droid

Well-known member
This is good:

A key part of that story is that facts are whatever Trump deems them to be on any given day. When he is challenged, he instinctively doubles down — even when what he has just said is demonstrably false. I saw that countless times, whether it was as trivial as exaggerating the number of floors at Trump Tower or as consequential as telling me that his casinos were performing well when they were actually going bankrupt. In the same way, Trump would see no contradiction at all in changing his story about why he fired Comey and thereby undermining the statements of his aides, or in any other lie he tells. His aim is never accuracy; it’s domination.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...is-rooted-in-his-past/?utm_term=.17e7618c601d
 

droid

Well-known member
Montana today is going to be big. If the GOP wins by anything less than 8 points it'll be very bad for Trump.
 

Corpsey

bandz ahoy
When on earth is this embarrassment going to be booted off the world stage?

Remember a time when Donald Trump was just that twat off the Apprentice?
 

Leo

Well-known member
Montana today is going to be big. If the GOP wins by anything less than 8 points it'll be very bad for Trump.

sadly, a lot of early voting was already in before yesterday's body slamming incident, so that might not have as big an impact as it otherwise might.
 

Leo

Well-known member
we should have a national system in place where people can recast their vote after submitting an early ballot if they change their minds. three states (not montana) allow it, but even those states require the change to be made 3-7 days prior to election day.

also, montana being montana, the body slamming of a Guardian reporter might actually win him some votes.
 

droid

Well-known member
Didnt get the big shock in montana, but serious Reps will be looking at this in real fear.

DAwuCORW0AEVxId.jpg
 

Leo

Well-known member
From the New York Times' coverage of Trump's spontaneous decision to tell Russia's foreign minister and ambassador about top-secret Israeli intelligence:

"In private, three administration officials conceded that they could not publicly articulate their most compelling — and honest — defense of the president: that Mr. Trump, a hasty and indifferent reader of printed briefing materials, simply did not possess the interest or knowledge of the granular details of intelligence gathering to leak specific sources and methods of intelligence gathering that would do harm to United States allies."

On the same subject, a Reuters report Wednesday morning quotes a source who's heard from White House officials that Trump will only read preparatory material if his name is in it:

"National Security Council officials have strategically included Trump's name in "as many paragraphs as we can because he keeps reading if he's mentioned," according to one source, who relayed conversations he had with NSC officials."

Politico had the following about the Israel mess:

"But several advisers and others close to Trump said they wouldn't be surprised if Trump gave information he shouldn't have. One adviser who often speaks to the president said the conversation was likely freewheeling in the Oval Office, and he probably wanted to impress the officials. "He doesn't really know any boundaries. He doesn't think in those terms," this adviser said. "He doesn't sometimes realize the implications of what he's saying."

And that's supposed to be a defense of the president!

Conservative New York Times columnist Ross Douthat sums up the situation aptly:

Read the things that these people, members of his inner circle, his personally selected appointees, say daily through anonymous quotations to the press. (And I assure you they say worse off the record.) They have no respect for him, indeed they seem to palpate with contempt for him, and to regard their mission as equivalent to being stewards for a syphilitic emperor.
 
Top