snopes.com

snopes.com (http://message.snopes.com/index.php)
-   Soapbox Derby (http://message.snopes.com/forumdisplay.php?f=43)
-   -   Donald Trump Attacks Democrats Not Clapping At State Of The Union As ‘Treasonous’ (http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=96429)

DawnStorm 06 February 2018 01:09 PM

Donald Trump Attacks Democrats Not Clapping At State Of The Union As ‘Treasonous’
 
Another day, another piece of idiocy from Dear Leader's mouth...:rolleyes:


Link here just in case: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b00f94fe93f924

dfresh 06 February 2018 01:54 PM

I saw this yesterday and was just floored. It seems like President Trump has to work each day to find a new way to offend people. Is he working now to make treason no big deal, so that his team committing treason with Russia will come to be seen as no big deal, or not as big a deal as the Democrats not applauding him enough?

Lainie 06 February 2018 02:13 PM

No, he's working to convince his base that opposing him is treason, and that he is the bulwark protecting their liberty. And it's working -- someone commented on a friend's FB page that the Nunes memo documents "multiple coups against an elected president."

GenYus234 06 February 2018 02:51 PM

You can't have multiple coups against the President as he wouldn't be President after the first one.

[/pedantism for the win!]

Seaboe Muffinchucker 06 February 2018 03:33 PM

The public perception of what treason is has long been overblown; that the president is even farther off-base than the general public is, sadly, not surprising.

Seaboe

dfresh 06 February 2018 03:38 PM

Treason is doing anything the president doesn't like, right, unless he* is an invalid president (i.e., a Democrat)?

*yes, just he.

GenYus234 06 February 2018 03:51 PM

I shouldn't support name-calling on either side, but Senator Duckworth has at least got the cred to do so.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b00f94fe944690

Quote:

We don’t live in a dictatorship or a monarchy. I swore an oath ― in the military and in the Senate ― to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not to mindlessly cater to the whims of Cadet Bone Spurs and clap when he demands I clap.
ETA:
Quote:

Originally Posted by dfresh (Post 1971288)
Treason is doing anything the president doesn't like, right, unless he* is an invalid president (i.e., a Democrat)?

I doubt it is even that nuanced. This basically the classic toddler* response, "I'm not a weeny-head, you're a weeny-head!"

* With apologies to actual toddlers.

DawnStorm 06 February 2018 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenYus234 (Post 1971290)
ETA:


I doubt it is even that nuanced. This basically the classic toddler* response, "I'm not a weeny-head, you're a weeny-head!"

* With apologies to actual toddlers.

You forgot: MOM!! Johnny called me a weenie head!!

Couple of articles from Reason: First one; article 2

Richard W 06 February 2018 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenYus234 (Post 1971270)
You can't have multiple coups against the President as he wouldn't be President after the first one.

That's only true for an odd number of coups. If there's been an even number of coups then he could still be President...

(And if there's more than one party carrying out coups, he could be President after any number of coups as long as he managed to get the most recent coup in himself, which means after any number of coups except 1. Assuming he was President in the first place.)

(eta)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenYus234 (Post 1971290)
I doubt it is even that nuanced. This basically the classic toddler* response, "I'm not a weeny-head, you're a weeny-head!"

* With apologies to actual toddlers.

Harvey Richards, Lawyer for Children from Tom The Dancing Bug. Trump's given him a perfect opportunity to resurrect an old character...

GenYus234 06 February 2018 06:20 PM

The first of those would only be true when coup > 3.

For the coup/countercoup scenario, you'd need to have a coup to remove him, a coup to install him, another coup to remove him, and another coup to reinstall him. If you stopped after three, it would be multiple coups against the former President. If you stopped after two, it would only be a single coup against the President.

For the second it would be true after n*3 coups where n = number of couping parties.

PS. The word coup has now become the oddest looking word.

Richard W 06 February 2018 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenYus234 (Post 1971314)
PS. The word coup has now become the oddest looking word.

Yes, I had to stop and make sure I was spelling it correctly half way through my post.

(eta) So does this mean that all the American political analysts are busy counting the number of coups in the memo to work out whether Trump's still President?

DawnStorm 06 February 2018 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenYus234 (Post 1971314)

For the second it would be true after n*3 coups where n = number of couping parties.

