sense. How can an 8 year president make 334 appointments but it be 167 per year?

The appointment of judges is not a fixed rate. Obama is not a machine, he's just Obama Bin Laden (that's his last name, right?). Although it is not stated in the document the yearly average at which the presidents appoint judgeships, it can be assumed that it is an average of all terms served.

The poster's point still stands, however. Trump is only above Gerald Ford, who was the idiot who pardoned Nixon.

Editing tables is tricky. I really should have deleted the post while I fixed that table.

Ford was only in office two and a half years, his low number of appointments reflects that. Trump's numbers are a year out of date. He was also famously slow to make appointments of any kind, in his first year.

[Cossack Peoples]

The appointment of judges is not a fixed rate. Obama is not a machine, he's just Obama Bin Laden (that's his last name, right?). Although it is not stated in the document the yearly average at which the presidents appoint judgeships, it can be assumed that it is an average of all terms served.

The poster's point still stands, however. Trump is only above Gerald Ford, who was the idiot who pardoned Nixon.

Editing tables is tricky. I really should have deleted the post while I fixed that table.

Ford was only in office two and a half years, his low number of appointments reflects that. Trump's numbers are a year out of date. He was also famously slow to make appointments of any kind, in his first year.

Oh, I see.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

So saying that "itS GamE ovER FoR [X political party] BeCAuSE PreSIDenT [Y] ApOinTeD [Z many judges]" Is just random nonsense?

Hmm, almost like Anti SJW NPCs don't care about facts when they see an opportunity to dab on there political opponents.

Hypocritical of you to dismiss real concerns about due process in appointments as "random nonsense". Republicans did in fact hold up judicial appointments when they could.

All I'm saying is that it's not as big a deal as the article makes out. An extra 80 or so appointments this administration gets to make, which really should have been made under Obama.

I'm not, i'm calling out hyperbolic nonsense that says that this is the end of [x political party] beacuse [y] judge appointments

[Cossack Peoples]

Hypocritical of you to dismiss real concerns about due process in appointments as "random nonsense". Republicans did in fact hold up judicial appointments when they could.

All I'm saying is that it's not as big a deal as the article makes out. An extra 80 or so appointments this administration gets to make, which really should have been made under Obama.

I'm not, i'm calling out hyperbolic nonsense that says that this is the end of [x political party] beacuse [y] judge appointments

Either way, it sure is the end of the American Whig party.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

So, there are 678 District Court Judges, and 179 Courts of Appeals ("circuit") Judges.
The other judicial appointments are less than 10% and I'll ignore them.
If the Republican Senate dicked Obama out of the 2 years worth of appointments that would be about 80. Or about 9% of authorized judges.

I'm 9% outraged!

[Jakker]

The appointment of judges is not a fixed rate. Obama is not a machine, he's just Obama Bin Laden (that's his last name, right?). Although it is not stated in the document the yearly average at which the presidents appoint judgeships, it can be assumed that it is an average of all terms served.

Political nicknaming is against our rules. Unofficial warning for Trolling (political nicknaming).

[Gormwood]

Congress just kicked Trump's trade deal in the teeth for all the right reasons

To quote Rick Perry, "Oops."

[Gormwood]

Either a pathetic attempt at distraction, or he is really losing what little he had.

Trump: Fox News 'panders' to Democrats by having on liberal guests

[Zurkerx]

Either a pathetic attempt at distraction, or he is really losing what little he had.

Trump: Fox News 'panders' to Democrats by having on liberal guests

Why not both? After all, he thinks Fox is his "propaganda" machine for him, so of course, he views this as traitorous.

[Zurkerx]

Justice Department watchdog releases report on origins of Russia investigation

Basically the report states that while there were irregularities that caused significant problems in how the investigation was conducted, there was no political bias and the FBI was justified in launching the investigation (it did it properly too). So, the bombshells Trump and his supporters were hoping for wind up being duds though this does raise concerns on how the FBI conduct certain investigations.

