Going to be a big door swinging in Washington DC

[bripat9643]

If America wanted a smooth transition and business as usual, we would have voted in HIllary.

The poll numbers A. can't be trusted, B if true are a result of traitorous malfeasance by the press, and C, don't matter.

Trump is learning on the job, give him time.

Oh, and that Court, stopping that EO? That hurt the court and the nation, not him. That was incredibly bad.

Trump has said the poll numbers can't be trusted and the media can't be trusted, and the courts can't be trusted. If congress turns against him, then congress can't be trusted. I expect Trump's solution will be a national news service or something similar that is honest and is always truthful and of course controlled by the administration. It served the leadership quite well in Russia and in Nazi Germany and would probably serve Trump well.

We already have two national news services: PBS and NPR, and they do serve the same exact purpose as Pravda and Isvestia. The difference is they do not publish what the administration wants unless the administration happens to be a Democrat. Like all government agencies, the government propaganda organs are staffed by an entrenched coterie of leftwing ideologues. The fake news they broadcast is designed to benefit themselves and their fellow government bureaucrats and employees.

Neither PBS nor NPR are controlled by the government. 85% of the support for PBS comes from the public and 98% for NPR. Had Republicans not worked so hard to strip government funding, Trump might have his national news service. Wow, wouldn't that be great, the Trump Broadcasting Service which broadcasts the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

The left seems to be the only ones pushing this lie that anyone wants a government controlled news outlet. It is interesting that you make the claim that Trump will enact such then post that he has done the exact opposite.

You are fear mongering just like the left has accused the right of doing for the last 8 years and it is no different now.

Government controlled news services always begin with the claim that media, newspapers or radio/tv is lying, dishonest, and can't be trusted and to some extent it's true now.

Really? Can you actually support that claim with actual historical evidence, or did you just make it up? My knowledge of history indicates the later.

Then the leaderships begins claiming all criticism of the leadership is lies and false news. This only escalates attacks by the media. Eventually, it reaches a point where the media is completely unreliable and the public would welcomes a change. Who knows if we will reach that point, but you can bet Trump believes we have already.

That sounds like a leftwing myth.

 

[Correll]

If America wanted a smooth transition and business as usual, we would have voted in HIllary.

The poll numbers A. can't be trusted, B if true are a result of traitorous malfeasance by the press, and C, don't matter.

Trump is learning on the job, give him time.

Oh, and that Court, stopping that EO? That hurt the court and the nation, not him. That was incredibly bad.

Trump has said the poll numbers can't be trusted and the media can't be trusted, and the courts can't be trusted. If congress turns against him, then congress can't be trusted. I expect Trump's solution will be a national news service or something similar that is honest and is always truthful and of course controlled by the administration. It served the leadership quite well in Russia and in Nazi Germany and would probably serve Trump well.

We already have two national news services: PBS and NPR, and they do serve the same exact purpose as Pravda and Isvestia. The difference is they do not publish what the administration wants unless the administration happens to be a Democrat. Like all government agencies, the government propaganda organs are staffed by an entrenched coterie of leftwing ideologues. The fake news they broadcast is designed to benefit themselves and their fellow government bureaucrats and employees.

Neither PBS nor NPR are controlled by the government. 85% of the support for PBS comes from the public and 98% for NPR. Had Republicans not worked so hard to strip government funding, Trump might have his national news service. Wow, wouldn't that be great, the Trump Broadcasting Service which broadcasts the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

The left seems to be the only ones pushing this lie that anyone wants a government controlled news outlet. It is interesting that you make the claim that Trump will enact such then post that he has done the exact opposite.

You are fear mongering just like the left has accused the right of doing for the last 8 years and it is no different now.

Government controlled news services always begin with the claim that media, newspapers or radio/tv is lying, dishonest, and can't be trusted and to some extent it's true now. Then the leaderships begins claiming all criticism of the leadership is lies and false news. This only escalates attacks by the media. Eventually, it reaches a point where the media is completely unreliable and the public would welcomes a change. Who knows if we will reach that point, but you can bet Trump believes we have already.

