Best quote about Trump

[ScottishJohn 25]

I earned my spurs on the battlefield ... Donald Trump earned his spurs in a letter from a doctor - General Mattis

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

On 10/17/2019 at 12:23 AM, yoink said:

Why is he so ORANGE???

 

22 hours ago, brenthutch said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2019/sep/13/donald-trump-blames-lightbulbs-for-his-orange-hue-video

Ahh yes, it's all the fault of the 'energy efficient' light bulbs.

So why don't the rest of the people standing next to him appear orange too?

[kallend 1,623]

5 hours ago, ScottishJohn said:

I earned my spurs on the battlefield ... Donald Trump earned his spurs in a letter from a doctor - General Mattis

Gen. Mattis wins.

[billvon 2,395]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

So why don't the rest of the people standing next to him appear orange too?

It's a left wing conspiracy!

[JoeWeber 2,297]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

Gen. Mattis wins.

I can't wait for his new movie : Tour of Books.

[billvon 2,395]

Great summary of how Trump looks to the outside world.

Someone asked “Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?”  Nate White, a Brit, wrote this reply:
================ 
A few things spring to mind.
 
Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.  For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.

So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.
 
Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever.

I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.
 
But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.
 
Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.
 
And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.
 
There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.
 
Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.
Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.
 
And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist.

Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that.
He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat.
 
He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.
 
And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully.
That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.
 
There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.
 
So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:
• Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
• You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.
 
This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.

After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.

God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid.
 
He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart.

In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump.
 
And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish:
‘My God… what… have… I… created?'
===========================

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

16 minutes ago, billvon said:

Great summary of how Trump looks to the outside world.

====================

Keep in mind that he looks like that to a majority of the US too.

[mbohu 77]

53 minutes ago, billvon said:

Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.  For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace

Although one must admit that the British lost just a little bit of credibility in these areas, ever since their new prime minister took over.

[ryoder 1,381]

50 minutes ago, mbohu said:

Although one must admit that the British lost just a little bit of credibility in these areas, ever since their new prime minister took over.

Well, as long as Parliament keeps voting against him, and the courts keep ruling against him, I still have hope for the UK.

[mbohu 77]

25 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Well, as long as Parliament keeps voting against him, and the courts keep ruling against him, I still have hope for the UK.

Yes. Makes me wonder though: Is it that their system is different enough, or is it because they just aren't quite as far along the process as the US, because:
Congress votes against Trump all the time and (short of some extreme, like Impeachment...and even that cannot move along in the end, because of the Senate) it has practically zero effect here, while in Britain it really is (or has been up to now) able to stop the government.
As for the courts, while there are some rulings against Trump, that is being undercut more and more, because judges are essentially appointed by the president, so the courts are less and less likely to stand against him, as he replaces judges. I am not sure how that works in Britain. If a regressive, nationalistic government was in power for a long time, would they also be able to change the courts, so they are stacked in their favor?

[rifleman 61]

1 hour ago, mbohu said:

Yes. Makes me wonder though: Is it that their system is different enough, or is it because they just aren't quite as far along the process as the US, because:
Congress votes against Trump all the time and (short of some extreme, like Impeachment...and even that cannot move along in the end, because of the Senate) it has practically zero effect here, while in Britain it really is (or has been up to now) able to stop the government.
As for the courts, while there are some rulings against Trump, that is being undercut more and more, because judges are essentially appointed by the president, so the courts are less and less likely to stand against him, as he replaces judges. I am not sure how that works in Britain. If a regressive, nationalistic government was in power for a long time, would they also be able to change the courts, so they are stacked in their favor?

The system in the UK is fundamentally different to that in the US. Judges are appointed by the Monarch on the advice of the Lord Chancellor (High Court Judge Appointment). They're independent from the political process and have fought to maintain that independence against political interference. They occasionally make bad decisions but generally they try to uphold the laws (statute and common).

