President Donald Trump

[DMT]

Do You ever read his Tweets and wonder why people still support him? I understand having some of his views as much as I disagree, but to line up and say this is the man we want to lead us and to still support him now, I just don’t get it.

Anyway here’s his tweet explaining his Biden take, wtf?

I was actually sticking up for Sleepy Joe Biden while on foreign soil. Kim Jong Un called him a “low IQ idiot,” and many other things, whereas I related the quote of Chairman Kim as a much softer “low IQ individual.” Who could possibly be upset with that

There's no point in trying to understand because they don't have any reason other than tribalism.

[revo]

The ultimate in pettiness for the most egotistical despot we’ve ever had:

The White House wanted the U.S. Navy to move “out of sight” the warship USS John S. McCain ahead of President Trump’s visit to Japan, according to an email reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

The ship was named after the father and grandfather of the late senator—a war hero who became a frequent target of Mr. Trump’s ire—and the senator’s name was added to the ship in 2018.

In a May 15 email to U.S. Navy and Air Force officials, a U.S. Indo-Pacific Command official outlined plans for the president’s arrival that he said had resulted from conversations between the White House Military Office and the Seventh Fleet of the U.S. Navy. In addition to instructions for the proper landing areas for helicopters and preparation for the USS Wasp—where the president was scheduled to speak—the official issued a third directive: “USS John McCain needs to be out of sight.”
“Please confirm #3 will be satisfied,” the official wrote.

When a Navy commander expressed surprise about the directive for the USS John S. McCain, the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command official replied: “First I heard of it as well.” He said he would work with the White House Military Office to obtain more information about the order.



Awww, widdle baby waby Twumpy Wumpy couldn’t bear to even have a ship named after McCain nearby. What a f____ing loser.

[Judge Jude]

The ultimate in pettiness for the most egotistical despot we’ve ever had:

The White House wanted the U.S. Navy to move “out of sight” the warship USS John S. McCain ahead of President Trump’s visit to Japan, according to an email reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

fwiw

Navy Chief of Information
Verified account @chinfo
12h12 hours ago

The name of USS John S. McCain was not obscured during the POTUS visit to Yokosuka on Memorial Day. The Navy is proud of that ship, its crew, its namesake and its heritage.

.............

The White House Military Office and lower-level US Navy officials exchanged emails about moving the Navy warship the USS John McCain ahead of President Donald Trump’s recent Japan visit, according to two Navy officials.

“There were emails between lower-level officers, but once leadership heard about it, they said knock it off,” a senior Navy official tells CNN. The White House Military Office provides military support for White House functions, including food service, presidential transportation, medical support and emergency medical services and hospitality services.


The Journal reported Wednesday that a tarp was put in place to cover the ship’s name since it could not be moved due to repairs. Three Navy officials pushed back on this claim and told CNN there was no tarp covering the ship’s name when Trump was there.

“We didn’t do anything to obstruct the name of the ship. The Wall Street Journal piece refers to a photo of a tarp covering the ship, that photo was taken Friday, May 24, the tarp was removed the following day,” a third US Navy official told CNN.

The official said they had not seen the emails in question, but was adamant nothing had been done to obscure the ship.

Doss told CNN that he could confirm “that the picture of the Tarp is from Friday and it was taken down on Saturday. Paint barge was also removed ahead of the visit.” And Joe Buccino, a spokesman for acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan, told CNN that the secretary “was not aware of the directive to move the USS John S McCain nor was he aware of the concern precipitating the directive.”

[revo]

fwiw

Navy Chief of Information
Verified account @chinfo
12h12 hours ago

The name of USS John S. McCain was not obscured during the POTUS visit to Yokosuka on Memorial Day. The Navy is proud of that ship, its crew, its namesake and its heritage.

.............

The White House Military Office and lower-level US Navy officials exchanged emails about moving the Navy warship the USS John McCain ahead of President Donald Trump’s recent Japan visit, according to two Navy officials.

“There were emails between lower-level officers, but once leadership heard about it, they said knock it off,” a senior Navy official tells CNN. The White House Military Office provides military support for White House functions, including food service, presidential transportation, medical support and emergency medical services and hospitality services.