Also for some, I decided to take a screenshot of the alert from this report and how other media outlets break it. I was only able to get three on the screen but you'll see there is a difference in how the alert was worded by each. The three I got were Bloomberg (Top), WSJ (middle), and Fox (bottom). CNN's basically read this: "A highly anticipated watchdog report says the start of the FBI's Russia Probe was justified and unbiased but investigation had significant errors".

Bloomberg: The FBI acted properly when it began an investigation into Trump's associates, Russia, and the 2016 Election, according to the DOJ's inspector general.

This is the most negative to Trump based on the headline alert: it makes no mention of the concerns high-lighted in the report. The headline also fails to mention there was no political bias in the report. The headline is somewhat descriptive. Overall, if one didn't read it's content, one would assume

WSJ: DOJ watchdog finds "serious performance failures in surveillance of Trump aide but says FBI was justified in opening broad Russia Investigation.

This one is balanced: it makes mention of the failures in surveillance of the Trump Aide (Carter Page) and the fact FBI was justified in opening an investigation. Yet, like Bloomberg, it fails to mention the report found no political bias. The headline for this one is descriptive. This is negative to Trump but also a positive; they cancel out.

Fox: Long-awaited IG Report finds mistakes but no political bias in FBI's bid to spy on Trump campaign staffer.

This one is the friendliest to Trump: while it mentions mistakes were found, it's only descriptive on the fact that no political bias was found. This headline is perhaps the broadest of the three.

Here's CNN's: it included that the report found no bias and was launched properly, but there were significant errors.

Bear in mind that this is just the headline, not what the articles read. All this goes to show you how the media can mold it's agenda and influence its followers. Thought this might be a little educational for those that get their news from different sources.

Edit: added name of headlines for each and removed the image because now it can't recognize the dimensions...

[Gormwood]

There's something uplifting about two assholes having a spat.

Amazon blames Trump for losing $10 billion JEDI cloud contract to Microsoft

[Nakena]

-snip-

Whatever you tried to link there didn worked.

[Zurkerx]

-snip-

Whatever you tried to link there didn worked.

What do you mean?

[Nakena]

Whatever you tried to link there didn worked.

What do you mean?

Your spoilered google link

[Cannot think of a name]

What do you mean?

Your spoilered google link

Oh yeah, man. When your URL is that long and gobbledegook, it's not going to work. Try hosting it as a jpg on something.

[Zurkerx]

What do you mean?

Your spoilered google link

I can see the picture perfectly fine on my screen (I used the [img]~[/img] coding), I'm not sure why you can't. Hold on, I'll add the text in that case.

Alright, I changed it up so it should be easier now. No image but I left what the headlines exactly say.

[Cannot think of a name]

Your spoilered google link

I can see the picture perfectly fine on my screen (I used the [img]~[/img] coding), I'm not sure why you can't. Hold on, I'll add the text in that case.

Alright, I changed it up so it should be easier now. No image but I left what the headlines exactly say.

That's because it's already loaded on your browser. Everyone else's is going, "Nah, dog. Too much." <-obviously not an internet expert.

[Cannot think of a name]

Goddamn. The feed that I completely regret putting on the background just played Trump's sycophantic 'press' conference-ish type thing responding to the report...I guess the strategy is just to say what you wanted it to say?

[Zurkerx]

I can see the picture perfectly fine on my screen (I used the [img]~[/img] coding), I'm not sure why you can't. Hold on, I'll add the text in that case.

Alright, I changed it up so it should be easier now. No image but I left what the headlines exactly say.

That's because it's already loaded on your browser. Everyone else's is going, "Nah, dog. Too much." <-obviously not an internet expert.

Well now, I learned something new...

Goddamn. The feed that I completely regret putting on the background just played Trump's sycophantic 'press' conference-ish type thing responding to the report...I guess the strategy is just to say what you wanted it to say?

It's been that way since the start of his campaign back in 2015 so I take it he's going to keep doing the same thing over and over again because one, it works in his eyes, and two, people just don't care as much: they roll their eyes and say "oh, another lie? Nothing out of the ordinary. Back to my dishes."

It's pretty sad that we've come numb to his constant lying.