The other difference is that we don't elect a head of state. Every constituency in the UK (roughly 650) elects a local MP and the party that wins the most seats forms the Government. Sometimes this necessitates forming a coalition with one or more of the minority parties (SNP, Plaid Cymru, Green, DUP etc). Whoever happens to be the leader of the party with the most seats (including coalition partners) becomes the Prime Minister. 

There are several ways to terminate a Government. The first is to force a vote of no confidence (VONC) which is hard to do against a party with a solid majority, but against a minority government or one with a very slim majority it can be effective. The second is to vote down the legislative program put forward by the Government in the Queen's Speech. The result is the same in that the Leader of the Opposition meets the Queen and is invited to form a new Government. They then have 14 days to demonstrate that they can command the respect of the House. If they can't then a General Election is called.

[jakee 1,254]

4 hours ago, mbohu said:

Although one must admit that the British lost just a little bit of credibility in these areas, ever since their new prime minister took over.

True! The one consolation is that Boris never won a national election, he became PM through the back door.

[jakee 1,254]

3 hours ago, mbohu said:

Yes. Makes me wonder though: Is it that their system is different enough, or is it because they just aren't quite as far along the process as the US, because:
Congress votes against Trump all the time and (short of some extreme, like Impeachment...and even that cannot move along in the end, because of the Senate) it has practically zero effect here, while in Britain it really is (or has been up to now) able to stop the government.

Right, but we have a Prime Minister, not a President. It's not a seperate branch of government with the Executive power of the Pres, there is comparitively very little of any importance that the PM can do without the consent of Parliament.

[Stumpy 256]

38 minutes ago, jakee said:

Right, but we have a Prime Minister, not a President. It's not a seperate branch of government with the Executive power of the Pres, there is comparitively very little of any importance that the PM can do without the consent of Parliament.

Yeah I guess the Prime Minister is closer in essence to the house Majority leader.

And the Lords is kind of like the senate, except most of the people there are appointed, not elected. They are also usually very old, very white, very male, and asleep. Occasionally they will wake up, yell something incomprehensible, and go back to sleep again until their carers come to wheel them out.

[mbohu 77]

3 hours ago, Stumpy said:

Yeah I guess the Prime Minister is closer in essence to the house Majority leader.

And the Lords is kind of like the senate, except most of the people there are appointed, not elected. They are also usually very old, very white, very male, and asleep. Occasionally they will wake up, yell something incomprehensible, and go back to sleep again until their carers come to wheel them out.

Thanks everyone for explaining some parts of the British system. I do clearly understand the PM and government and how they are formed, because that seems very similar to many European parliamentary systems. The fact that local MPs are voted in based on their geographic regions seems more like the American system--compared to simply voting in representatives based on the overall percentage of votes nationally, which seems to be more common on the continent--so it seems like a mixture.
However: The house of Lords is a complete mystery to me. On the one hand it sounds like a second chamber, like the US Senate. On the other hand, in all the fighting over Brexit in the last few years, I have not heard the House of Lords mentioned once, in any way that seems to indicate that they have any power or use whatsoever (and if they aren't involved in this absolutely historic, unprecedented issue, then where else could they possibly have any influence?)...and hearing that they are simply appointed--by Whom??? The Queen? Some other aristocrats?--makes me wonder even more. Can anyone enlighten me a bit more? What is their role? Why are people ok with just having them appointed, rather than voted for?

[turtlespeed 212]

On 10/16/2019 at 12:28 PM, billvon said:

Yeah, I have no idea where that came from.  

It adds just a LIDDLE narcissism to every post . . .

I'm Kidding - I believe him when he says he didn't know - Or was it "I don't recall"?

[yoink 321]

On 10/21/2019 at 10:47 AM, mbohu said:

Although one must admit that the British lost just a little bit of credibility in these areas, ever since their new prime minister took over.

One must point out that at no point did the British public VOTE for Boris Johnson. Ever. At all.

 

Edit: late reply. Jakee got there way before me.

Edited October 23, 2019 by yoink

[yoink 321]

On 10/21/2019 at 4:05 PM, Stumpy said:

Yeah I guess the Prime Minister is closer in essence to the house Majority leader.