The Journal reported Wednesday that a tarp was put in place to cover the ship’s name since it could not be moved due to repairs. Three Navy officials pushed back on this claim and told CNN there was no tarp covering the ship’s name when Trump was there.

“We didn’t do anything to obstruct the name of the ship. The Wall Street Journal piece refers to a photo of a tarp covering the ship, that photo was taken Friday, May 24, the tarp was removed the following day,” a third US Navy official told CNN.

The official said they had not seen the emails in question, but was adamant nothing had been done to obscure the ship.

Doss told CNN that he could confirm “that the picture of the Tarp is from Friday and it was taken down on Saturday. Paint barge was also removed ahead of the visit.” And Joe Buccino, a spokesman for acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan, told CNN that the secretary “was not aware of the directive to move the USS John S McCain nor was he aware of the concern precipitating the directive.”

The WSJ -- a right-leaning publication, mind you -- is standing by their story, and have also reported that all sailors aboard the USS McCain were given the day he visited off, because his name is on their hats. Strange that a tarp was covering the ship's name, eh? Dopey himself claimed that he knew nothing about it, but that this was a "well-meaning gesture." Yes, he's serious, JJ.

Mayor Pete also chimed in:

[Bernie Brewer]

The WSJ -- a right-leaning publication, mind you -- is standing by their story, and have also reported that all sailors aboard the USS McCain were given the day he visited off, because his name is on their hats. Strange that a tarp was covering the ship's name, eh? Mayor Pete also chimed in:

While I love the WSJ, it is hardly a mouth piece for Trump. Remember they were the ones who broke the Stormy Daniels story.

[revo]

Actual headline on CNN.com right now:

"Fact Checking Trump’s Flurry of Lies Thursday Morning"

Wow. There’s just no tip-toeing around it any longer.

[revo]

From the NY Times:
"Sailors from the McCain were not invited to Mr. Trump’s speech on another ship, the Wasp, at the Yokosuka Naval Base, although crew members from most other American ships at the base were, a Navy service member based at Yokosuka said.

When several sailors from the McCain — wearing uniforms that bore the ship’s name and insignia — turned up anyway at the Wasp to hear Mr. Trump’s speech, they were turned away, the service member said. The service member, who requested anonymity because he was not allowed to speak publicly, said that a gate guard told the two sailors they were not allowed on the Wasp because they were from the McCain."


The pettiness of this regime is ASTOUNDING. If it’s found that Shananan knew anything about this, he should withdraw his nomination, and any senior officer should be made to resign.

[madducks]

[revo]

USS John McCaingate continues, as it turns out the now-politicized US Navy was covering it up for the Dope-in-Chief:

"The White House Military Office coordinated directly with the Navy's Seventh Fleet to have the USS John S. McCain hidden from view during President Donald Trump's visit to Japan, acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan told reporters Sunday, though that request was ultimately not carried out.

The US Navy had previously told CNN the request had been made to lower-level US Navy officials, but it was not known who specifically received the directive about keeping a warship named for the late Sen. John McCain's father and grandfather out of sight to avoid possibly upsetting the President."

Thoughts, JJ?


Furthermore in DopeyLand, as he visits the UK:

- he criticizes Meghan Markle for making a comment about him in 2016 and calls her "nasty."

- he gets into another tiff with London Mayor Khan by tweeting that he has done a "terrible job as Mayor", is "nasty" and a "stone cold loser." Oh, and is "half the height of Mayor deBlasio." Very Presidential, asshole.

- he tweets out that the world should boycott AT&T because, waahhhhhh, they own CNN.

[Judge Jude]

here's the problem: what literally occurs in this administration is about a 9 on a lunacy scale of 1 to 10. but critics aren't happy unless they try and sell the world on 11. it's bizarre.

- I'm not sure if you have backed off on your suggestion yet that Trump himself ordered these McCain issues.

- "he criticizes Meghan Markle for making a comment about him in 2016 and calls her "nasty."

from CNN:

During his interview with The Sun, Trump was confronted by comments made by Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, ahead of the 2016 election.
Speaking on "The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore" in 2016, Markle called Trump misogynistic and said his politics are divisive, saying she would move to Canada if he won the presidency.
Trump responded, "I didn't know that she was nasty. I hope she is OK. ..." He seemed to bury the hatchet saying, "I am sure she will go excellently (as a royal). She will be very good."