There is nothing to support your opinion of Trump other than your dislike of him.

A radical idea. Perhaps the media could stop being complete dicks?

 

[FA_Q2]

You're fired, the door can't be big enough, good riddance...

In Break With Past, Obama Ambassadors Are Told to Quit Posts by Inauguration Day

The New York Times
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS 3 hrs ago

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump’s transition staff has issued a blanket edict requiring politically appointed ambassadors to leave their overseas posts by Inauguration Day, according to several American diplomats familiar with the plan, breaking with decades of precedent by declining to provide even the briefest of grace periods.

The mandate — issued “without exceptions,” according to a terse State Department cable sent on Dec. 23, diplomats who saw it said — threatens to leave the United States without Senate-confirmed envoys for months in critical nations like Germany, Canada and Britain. In the past, administrations of both parties have often granted extensions on a case-by-case basis to allow a handful of ambassadors, particularly those with school-age children, to remain in place for weeks or months.

Mr. Trump, by contrast, has taken a hard line against leaving any of President Obama’s political appointees in place as he prepares to take office on Jan. 20 with a mission of dismantling many of his predecessor’s signature foreign and domestic policy achievements. “Political” ambassadors, many of them major donors who are nominated by virtue of close ties with the president, almost always leave at the end of his term; ambassadors who are career diplomats often remain in their posts.

A senior Trump transition official said there was no ill will in the move, describing it as a simple matter of ensuring that Mr. Obama’s overseas appointees leave the government on schedule, just as thousands of political aides at the White House and in federal agencies must do. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity about internal deliberations, said the ambassadors should not be surprised about being held to a hard end date.

...

In Break With Past, Obama Ambassadors Are Told to Quit Posts by Inauguration Day

Looks, like that big swinging door swings both direction. Trump may find it hits him in the ass as it did Flynn.

Kind of a crazy leap form Flynn to impeachment.

Like bat shit crazy.

Impeachment often comes slowly.
Flynn's out. Trump's Secretary of Labor just bowed out. Nobody wants to ride a sinking ship down. As the pawns are washed away, eventually it will reach the king.

4 of Obama's nominees had to bail before his cabinet was fully staffed. Only morons are swallowing the leftwing narrative on this issue.

That's within 100 days, not 30 days.

That is really irrelevant. Do you think that more than 4 are going to have to bow out or be fired over the next 2 months? Why?

The fact that there are some that do not make it is really not all that noteworthy - it is bound to happen. Flynn himself is noteworthy because what he did was illegal and it is worth a look but equating that to a coming impeachment is asinine conjecture without merit.

 

[bripat9643]

Looks, like that big swinging door swings both direction. Trump may find it hits him in the ass as it did Flynn.

Kind of a crazy leap form Flynn to impeachment.

Like bat shit crazy.

Impeachment often comes slowly.
Flynn's out. Trump's Secretary of Labor just bowed out. Nobody wants to ride a sinking ship down. As the pawns are washed away, eventually it will reach the king.

4 of Obama's nominees had to bail before his cabinet was fully staffed. Only morons are swallowing the leftwing narrative on this issue.

That's within 100 days, not 30 days.

That is really irrelevant. Do you think that more than 4 are going to have to bow out or be fired over the next 2 months? Why?

The fact that there are some that do not make it is really not all that noteworthy - it is bound to happen. Flynn himself is noteworthy because what he did was illegal and it is worth a look but equating that to a coming impeachment is asinine conjecture without merit.

What did Flynn do that was illegal?

 

[FA_Q2]

Kind of a crazy leap form Flynn to impeachment.

Like bat shit crazy.

Impeachment often comes slowly.
Flynn's out. Trump's Secretary of Labor just bowed out. Nobody wants to ride a sinking ship down. As the pawns are washed away, eventually it will reach the king.