PS. The word coup has now become the oddest looking word.

This all sounds very coup-coup to me. :p

Sue 06 February 2018 07:07 PM

Just when I think I could not possibly hate him more than I already do, he stoops even lower :(.

GenYus234 06 February 2018 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard W (Post 1971316)
(eta) So does this mean that all the American political analysts are busy counting the number of coups in the memo to work out whether Trump's still President?

Yes, they are counting coup.

damian 07 February 2018 01:39 AM

I would like to see the media and all commentators simply report "Trump said something stupid again today", and then ignore it. He only says stupid things to distract everyone from whatever scandal he is in this week.

Mouse 07 February 2018 01:43 AM

While I understand the temptation, I still think it's wrong to compare Trump to a toddler. Toddlers are filled with natural curiosity and are capable of displaying some empathy towards others. If nothing else, no matter how irritating they may be, there's still a possibility that a toddler will grew the NFBSK up and stop being so irritating.

:shakes head: Are there any accurate comparisons we can make regarding Trump? As said before, any fictional villain, regardless of how bad the source material, still has better work ethic than Donald Trump. The same goes for Real World villains as well.

It's probably some of the most irritating aspects of Trump, not just the villainy, but the laziness and pettiness of it all. It's one of the most maddening things about Trump, how his strategy is pretty much: Throw Hissyfits. And somehow the pundits and everyone around him, keeps trying to pretend that this is some clever, Machiavellian strategy, when it's not. There is no strategy behind any of it. The simplest and best answer is that the lion really is a coward, one that can't help but lick his wounds until his skin is raw.

There is some honor in being defeated by a Tywin Lannister-style chess player--it sucks, but you can take some comfort in knowing you were taken down by a worthy foe--but I'm not sure Trump even rises to the level of Joffrey Baratheon-level villainy.

Of course, ideally, we wouldn't be ruled by villains at all, but that doesn't seem likely to happen, right now. If we're stuck with having to be ruled by villains, again, give me ones with some work ethic and competence, give me some Magnificent Bastards. I'd still hate them and want to take them down, but again, there's honor in being defeated by a good villain.

Me, I keep trying to figure out the reason for the decline in the quality of their villainy the first place. My original theory, regarding the decay, was that it was due to the whole "Sons of Privilege from Long Lines of Sons of Privilege" meme, because Richard Nixon was the last GOP president to come from a working class/middle class background, but apparently Reagan came from one as well, so I need to reevaluate my theory.

Don Enrico 07 February 2018 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sue (Post 1971330)
Just when I think I could not possibly hate him more than I already do, he stoops even lower :(.

Donald Trump orders Pentagon to plan grand military parade

Quote:

Donald Trump has ordered the Pentagon to plan a military parade that would see soldiers marching and tanks rolling down the streets of Washington, it was reported on Tuesday.
Maybe you can finish with the execution of some traitors?

crocoduck_hunter 07 February 2018 07:21 AM

Also, the first person to stop clapping will be shot.

DawnStorm 07 February 2018 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Enrico (Post 1971398)

I got the chills when I first heard this and it was not from the weather! Then I picked up the brick that I dropped on the floor.
Holy freaking guacamole, this has got to be a joke right? :eek:
DH would like to see it done Lambeth Walk style.:lol:

Lainie 07 February 2018 12:57 PM

I would love to see the streets lined with people, all turning their backs on the parade as it approaches.

DawnStorm 07 February 2018 12:59 PM

Lainie, that would be treason! ;)

RichardM 07 February 2018 04:39 PM

The KKK says it has a fresh supply of Tiki torches.

thorny locust 07 February 2018 05:51 PM

From the article linked to:

Quote:

A date for the event has not yet been chosen. Options include Memorial Day on 28 May, Independence Day on 4 July and Veterans Day on 11 November,
How about never? Does never work for you?

GenYus234 07 February 2018 06:21 PM

Surprised they didn't pick Flag Day, since June 14th is Generalissimo Trump's birthday.

PS. Also the assumed birthday of one of our cats.

Aud 1 07 February 2018 06:22 PM

I just want to clap for Senator Duckworth.

WildaBeast 07 February 2018 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lainie (Post 1971415)
I would love to see the streets lined with people, all turning their backs on the parade as it approaches.

