TrumPutinGate

[hog88]

Also, hurricane season just started, and he just nominated the director of FEMA less than 2 weeks ago. And unless something has changed that I've missed he still has not nominated a director for NOAA.

I've never been one who got all bent out of shape over rounds of golf played by any sitting President, I mean, it's huge job, I'm quite certain I'd need to get out and relax every now and again. But with 400+ nominations still to make at 137 days in, this is just pathetic.

Hope we don't get hit because without a director FEMA won't respond and NOAA won't be able to predict the tract.

 

[theFallGuy]

Hope we don't get hit because without a director FEMA won't respond and NOAA won't be able to predict the tract.

we had a FEMA director and still got Katrina results

:no:

 

[luthervol]

not enough alliteration

incompetent, intemperate, inconsiderate, individualistic (apparently the most common synonym for megalomaniac)

vacuous, vindictive, vague, vulgar, volatile, vacant, vain

 

[PeterNincompoop]

we had a FEMA director and still got Katrina results

:no:

Kinda shows how important it is to nominate someone with actual knowledge of and ability for a very important role, no?

 

[Grand Vol]

Also, hurricane season just started, and he just nominated the director of FEMA less than 2 weeks ago. And unless something has changed that I've missed he still has not nominated a director for NOAA.

Google sez, "you're an idiot!"

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/us/politics/brock-long-fema.html

Trump Nominates Former Disaster Relief Manager to Lead FEMA

By RON NIXON APRIL 28, 2017

Oh, and by the way. Obama didn't nominate his FEMA Director until May of 2009.

Don't you just feel stupid at this point?

 

[Grand Vol]

And furthermore, said person was nominated in April, but hasn't quite gotten to a confirmation hearing yet...

http://www.govtech.com/em/emergency...-fema-administrator-confirmation-hearing.html

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearin...atory-affairs-office-of-management-and-budget

 

[Rifleman]

Blame the messengers.

General, the Officer Corp of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists is of the shared opinion that we would be winning this war if only these godforsaken pigeons would stop bringing news of our defeat from the front.

 

[theFallGuy]

Kinda shows how important it is to nominate someone with actual knowledge of and ability for a very important role, no?

I agree but I also think Katrina showed how inept the government can be during a crisis.

 

[AirVol]

vacuous, vindictive, vague, vulgar, volatile, vacant, vain

Very very very great President.

 

[Septic]

I agree but I also think Katrina showed how inept the government can be during a crisis.

I dunno, Brownie did a heck of a job.

 

[LouderVol]

vacuous, vindictive, vague, vulgar, volatile, vacant, vain

much better, LG needs to learn a thing or two.

 

[golfballs]

WITCH HUNT RUINED
[twitter]https://twitter.com/RightWingLawman/status/872481016824291330[/twitter]
[twitter]https://twitter.com/joshdcaplan/status/872483145303678976[/twitter]

 

[PeterNincompoop]

Google sez, "you're an idiot!"

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/us/politics/brock-long-fema.html



Oh, and by the way. Obama didn't nominate his FEMA Director until May of 2009.

Don't you just feel stupid at this point?

For reading an article too quickly and seeing an unconfirmed position nominated on the 28th, and thinking May instead of April, a little, yes. Bush league on my part. Not so much about everything else I said though. 137 days in under the last president, (whom I've stated numerous times, I did not vote for in either election) and still 400+ nominations to go, along 23 rounds of golf under his belt, the usual partisan hacks on here would be loosing your sh!t at a level far outweighing the current situation on this board.

 

[AirVol]

The SIC cant' get the US Intel chiefs to say what the Dims wanna hear. LOL

 

[Orange_Crush]

For reading an article too quickly and seeing an unconfirmed position nominated on the 28th, and thinking May instead of April, a little, yes. Bush league on my part. Not so much about everything else I said though. 137 days in under the last president, (whom I've stated numerous times, I did not vote for in either election) and still 400+ nominations to go, along 23 rounds of golf under his belt, the usual partisan hacks on here would be loosing your sh!t at a level far outweighing the current situation on this board.

If that's the case, you could search and see if anyone had this strange sort of diarrhea about this time 8 years ago. I recall a lot of meltdowns over Obama here. I don't remember the calendar of his appointments being one of them.

 

[Grand Vol]

If that's the case, you could search and see if anyone had this strange sort of diarrhea about this time 8 years ago. I recall a lot of meltdowns over Obama here. I don't remember the calendar of his appointments being one of them.

Thank you for saying what I was about to. It does appear the whole nomination thing has never been an issue until now. I do recall how immediately after the election (December time frame) how the media was all crazy about how "no nominations!" even though Trump was generally on track with prior Presidents for the main Cabinet positions.

Shocking it's such a huge issue this time around.

 

[carlos86]

Thank you for saying what I was about to. It does appear the whole nomination thing has never been an issue until now. I do recall how immediately after the election (December time frame) how the media was all crazy about how "no nominations!" even though Trump was generally on track with prior Presidents for the main Cabinet positions.

