Fox and Friends

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

unqualified dip$#!t$. comma'la and mayor pete say hi. karen jean pierre says hi twice.

I'm actually impressed with the manner in which you expressed yourself so eloquently.

I'm the guy who repeats himself when I say that when Hussein (the guy with the fake birth certificate ) was running for President, I convinced myself I was more concerned with the people he would surround himself with than I was with he himself as President.
In hindsight, I'm still not sure if that was a good thing or a bad thing.
Meanwhile, today - I admit I am more concerned with who Trump will surround himself with than I am with Biden.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

i know that it was a veritable rotating cast of characters, a non-insignificant number of which are criminals at worst and of questionable character and integrity at best

the one area that i didn’t take much issue with (outside of sessions/barr and flynn) was intelligence/law enforcement and military…Mattis and Milley in particular

edit: if you want me to pick apart the actual list, i’m more than happy to… https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ation.html

i posted plenty on pruitt, devos and perry in the past, as to why they were (and remain) wholly unqualified for their roles

and yes, congress votes to approve appointees, but are you insinuating that a majority vote of an unquestionably partisan congress = wholly qualified?

I appreciate you sharing your feelings and input!
I don't disagree but at the time of the nominations I was actually somewhat surprised - in dare I say a good way?
Of course there were multiple people who I was surprised about and questioned if they were such a wonderful choice but what the fuck do I know? Outside of politics, I know first hand of people who have had no experience that ended up being terrific at their jobs and people who were highly experienced and the sucked at their jobs.

To answer your last question, I was SLIGHTLY insinuating the importance of the role that the Senate plays and BINGO - a "partisan" Senate/Congress can and often does have a HUGE bearing on what happens in regards to shaping a Presidency.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

P.S. to all of my recent posts...
I realize there is a difference between cabinet members and "outside" advisors. It's the "outside" advisors who should really scare the shit out of people.

[jfish26]

P.S. to all of my recent posts...
I realize there is a difference between cabinet members and "outside" advisors. It's the "outside" advisors who should really scare the shit out of people.

See my post on the last page, though - by far the MOST problematic/dangerous are unconfirmed "acting" officials. Unconfirmed people with the powers of government.

And here again is the same categorical dissonance: MAGA will angrily drone on and on at fever pitch about "big government" and the "Deep State", but it's difficult to think about a better EXAMPLE of those things than unconfirmed, Cabinet-level officials.

[Shirley]

bolded x1,000,000,000,000

I agree.

No disrespect but I can't help but wonder if any of the 3 of you know ALL the people Trump "nominated" to his first cabinet - and at the time why did you feel they were any less competent people for their positions (ok - yes, I know, the Brain Surgeon was nominated to be Secretary of HUD) than Biden's choices for his initial cabinet positions?
Then I am going to ask, I assume you realize the Senate votes on the nominations. Correct? Sooooo do you place any blame on or give any credit to the Senate for those who were selected?

This is what I was posting before I read your last two posts, Gutter:

Maybe I'm missing your point, but if it's what I think it is, you don't seem to have one.

From Trad's link:

The Senate confirmed each of President Trump’s nominees that faced a vote. Fifteen members of the cabinet and eight other top administration posts require Senate confirmation.

All but nine of the “no” votes came from Democrats and were essentially symbolic statements of opposition. Nominees need only a simple majority to be confirmed, and Republicans hold 52 seats in the Senate.

[Shirley]

P.S. to all of my recent posts...
I realize there is a difference between cabinet members and "outside" advisors. It's the "outside" advisors who should really scare the shit out of people.

See my post on the last page, though - by far the MOST problematic/dangerous are unconfirmed "acting" officials. Unconfirmed people with the powers of government.

And here again is the same categorical dissonance: MAGA will angrily drone on and on at fever pitch about "big government" and the "Deep State", but it's difficult to think about a better EXAMPLE of those things than unconfirmed, Cabinet-level officials.

^^^

And naming and keeping many "unconfirmed" public officials is precisely what Trump did on an increasing basis, especially as the rats started jumping ship as Jan 6 approached, as his term went on. And as far as I know, there wasn't anything that could be done about it.

[jfish26]

P.S. to all of my recent posts...
I realize there is a difference between cabinet members and "outside" advisors. It's the "outside" advisors who should really scare the shit out of people.

See my post on the last page, though - by far the MOST problematic/dangerous are unconfirmed "acting" officials. Unconfirmed people with the powers of government.

And here again is the same categorical dissonance: MAGA will angrily drone on and on at fever pitch about "big government" and the "Deep State", but it's difficult to think about a better EXAMPLE of those things than unconfirmed, Cabinet-level officials.

^^^

And naming and keeping many "unconfirmed" public officials is precisely what Trump did on an increasing basis, especially as the rats started jumping ship as Jan 6 approached, as his term went on. And as far as I know, there wasn't anything that could be done about it.

And he's already signaled that this would be his across-the-board approach if reelected.

It's the dumbest thing - the pitch really is that he is exempt from laws, rules and norms because fixing government REQUIRES breaking those laws, rules and norms.

And yet.

[japhy]

And naming and keeping many "unconfirmed" public officials is precisely what Trump did on an increasing basis, especially as the rats started jumping ship as Jan 6 approached, as his term went on. And as far as I know, there wasn't anything that could be done about it.

