That is his voice, those are his words. Now ask yourself: does he "probably have a good relationship with Kim Jong Un", or is he completely out of his fucking mind?
It's one or the other. He denies he ever said this. There's a recording of him saying it. And there's no ambiguity here. He does or does not have a good relationship with the man whose country he's threatening to nuke.
Me? I want him out of the Oval Office tomorrow. But I'm probably a snowflake. I'm probably one of those liberals who thinks a president shouldn't be completely out of his tiny mind.
Edit: The belated White House spin is that he said "I'd have", not "I have". First of all, that's not what he said. You can hear it on the recording; it's crystal clear. But let's give Trump the benefit of what little doubt there is. Let's say he said "I'd", as in, "I would".
“I probably have a very good relationship with Kim Jong Un,” Mr. Trump said in the Thursday interview. “I have relationships with people. I think you people are surprised.”
Clearly he's responding to the reaction of the reporters, whether that was eyebrows going up, a sidelong glance, or whatever. He's defending his relationship skills, particularly as regards Kim Jong Un. Why would he say that about a relationship he obviously doesn't have?
Because he's out of his fucking mind. There's no other way to spin this. He said what he said. But even if you insist he said something else, in the face of a clear audio recording of him saying it, you have to admit that what he claims to have said is absolute lunacy.
Edit 2: The new talking point -- there's a new one every 15 minutes -- is that he said "I would" in the second half of his statement, as in "I would -- I have relationships with people". That is still an insane statement. The WSJ, like most news outlets, cuts out extraneous or garbled passages whenever possible. So once again: if what Trump meant was that he would have a great relationship with "Little Rocket Man", that is also an absolutely batshit crazy statement.
Parse his words all you want, it's madness no matter which way you slice it.
Edit 3: RIP my inbox. Kids, you're arguing about whether he said "I would" or "I have". Both assertions are completely fucking nuts. You are arguing about whether he said one lunatic bullshit thing or a different one. What's in it for you? How does this give you the slightest feeling of comfort or vindication? It should not.
The new talking point -- there's a new one every 15 minutes -- is that he said "I would" in the second half of his statement, as in "I would -- I have relationships with people". That is still an insane statement.
Exactly. The clarification doesn't make things any better. It's still completely asinine.
If you want a great book to read about the period these men were involved in then try ‘Flashman at the Charge’ by George MacDonald Fraser; all about the Crimean War and Flashman’s (fictional) role in it. All the Flashman books are superb to get a reasonable understanding of 19th Century campaigns and activities undertaken around the world. Thoroughly recommended...
I love the Flashman series. I think my favorite is still the one about Khyber Pass.
Nothing the US does is equal to what Iran does. They are not equal. Even if you don't like trump or his policies you can't equate Iran and the US
They're definitely orders of magnitude in difference. Whataboutism is super transparent to me as a fallacy and I can ID it immediately but i can see how some people get caught up, but this kind of whataboutism is so fucking atrocious that it's really hard for me to figure out how anyone is like "oh, yeah, sure - these are totally comparable."
he somehow found a way to be more stubborn than cpj but was worse at it. he was carried by some great athletes for the past few seasons. i love the man himself but im glad he’s gone as the dc.
same. it gets really old seeing the offense keep producing results and know that unless they run the score up 40+ points we'll probably still lose.
I am definitely not Mr. Painter. Here is some historical context for you:
Mueller was unanimously approved as FBI director by Congress in 2001 under the Cheney administration.
Obama wanted him to stay in the role beyond the 10 year term. Congress approved of Mueller so much both parties agreed to change laws to permit him to stay in office two more years.
Without a doubt, a very well regarded FBI director.
Edited for clarity and accuracy.
I think what he's saying is that the party cant choose the candidate, and someone who has been in the party for a long time "the likely candidate" isn't neccesarily the best to put on the ballot. Even Bernie, who I supported, would have been a more electable candidate if he was 20-30 years younger. I know that's ageist and we shouldnt pick good progressive leaders based on age, but we also shouldnt dismiss young charismatic candiates because they might not have a lifetime of service.
Anyone over 70 I'm not inclined to vote for. Too many people fall off a mental cliff around that age and there are too many qualified younger candidates that would do just fine.
why there? So cluster fucked already
Parking is really competitive and sometimes people kinda block my driveway. This is annoying, but such is life.
HOWEVER, some people will intentionally block my entire driveway by parallel parking. Do not do this. I will have you towed. Also, the tow truck drivers take some sick pleasure in towing people out of my driveway. If you cram yourself in there and think they can't get you, you are wrong. They will drag your car out sideways into the street and haul you off and it makes a horrible noise.
Tolkien was in a sanitarium after the war, its when he wrote the Silmarillion.
That's his darkest work and probably the most influenced by War.
I also wonder what a WWI vet would think of something like Battlefield 1. I do recall hearing about a guy showing Battlefield 1942 to his German grandfather and getting lectured about it.
I think a true to life world war 1 game wouldn't be very fun. A lot of waiting around in miserable conditions and then you all go over the top one day and get annihilated by machine gun fire or artillery.
There's a lot of run and gun FPS going on in Battlefield 1 that makes the game playable but definitely not at all like an actual world war 1 battlefield. The artwork and cities in it would probably impress veterans of the war if they were alive today though if I had to guess.
You dont need any legal qualifications to serve as a judge in any court in America other than those of regular public servants. This standarded seems to have developed out of tradition. Im quite sure judges of past wouldnt meet todays standards and that didnt stop them from becoming judges. Im not defending Trumps appointtee, I am however pointing out that the eletism of the court or the nominating process is "without merit".
I could see this happening for an appellate court but to run a trial court you kind of need to have experience as a litigator.
Also, like many people have noticed, this particular applicant didn't bother to prepare at all.
What are you doing for Christmas?
When do you think Meuller is getting fired if you had to put 100 dollars down on a date and why did you pick that date?
If all the Presidents in history are put in a room and told to fight to the death—which one survives?
It’s really just a cool place to sit at parties.
That's actually a real good point, a lot of these 60s-70s interior decisions were based around entertaining & showing off. Check out my sunken convo hangout area! Scope out this wet bar right in the living room! Everything has luxurious carpet!
Like, America wanted to fuckin' party and wear leisure suits.
I'm into these design choices. I'd rather entertain guests than have everyone sit and watch TV or sit around talking while positioned looking at a wall with a TV that's turned off.