................

saying he called her "nasty" is very misleading. he is saying that she said something "nasty" in response to being told of her saying something harshly critical of him. the clear context is "I didn't know that she made a nasty comment about me," which is simply not the same thing. if it wasn't already obvious, somehow, his followup comments bear that out.

.............

- Khan said of Trump, per time.com: "In an 841-word opinion piece published by The Guardian on Saturday, Khan condemns Trump for starting an immigration policy that separated children from parents, using racism and xenophobia as election tactics and introducing a travel ban on predominantly-Muslim countries.

“No, these are not the actions of European dictators of the 1930s and 40s. Nor the military juntas of the 1970s and 80s. I’m not talking about Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong-un. These are the actions of the leader of our closest ally, the President of the United States of America,” Khan writes.

obviously, any comparison at all of Trump's actions being anywhere on the scale of "European dictators of the 1930s and 1940s" is preposterous - and more importantly, insulting to the tens of millions who died in that period. does that justify Trump's juvenile responses? no. but again, context is good. or does anyone think Khan's comments are legit? that's an awful lot of graves to spit on.

his gripes about CNN continue to be absurd and pandering.

[revo]

here's the problem: what literally occurs in this administration is about a 9 on a lunacy scale of 1 to 10. but critics aren't happy unless they try and sell the world on 11. it's bizarre.

9 isn't bizarre enough for you? In your opinion, this wasn't an issue? Strange.

- I'm not sure if you have backed off on your suggestion yet that Trump himself ordered these McCain issues.

This is a dead revered American hero, JJ. Don't know if you're purposely side-stepping that to play devil's advocate. No matter how you want to parse it, if it wasn't Trump, then his handlers are so brainwashed as to feel it was OK to embarrass the Navy and its seamen over this.

As far as Khan (who Dopey referred to as "Kahn", lol), it doesn't matter what he said. Let him say what he wants. But for the President of the United States to respond like that -- even insulting his height -- is ridiculous.

EDIT - Frae explains the Markle controversy better than I do.

[frae]

here's the problem: what literally occurs in this administration is about a 9 on a lunacy scale of 1 to 10. but critics aren't happy unless they try and sell the world on 11. it's bizarre.

- I'm not sure if you have backed off on your suggestion yet that Trump himself ordered these McCain issues.

- "he criticizes Meghan Markle for making a comment about him in 2016 and calls her "nasty."

from CNN:

During his interview with The Sun, Trump was confronted by comments made by Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, ahead of the 2016 election.
Speaking on "The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore" in 2016, Markle called Trump misogynistic and said his politics are divisive, saying she would move to Canada if he won the presidency.
Trump responded, "I didn't know that she was nasty. I hope she is OK. ..." He seemed to bury the hatchet saying, "I am sure she will go excellently (as a royal). She will be very good."

................

saying he called her "nasty" is very misleading. he is saying that she said something "nasty" in response to being told of her saying something harshly critical of him. the clear context is "I didn't know that she made a nasty comment about me," which is simply not the same thing. if it wasn't already obvious, somehow, his followup comments bear that out.

.............

- Khan said of Trump, per time.com: "In an 841-word opinion piece published by The Guardian on Saturday, Khan condemns Trump for starting an immigration policy that separated children from parents, using racism and xenophobia as election tactics and introducing a travel ban on predominantly-Muslim countries.

“No, these are not the actions of European dictators of the 1930s and 40s. Nor the military juntas of the 1970s and 80s. I’m not talking about Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong-un. These are the actions of the leader of our closest ally, the President of the United States of America,” Khan writes.

obviously, any comparison at all of Trump's actions being anywhere on the scale of "European dictators of the 1930s and 1940s" is preposterous - and more importantly, insulting to the tens of millions who died in that period. does that justify Trump's juvenile responses? no. but again, context is good. or does anyone think Khan's comments are legit? that's an awful lot of graves to spit on.

his gripes about CNN continue to be absurd and pandering.