4 of Obama's nominees had to bail before his cabinet was fully staffed. Only morons are swallowing the leftwing narrative on this issue.

That's within 100 days, not 30 days.

That is really irrelevant. Do you think that more than 4 are going to have to bow out or be fired over the next 2 months? Why?

The fact that there are some that do not make it is really not all that noteworthy - it is bound to happen. Flynn himself is noteworthy because what he did was illegal and it is worth a look but equating that to a coming impeachment is asinine conjecture without merit.

What did Flynn do that was illegal?

He acted as a representative of the nation while he was not one. It is pretty clear that Flynn broke the law. Weather or not the law is proper in this particular case can be argued as he was part of an incoming administration BUT if that was the case he should have shut his mouth and worked to change the law when presented the opportunity.

 

[bripat9643]

Impeachment often comes slowly.
Flynn's out. Trump's Secretary of Labor just bowed out. Nobody wants to ride a sinking ship down. As the pawns are washed away, eventually it will reach the king.

4 of Obama's nominees had to bail before his cabinet was fully staffed. Only morons are swallowing the leftwing narrative on this issue.

That's within 100 days, not 30 days.

That is really irrelevant. Do you think that more than 4 are going to have to bow out or be fired over the next 2 months? Why?

The fact that there are some that do not make it is really not all that noteworthy - it is bound to happen. Flynn himself is noteworthy because what he did was illegal and it is worth a look but equating that to a coming impeachment is asinine conjecture without merit.

What did Flynn do that was illegal?

He acted as a representative of the nation while he was not one. It is pretty clear that Flynn broke the law. Weather or not the law is proper in this particular case can be argued as he was part of an incoming administration BUT if that was the case he should have shut his mouth and worked to change the law when presented the opportunity.

When did he act as a "representative of the nation?" What does that even mean? What law did he break? It's pretty clear you don't have a fucking clue what he did or even if it was illegal.

 

[Flopper]

Trump has said the poll numbers can't be trusted and the media can't be trusted, and the courts can't be trusted. If congress turns against him, then congress can't be trusted. I expect Trump's solution will be a national news service or something similar that is honest and is always truthful and of course controlled by the administration. It served the leadership quite well in Russia and in Nazi Germany and would probably serve Trump well.

We already have two national news services: PBS and NPR, and they do serve the same exact purpose as Pravda and Isvestia. The difference is they do not publish what the administration wants unless the administration happens to be a Democrat. Like all government agencies, the government propaganda organs are staffed by an entrenched coterie of leftwing ideologues. The fake news they broadcast is designed to benefit themselves and their fellow government bureaucrats and employees.

Neither PBS nor NPR are controlled by the government. 85% of the support for PBS comes from the public and 98% for NPR. Had Republicans not worked so hard to strip government funding, Trump might have his national news service. Wow, wouldn't that be great, the Trump Broadcasting Service which broadcasts the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

The left seems to be the only ones pushing this lie that anyone wants a government controlled news outlet. It is interesting that you make the claim that Trump will enact such then post that he has done the exact opposite.

You are fear mongering just like the left has accused the right of doing for the last 8 years and it is no different now.

Government controlled news services always begin with the claim that media, newspapers or radio/tv is lying, dishonest, and can't be trusted and to some extent it's true now. Then the leaderships begins claiming all criticism of the leadership is lies and false news. This only escalates attacks by the media. Eventually, it reaches a point where the media is completely unreliable and the public would welcomes a change. Who knows if we will reach that point, but you can bet Trump believes we have already.

And tyrants always begin subduing the people with gun control measures.

Do you even understand how similar you sound to the same right wing 'the sky is falling' crowd? Do you really want to be the same as them?

Tyrants taking away guns has certainly not been universal. Control of the media certainly has. For example, the Germany Weimar Republic always had strict gun control laws. When Hitler came to power he further restricted gun ownership for Jews and certainly other undesirables but he effectively abolish gun control for Nazi party members. However, once he was Chancellor, he had total control the news media.