Shocking it's such a huge issue this time around.

It's become an issue because every time he nominates someone to an office lately they either can't passed a background check or they have committed ethics violations and have to pull their nominations example: the Army, Navy and DOD Secretaries and under Secretaries.

 

[Grand Vol]

It's become an issue because every time he nominates someone to an office lately they either can't passed a background check or they have committed ethics violations and have to pull their nominations example: the Army, Navy and DOD Secretaries and under Secretaries.

Can you compare this to previous Administrations and their nominations?

I'm curious how the numbers add up.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It's become an issue because every time he nominates someone to an office lately they either can't passed a background check or they have committed ethics violations and have to pull their nominations example: the Army, Navy and DOD Secretaries and under Secretaries.

So, you're defending the hissy fits about schedule by saying that the problem isn't the schedule.

Bold move, my friend. You guys don't look desperate and irrational at all. Not in the least.

 

[luthervol]

Thank you for saying what I was about to. It does appear the whole nomination thing has never been an issue until now. I do recall how immediately after the election (December time frame) how the media was all crazy about how "no nominations!" even though Trump was generally on track with prior Presidents for the main Cabinet positions.

Shocking it's such a huge issue this time around.

The issue is there has never been a president even remotely comparable to Trump. Even his supporters admit it was a vote against the status quo (at least in the primaries). You can't say you voted for him to disrupt the status quo and then get ticked when he's not treated like a status quo president. You had to have known what to expect.

60% of the population (and a much higher percentage of Washington insiders, media, and intellectuals) think Trump is crazy and a danger to the future of the US. They may be wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that they are thoroughly convinced they are correct.

 

[Grand Vol]

The issue is there has never been a president even remotely comparable to Trump. Even his supporters admit it was a vote against the status quo (at least in the primaries). You can't say you voted for him to disrupt the status quo and then get ticked when he's not treated like a status quo president. You had to have known what to expect.

60% of the population (and a much higher percentage of Washington insiders, media, and intellectuals) think Trump is crazy and a danger to the future of the US. They may be wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that they are thoroughly convinced they are correct.

I'd love to see the link and stats for the statement in bold...

Otherwise, yes, he is a non-status quo POTUS. No, I did not vote for him. The problem, as OC and I both pointed out, is there is zero context in a great many things the media, the left and the Anti-Trump Brigade © are going on about. As in "how many positions were unfilled at this point with previous Presidents?" I've tried looking it up, but it just seems to be missing for some reason...

 

[Carl Pickens]

The issue is there has never been a president even remotely comparable to Trump. Even his supporters admit it was a vote against the status quo (at least in the primaries). You can't say you voted for him to disrupt the status quo and then get ticked when he's not treated like a status quo president. You had to have known what to expect.

60% of the population (and a much higher percentage of Washington insiders, media, and intellectuals) think Trump is crazy and a danger to the future of the US. They may be wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that they are thoroughly convinced they are correct.

cough!...cough!

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trumps-approval-rating-better-bill-clintons-first-term-621853

 

[luthervol]

I'd love to see the link and stats for the statement in bold...

Otherwise, yes, he is a non-status quo POTUS. No, I did not vote for him. The problem, as OC and I both pointed out, is there is zero context in a great many things the media, the left and the Anti-Trump Brigade © are going on about. As in "how many positions were unfilled at this point with previous Presidents?" I've tried looking it up, but it just seems to be missing for some reason...

I sort of made up the numbers. His approval rating is below 40% so the converse is more than 60% disapprove. I thought it was the Trumpsters' point that Washington insiders, the media, and intellectuals hated Trump. I thought I was just restating what you believed....maybe not. Maybe less than 60% of those people hate Trump.

As for your zero context point, Trump again brings it on himself. How many former presidents Tweeted and complained about the other party being horrible and refusing to confirm appointees? You show me where any previous president made even remotely similar comments as Trump, and I'll give you a bonus point.

It may be a chicken or egg situation. I think Trump is getting exactly what he deserves based on his continued idiotic attacks on the media, Obama, and the left.

 

[hog88]

I sort of made up the numbers. His approval rating is below 40% so the converse is more than 60% disapprove. I thought it was the Trumpsters' point that Washington insiders, the media, and intellectuals hated Trump. I thought I was just restating what you believed....maybe not. Maybe less than 60% of those people hate Trump.

As for your zero context point, Trump again brings it on himself. How many former presidents Tweeted and complained about the other party being horrible and refusing to confirm appointees? You show me where any previous president made even remotely similar comments as Trump, and I'll give you a bonus point.

It may be a chicken or egg situation. I think Trump is getting exactly what he deserves based on his continued idiotic attacks on the media, Obama, and the left.

Considering twitter wasn't created until 2006 and didn't really get popular until late 2008 that leaves only 1 previous President that could have.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Uninformed, unserious, unstable.

According to whom?