Except you know Republicans would accuse them of "disrespecting the military" if they did that.

Richard W 07 February 2018 06:28 PM

I hope there's a good way to make veterans, including POWs, feature prominently in the parade. I wonder if they can work in bereaved relatives of those who died in service, too?

GenYus234 07 February 2018 06:54 PM

It definitely wouldn't include POWs as Trump only likes people who weren't captured.

ETA: And it would only include white relatives of deceased service members because the Muslim ones have been brainwashed (only non-white people belong to non-Christian religions).

E. Q. Taft 07 February 2018 07:14 PM

I think one of the symptoms of stupid, and potentially dangerous, nationalism, is when you start getting excessively reverent towards the symbols of the country. I mean, I don't much care for people desecrating flags, but it bothers me a hell of a lot less than someone who waves it while spouting ideas decidedly in conflict with our national ideals (which, for me, are mainly equality, the rule of law, due process, freedom of expression, and government accountability). (That's off the top of my head, in case I left something vital out.)

It's probably a sign of the wrong kind of religious fanaticism, too -- when you become more concerned with saying "Merry Christmas" and displaying crosses in public places than in doing any of the things Jesus actually urged you to do. (And analogous things with respect to other religions.)

Richard W 07 February 2018 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenYus234 (Post 1971468)
It definitely wouldn't include POWs as Trump only likes people who weren't captured.

Yes, that was kind of my point...

I suppose the other way to go about it would be to explicitly exclude those people and make it quite clear why you were doing so - "We've not included any former POWs because we know President Trump doesn't like them" and so on. But I fear Trump may just take that literally and be pleased about it. It might wind up some of his supporters, though.

E. Q. Taft 07 February 2018 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by damian (Post 1971385)
I would like to see the media and all commentators simply report "Trump said something stupid again today", and then ignore it. He only says stupid things to distract everyone from whatever scandal he is in this week.

What I always thought the media should do is agree to just never use his name. Refer to "the President," "the White House," "the administration," etc., when they have to, but never say his name, never show his picture, and never show any of his speeches (report them through transcripts where they're relevant).

Given his ego and mania for slapping his name on everything, I just think it would really send his blood pressure soaring.

dfresh 07 February 2018 07:40 PM

E.Q., the only media he pays attention to is Fox, and they would never go along with that. They would just talk about how disrespectful it is (like saying a president is not a citizen).

Lainie 07 February 2018 07:42 PM

He pays attention to other channels, and complains about them on Twitter.

UEL 08 February 2018 12:00 AM

I see Trump's Army is getting ready for the parade. Gotta get practice in early.

http://www.mikelynaugh.com/VirtualCi...s/IMG_4587.jpg

crocoduck_hunter 08 February 2018 01:05 AM

Huh.

I thought Trump's army typically preferred white hoods.

UEL 08 February 2018 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter (Post 1971498)
I thought Trump's army typically preferred white hoods.

White hoods aren't army. They are boosters.

This is his army!!!!

Alarm 08 February 2018 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UEL (Post 1971504)
White hoods aren't army. They are boosters.

This is his army!!!!

He did state a preference for steam catapults... so his army should be equipped with comparable small arms.

Quote:

And I said–and now they want to buy more aircraft carriers. I said what system are you going to be–”Sir, we’re staying with digital.” I said no you’re not. You going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good
Emphasis mine

GenYus234 08 February 2018 04:21 PM

The digital ones probably save even more money on maintenance over the long run.

I remember an article about Trump from years ago where he made his pilots not use thrust reversers during landings because he thought that would wear out the engines. Instead, they had to rely on just the brakes, which causes much more wear and is less safe.

ChasFink 08 February 2018 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alarm (Post 1971534)
He did state a preference for steam catapults... so his army should be equipped with comparable small arms.

When I read this I thought you meant catapults as offensive weapons, not as plane launchers. And for some reason I didn't think it so strange that Trump would want them.

DawnStorm 08 February 2018 04:33 PM

Local Talk Show Host was discussing this yesterday, and some of the callers suggested that the parade consist of veterans who have been/are being dicked over by the VA. Of course the callers put it in nicer terms than I did, but you get the message.


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:17 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.