This Megan/Donald thing is really dumb and I have read the full transcript and his use language constantly confuses me so I don't know what he meant. He said the word nasty in relation to her comments, but reading his text I am still confused. He does go on to compliment her, here is the entire exchange from the Sun that we have audio on I think...


The Sun: "Now Meghan, who is now the Duchess of Sussex, we've given her a different name, she can't make it because she's got maternity leave. Are you sorry not to see her? Because she wasn't so nice about you during the campaign. I don't know if you saw that."

Trump: "I didn't know that, no. I didn't know that. No. I hope's okay. I did not know that, no."

The Sun: "She said she'd move to Canada if you got elected. It turned out she moved to Britain."

Trump: "Well, that'll be good. There are a lot of people moving here. So, what can I say? No, I didn't know that she was nasty."

The Sun: "Is it good having an American princess though, Mr. President?"

Trump: "I think it's nice. I think it's nice. I'm sure she'll do excellently. She'll be very good. She'll be very good. I hope she does."

I think he probably is saying her comment is nasty, but he is such a poor speaker off the cuff and the phrase he uses instead of "that was a nasty comment" is "I didn't know that she was nasty." This is one of those who cares issues, but reading how he talks hurts my head.

[Judge Jude]

"if it wasn't Trump, then his handlers are so brainwashed as to feel it was OK to embarrass the Navy and its seamen over this."

9 is the latter, which is very likely the case. but you claimed 11, without evidence.

and frae's full transcript also further clarifies matters (granting this his language is inept as usual).

so what is the point of overreaching, when the accurate reach is damning enough in so many cases? that's what mystifies me.

also, while it's far worse when the President is juvenile, comments here about "dopey" and such imo damage the credibility of the poster making them. I hope you'll take that into account, because I am far from the only one to make that observation.

[Bernie Brewer]

This Megan/Donald thing is really dumb and I have read the full transcript and his use language constantly confuses me so I don't know what he meant. He said the word nasty in relation to her comments, but reading his text I am still confused. He does go on to compliment her, here is the entire exchange from the Sun that we have audio on I think...


The Sun: "Now Meghan, who is now the Duchess of Sussex, we've given her a different name, she can't make it because she's got maternity leave. Are you sorry not to see her? Because she wasn't so nice about you during the campaign. I don't know if you saw that."

Trump: "I didn't know that, no. I didn't know that. No. I hope's okay. I did not know that, no."

The Sun: "She said she'd move to Canada if you got elected. It turned out she moved to Britain."

Trump: "Well, that'll be good. There are a lot of people moving here. So, what can I say? No, I didn't know that she was nasty."

The Sun: "Is it good having an American princess though, Mr. President?"

Trump: "I think it's nice. I think it's nice. I'm sure she'll do excellently. She'll be very good. She'll be very good. I hope she does."

I think he probably is saying her comment is nasty, but he is such a poor speaker off the cuff and the phrase he uses instead of "that was a nasty comment" is "I didn't know that she was nasty." This is one of those who cares issues, but reading how he talks hurts my head.

Or, and this is complete speculation in my part with very little evidentiary support, CNN spins this and trumpisms like this for maximum clicks or views? I don’t know! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But I think you’re correct here. It is not meant to disparage the new Princess.

[frae]

"if it wasn't Trump, then his handlers are so brainwashed as to feel it was OK to embarrass the Navy and its seamen over this."

9 is the latter, which is very likely the case. but you claimed 11, without evidence.

and frae's full transcript also further clarifies matters (granting this his language is inept as usual).

so what is the point of overreaching, when the accurate reach is damning enough in so many cases? that's what mystifies me.

also, while it's far worse when the President is juvenile, comments here about "dopey" and such imo damage the credibility of the poster making them. I hope you'll take that into account, because I am far from the only one to make that observation.

So while I agree the press took his text and use the most salacious reading of it possible to create clicks I also agree that he did at the very least say her comment was nasty. So his tweet is also as misleading as the headlines...

"I never called Meghan Markle “nasty.” Made up by the Fake News Media, and they got caught cold! Will @CNN, @nytimes and others apologize? Doubt it!"