Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Trump and his cabinet/buffoonery- Get your bunkers ready!


brandymac27

Recommended Posts

don jr.---as with airhead ivampa and ambulatory mannikin err-ick,  proof that the vermin doesn't fall far from the rotten meatsack of origin

 

add the botox-fueled silicon-laden rooskie hooker/handler and we have a 1st fam that adds another great stain on the soiled motel mattress that is the gop

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what's worse, Don Jr. and his abrasive attempts to defend his father's idiocy or Ivanka randomly swooping in to tweet random quotes from historical figures extremely out of context as if she is just googling quotes and not actually researching to see what the background of the quotes were. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NoCalMike said:

I don't know what's worse, Don Jr. and his abrasive attempts to defend his father's idiocy or Ivanka randomly swooping in to tweet random quotes from historical figures extremely out of context as if she is just googling quotes and not actually researching to see what the background of the quotes were. 

 

The fact that both practices work on about 40% of the country is the worst part, for me anyway. 

 

2 hours ago, Jumbo said:

don jr.---as with airhead ivampa and ambulatory mannikin err-ick,  proof that the vermin doesn't fall far from the rotten meatsack of origin

 

add the botox-fueled silicon-laden rooskie hooker/handler and we have a 1st fam that adds another great stain on the soiled motel mattress that is the gop

 

Gahdamm that’s cold lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's odd. Unless she's really looking to bump Pence as VP,  what is she doing? She writes about how she was this independent voice. Then she also says she stood up against people inside the admin that wanted to "save the country"? So, which is it? 

 

In 2024, who isn't going to remember she worked for and defended this guy?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i support eradication of all fox news, breitbart, infowars, and limbaugh followers/employees/corporate owners

 

talk about draining an odorous cesspool of filth, waste, and scumsucking insects (worse than a swamp, technically speaking)

 

rightwing media is a genuine biohazard

 

i'm being "cold" again

 

i did grow up in alaska

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

On surface this a really funny story but it's fairly indicative of where the GOP is headed. This is one of those below the surface things happening right now, but the far-far right is going after far-right people like Charlie Kirk because Kirk and others like him aren't explicitly "nationalist" enough and way too "liberal" on immigration.

 

Yes, Charlie Kirk et all are too liberal for a growing segment of the "nationalist" right. It's complete madness but the post-Trump push even further to the right is already taking shape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump is bad, but the fact that he wears how bad he is on his sleeve is something that at least gives (check that, should give) the general public a leg-up to snuff out his true intentions.  The bigger fear should be those on the far-right that will learn from Trump's mistakes and take the phony populism, put a smile on it, speak courteously in public, while behind closed doors push policies just as bad if not worse.  For example if Trump was not such a terrible human being a liar-a-minute kind of individual, he could have probably rode the current economy (despite the faults, the slowing of growth, income inequality expanding etc etc) to an easy re-election. 

 

The problem is, Trump has a problem dealing in reality. He simply can't acknowledge that the economy he took over was pretty decent, crafting a message that he took the reigns of a good economy and took initiatives to make it even better. (Not true of course, but it is something he could probably sell to the population regardless) No, not Trump...he has to create his own reality that somehow the economy was awful, but the day he was sworn in, those "fake job numbers" were suddenly all real, and because of him. 

Edited by NoCalMike
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

i wouldn't count those chickens (wave of trump judges) too soon 

 

**** happens

 

grand visions go awry

 

I wouldn't count on Trump to pick people reliably.  

 

But the Federalist Society?  I expect them to be very good at picking fanatical loyalists.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

A new draft of the Environmental Protection Agency proposal, titled Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science, would require that scientists disclose all of their raw data, including confidential medical records, before the agency could consider an academic study’s conclusions. E.P.A. officials called the plan a step toward transparency and said the disclosure of raw data would allow conclusions to be verified independently.

 

...The measure would make it more difficult to enact new clean air and water rules because many studies detailing the links between pollution and disease rely on personal health information gathered under confidentiality agreements. And, unlike a version of the proposal that surfaced in early 2018, this one could apply retroactively to public health regulations already in place.

 

“This means the E.P.A. can justify rolling back rules or failing to update rules based on the best information to protect public health and the environment, which means more dirty air and more premature deaths,” said Paul Billings, senior vice president for advocacy at the American Lung Association.

Quote

Public health experts warned that studies that have been used for decades — to show, for example, that mercury from power plants impairs brain development, or that lead in paint dust is tied to behavioral disorders in children — might be inadmissible when existing regulations come up for renewal.

 

For instance, a groundbreaking 1993 Harvard University project that definitively linked polluted air to premature deaths, currently the foundation of the nation’s air-quality laws, could become inadmissible. When gathering data for their research, known as the Six Cities study, scientists signed confidentiality agreements to track the private medical and occupational histories of more than 22,000 people in six cities. They combined that personal data with home air-quality data to study the link between chronic exposure to air pollution and mortality.

 

But the fossil fuel industry and some Republican lawmakers have long criticized the analysis and a similar study by the American Cancer Society, saying the underlying data sets of both were never made public, preventing independent analysis of the conclusions.

 

The change is part of a broader administration effort to weaken the scientific underpinnings of policymaking. Senior administration officials have tried to water down the testimony of government scientists, publicly chastised scientists who have dissented from President Trump’s positions and blocked government researchers from traveling to conferences to present their work.

 

In this case, the administration is taking aim at public health studies conducted outside the government that could justify tightening regulations on smog in the air, mercury in water, lead in paint and other potential threats to human health.

 

VxQHbDD.gif

  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somehow, I'm willing to bet that "religious minorities" doesn't refer to Muslims in Europe.  (Or anywhere else, for that matter.)  Or the Kurds.  Bet it doesn't apply to Israel or Saudi, either.  

 

Nope, bet it only applies if the religious minority in question, is Christian.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, No Excuses said:

 

On surface this a really funny story but it's fairly indicative of where the GOP is headed. This is one of those below the surface things happening right now, but the far-far right is going after far-right people like Charlie Kirk because Kirk and others like him aren't explicitly "nationalist" enough and way too "liberal" on immigration.

 

Yes, Charlie Kirk et all are too liberal for a growing segment of the "nationalist" right. It's complete madness but the post-Trump push even further to the right is already taking shape.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...