And the Lords is kind of like the senate, except most of the people there are appointed, not elected. They are also usually very old, very white, very male, and asleep. Occasionally they will wake up, yell something incomprehensible, and go back to sleep again until their carers come to wheel them out.

Tough to argue against this.

[kallend 1,623]

On 10/18/2019 at 3:37 AM, ScottishJohn said:

I earned my spurs on the battlefield ... Donald Trump earned his spurs in a letter from a doctor - General Mattis

Mattis is still winning, although the "Colorado Wall" comments are pretty good. 

[kallend 1,623]

On 10/21/2019 at 6:05 PM, Stumpy said:

Yeah I guess the Prime Minister is closer in essence to the house Majority leader.

And the Lords is kind of like the senate, except most of the people there are appointed, not elected. They are also usually very old, very white, very male, and asleep. Occasionally they will wake up, yell something incomprehensible, and go back to sleep again until their carers come to wheel them out.

Approximately 1/3 of active members of the Lords are women, and some 10% are ethnic minorities.

Not unlike the US Senate overall (but a lot  LESS white and male than the GOP senators).

[yoink 321]

Tump's utterly baffling self-congratulation speech yesterday in which he systematically destroys every point he makes.

[jakee 1,254]

Another random meltdown.

 

Aside from continuing to brazenly use the G7 to promote his own business for his own financial gain, one of his favourite rhetorical devices makes a bizarre appearance. "Some people say" Miami International is the biggest airport in the world It's not even top 10 in the country! Ok, it's a great demonstration that whenever you hear him say "some say" you know he's lying... but why on earth would you even try lying about that? 

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

Another random meltdown.

 

Aside from continuing to brazenly use the G7 to promote his own business for his own financial gain, one of his favourite rhetorical devices makes a bizarre appearance. "Some people say" Miami International is the biggest airport in the world It's not even top 10 in the country! Ok, it's a great demonstration that whenever you hear him say "some say" you know he's lying... but why on earth would you even try lying about that? 

Is that the same as when the media says "Sources Say"?

[wmw999 2,120]

Well, when "sources say," if the organization pays attention to journalistic ethics (yeah, they exist), there are, in fact, sources. Consider Watergate scandal -- there really was a Deep Throat, and only one guy knew who it was. 

If a blog says it, it's probably BS; if some online hack or semi-paper (e.g. National Enquirer or Weekly World News) says it, likewise. If the Washington Post says it and it's their story, there's probably a person, and one hopes that person isn't too driven by bile and politics. If the Washington Post says it and they're quoting some blog, well, consider the actual source.

But it's the degree of partisan division, the demonization of "other," and the definition of political disagreement as "other" that's a huge problem right now. The anonymity of the internet, and the ability to find like-minded people, as well as the ability to find broadcast media that confirms one's biases, is leading to fewer people getting together with others they disagree with on a personal level. 

Except maybe at the dropzone 

Wendy P.

[turtlespeed 212]

20 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Well, when "sources say," if the organization pays attention to journalistic ethics (yeah, they exist), there are, in fact, sources. Consider Watergate scandal -- there really was a Deep Throat, and only one guy knew who it was. 

If a blog says it, it's probably BS; if some online hack or semi-paper (e.g. National Enquirer or Weekly World News) says it, likewise. If the Washington Post says it and it's their story, there's probably a person, and one hopes that person isn't too driven by bile and politics. If the Washington Post says it and they're quoting some blog, well, consider the actual source.

But it's the degree of partisan division, the demonization of "other," and the definition of political disagreement as "other" that's a huge problem right now. The anonymity of the internet, and the ability to find like-minded people, as well as the ability to find broadcast media that confirms one's biases, is leading to fewer people getting together with others they disagree with on a personal level. 

Except maybe at the dropzone 

Wendy P.

I love how you read through my sarcasm, and articulate my intentions in such a nice way.

You cut right to the core of the irony I saw in the statement.  There have been a LOT of sources used that have demeaned the credibility of the press in important matters lately, which was really my underlying point . . .