It gets more and more obvious as trump and his cult test the safeguards, that the framers of our constitution did not consider the shameless angles a sociopathic narcissist would take on circumventing all of the rules and standards. They also didn't consider that there might someday be enough neonihilistic rubes to vote such a low character into the office of the president.

Once might be an honest mistake. A return engagement would just verify how low we have sunk as a society.

[jfish26]

And naming and keeping many "unconfirmed" public officials is precisely what Trump did on an increasing basis, especially as the rats started jumping ship as Jan 6 approached, as his term went on. And as far as I know, there wasn't anything that could be done about it.

It gets more and more obvious as trump and his cult test the safeguards, that the framers of our constitution did not consider the shameless angles a sociopathic narcissist would take on circumventing all of the rules and standards. They also didn't consider that there might someday be enough neonihilistic rubes to vote such a low character into the office of the president.

I actually strongly disagree with this!

Because the Constitution very much in fact does precisely anticipate the case where a sworn officer of the United States repudiates the Constitution, but retains enough popular support to be a viable candidate for a return engagement.

[MICHHAWK]

the man you are blubbering on. has been off the clock for 3+years now. it's on uncle now.

[jfish26]

the man you are blubbering on. has been off the clock for 3+years now. it's on uncle now.

I'm waiting for you to tell me what Harris, Buttigieg and Jean-Pierre have in common. Be specific.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

the man you are blubbering on. has been off the clock for 3+years now. it's on uncle now.

I'm waiting for you to tell me what Harris, Buttigieg and Jean-Pierre have in common. Be specific.

They are all Black? No.
They are all Gay? No.
They all have funny names? Define funny.
They all look younger than they are? Subjective.

I GOT IT! They all have kids that they "adopted" who's first names either have the letters O and E in them L and E in them, or all 3 O,L, and E, in them.
Joseph (Pete's), Penelope (Pete's), Cole (Kamala's), Ella (Kamala's), and Soleil (Karine's).

[Sparko]

I was just talking about the dangers of unconfirmed security threats in a presidential advisory capacity with Jared Kushner. He didn't think it was a big deal and asked if I had any extra cash.

[Shirley]

Again?

The Propaganda Arm of the Republican Party is about to be Sued by Hunter Biden?

[KUTradition]

wut

Fox News and Jesse Watters are pushing a bizarre conspiracy theory ahead of Thursday’s presidential debate: that Joe Biden is part of a plot to install Kamala Harris in a “DEI presidency.”

On The Five Tuesday evening, Watters claimed that the debate was part of progressives’ plan to “drag [Biden] across the finish line and install” the vice president to the top job.

“There is a lot at stake, plus the progressive movement—they are this close to locking this thing in,” Watters lamented. “They have opened the borders. They have changed the entire culture of this country. If you look at the cities, it’s almost over.”…

[jfish26]

wut

Fox News and Jesse Watters are pushing a bizarre conspiracy theory ahead of Thursday’s presidential debate: that Joe Biden is part of a plot to install Kamala Harris in a “DEI presidency.”

On The Five Tuesday evening, Watters claimed that the debate was part of progressives’ plan to “drag [Biden] across the finish line and install” the vice president to the top job.

“There is a lot at stake, plus the progressive movement—they are this close to locking this thing in,” Watters lamented. “They have opened the borders. They have changed the entire culture of this country. If you look at the cities, it’s almost over.”…

All of this gets very easy to understand once you realize that the right pushes the same four or five buttons, over and over again. And perhaps "four or five" gives more credit for diversity in thought than is due: all of it boils down to ONE very ugly unifying principle.

[Shirley]

wut

Fox News and Jesse Watters are pushing a bizarre conspiracy theory ahead of Thursday’s presidential debate: that Joe Biden is part of a plot to install Kamala Harris in a “DEI presidency.”

On The Five Tuesday evening, Watters claimed that the debate was part of progressives’ plan to “drag [Biden] across the finish line and install” the vice president to the top job.

“There is a lot at stake, plus the progressive movement—they are this close to locking this thing in,” Watters lamented. “They have opened the borders. They have changed the entire culture of this country. If you look at the cities, it’s almost over.”…

All of this gets very easy to understand once you realize that the right pushes the same four or five buttons, over and over again. And perhaps "four or five" gives more credit for diversity in thought than is due: all of it boils down to ONE very ugly unifying principle.

Looking at the results of Tuesday's Democratic primary results across the US should disabuse any one of the myth that the Democratic party is under the control of its "progressive" wing.

[jfish26]

No matter the characterization from within the padded walls on the right, the Democratic party is more-or-less functioning like a normal, center-left party.

And I would argue that Tuesday's results - where AOC cruised and Bowman got flattened - are a sign of healthy diversity in thought. Not a signal of division.

[Shirley]

No matter the characterization from within the padded walls on the right, the Democratic party is more-or-less functioning like a normal, center-left party.

And I would argue that Tuesday's results - where AOC cruised and Bowman got flattened - are a sign of healthy diversity in thought. Not a signal of division.

^^^

[ousdahl]

Sitting here at my parents, the Fox Business channel turned up to 11.

Spouting the dangers of raising taxes on evil rich people. Recession sure to come! And/or a recession is already here and taxing rich folks is the last thing that’ll un-recession us!

Honestly I thought they’d have some new material by now.

They did add a, we know what’ll happen with Trump in the White House, and it’ll be much better than the unknown doom and gloom of a Harris administration