jakee

I love it when you basically admit you have no argument, but plow ahead anyway. Did you ever get an answer about those police blockades in the streets of the UK from those friends of yours? Nah, of course you didn't Do you want to have an ideagasm?

If by 'political' you mean it would involve Trump having to answer questions about all the laws he, his staff, his company and his charity broke while paying the hush money then yeah, sure it's political What have the Clintons done that comes remotely close to the naked profiteering of the Trump mafia? Shocking behaviour by the DNC, sure. But is there evidence that she was involved in rigging it, or did other officials decide to rig it for her? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Except for when you read his site and link to his stories. I think there is a Grand Jury empanelled against one FBI person, and that it has nothing to do with the Russia investigation. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

So why isn't Trump pressing charges? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

What charges? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Would you believe neither Ron nor Rush have commented on that tweet? Shocking, isn't it Damn dude, they busted a nut when she wore a sleeveless top. Christ knows what would have hapened if she'd taken it off. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I'm not sure if I agree with his assessment. Certainly it's not straightforward and not realistic - since if the President objects (and he would) the issue goes to Congress, where it needs even more support than a successful impeachment would. But, the simple fact that it contains a provision for the President to object surely means that it envisions the amendment being used against a President who is conscious and (at least somewhat) lucid. In practice then, the question of what constitutes an inability would lie purely with the Executive staff and Congress - just as the question of what is impeachable also lies purely with Congress. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

What exactly is the rebuttal from that article? That the author is gutless? Yeah, maybe, but that has no bearing on what was said. That it was treason? I'm not sure how that could be the case, but for sure it couldn't possibly be treason if it wasn't true. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

It's possible the author thinks they're playing the long game - they're assuming the Trump admin is going to poison the reputation of everyone associated with it and they want to be able to say "Look! I was one of the good ones!" and keep a high position elsewhere in the party. If that's the case, I think they're underestimating how much people hate seeing their dirty laundry aired in public, even when they agree with you in private. Another possibility, given all the reports of Trump's man-management style, is simply that by now this person really, really, really frikkin' hates the guy, and is taking satisfaction in screwing him over. After all, the op-ed is mostly damning on a personal level, since the author claims that the end result of the shenanigans is that the administration is doing a good job on policy. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Apparently there's a betting outfit in Costa Rica that has odds posted. For individuals (the leader is 'the field' - none of the named people), the favorite is Pence. Apparently the word 'lodestar' was used a couple times in the editorial. And apparently Pence is the only one in the administration who's on record having used that word. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the author and the NYT editors they worked with intentionally threw in a few characteristic words and turns of phrase from colleagues as misdirection for the inevitable molehunt. And I'm not really curious who wrote it. No-one will come forward until they either get fired or Trump's admin goes down in flames. I'm sure it is genuine though. Not just because I trust both the NYT's editorial ethics and sense of self preservation would prevent it from inventing something like this, but because the overall sense of the essay is one of immense arrogance and self-importance. A perfect fit for a role in the West Wing right now Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Ha, Roy Moore is suing Sacha Baron-Cohen for defamation for joking about him being a pedophile in ‘Who is America’ Yeah... good luck with that, Roy Do you want to have an ideagasm?

seems the sort of thing a military person would write. So.... have you heard women can join the military now too? And when I say now, I mean for significantly longer than you've been alive. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

And yet you just made it up. And it's not very funny. He's referring to this tweet. And that's just one example. Trump uses anonymous sources all the time. Every tweet or speech that contains 'many people are saying' or 'most people think' or my favourite 'even my enemies agree' is invoking anonymous sources. And unlike what you get from the NYT, WaPo and Bob Woodward, they're pretty much all are fake news - because Trump doesn't possess their integrity or even understand their code of ethics. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

About 2 minutes of research found that: A) She's a tech editor, so what's political about it? B) Both her and the NYT have stated that her 'racist' comments were intended as satirical replies to unsolicited racist abuse she received from other Twitter users. C) She published a sincere apology which is just about the dictionary definition of being abashed. D) Her Twitter account is not private. So to be honest, if that's the only thing you can think of that you don't like about the NYT, it sounds like they're doing pretty damn well overall

I think you need better sources. Nothing to weather. This will help their reputation among people who actually buy this stuff. As mentioned above, it'll even get praise from some who would otherwise be criticizing their shadier business practices. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Denial isn't the same as debunking. And here's the thing, we know that Bob Woodward has a long history of uncovering and/or accurately reporting some of the most important stories of the last 50 years. We also know that the Trump White House will lie about anything and everything. You know that. So who should you believe? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Never stopped you bitching about all the liberal ones though, did it? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Sure, but it's a direct and forseeable consequence of the election. When people get elected on a platform of filling the administration with outsiders, you end up with a West Wing full of people who don't know the right way to run a government. Also, as pointed out, why wasn't it a surprise that the documents didn't turn up? You shouldn't be able to stop a policy just by hiding a document. Trump could just ask for another one to be printed out and sign that. The inference to be drawn is that Trump just forgot all about it because it wasn't in front of his face. So what's preferable - an unelected aid unilaterally deciding to preserve the status quo, or a President, against all advice, unilaterally making a new policy to which he had given so little thought he didn't even remember that he had requested it by the time it was ready? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

The book is by Bob Woodward, some of the stories in it are about John Dowd. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-nike-shares-dip-as-colin-kaepernick-ad-spurs-boycott/ Yeah, but then there's this https://twitter.com/johnrich/status/1036751396002050050/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1036751396002050050%7Ctwgr%5E373939313b73706563696669635f73706f7274735f616374696f6e&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2018%2F09%2F03%2Fnews%2Fcompanies%2Fcolin-kaepernick-nike-just-do-it%2Findex.html I would strongly encourage those angry old white guys to destroy their own clothes in protest against Nike Do you want to have an ideagasm?

There's a reason they're called weasel words. It's really no surprise that both Ron and Trump employ the technique on a daily basis. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Fox News and other conservatives had a fucking conniption over the fact that Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch had a conversation during the campaign. 18 months later they were still harping on about the 'scandalous' meeting and what might have been said. Now you've got Trump in the open telling his AG he should interfere with ongoing criminal investigations in order to protect party political interests. I wonder if either Rush or Ron will grow a backbone and comment honestly on this one. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Wow, So Trump not only thinks that criminal investigations of elected members of government are based on politics but that they should be based on politics? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Good point. Interestingly, today I have been viewing a compendium of videos depicting the strong dislike or hatred of McCain by Vietnam Veterans. Well, just because they put on a uniform doesn't mean they're not gullible fucking idiots. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

What are those drastic changes that the US needs? To pull our federal government back toward a republic, away from the established socialistic oligarchy. Ummm, a billionaire businessman who has packed the government with his own family members is going to pull the US away from being an oligarchy? I don’t think that word means what you think it means. Do you want to have an ideagasm?