Donald Trump’s Tweet of Triumph

Am I old fashioned to think, in an age of social media, that it’s undignified for a President of the United States, or even a President-to-be, to use Twitter for personal vendettas or triumphalism? Contrast this tw**t by Trump, with its liberal use of CAPSLOCK, with brand-new tweets by Obama and the First Lady:

And I love this one. It is one of the great love stories of our time, and who can argue that Obama, Michelle, Sasha, and Malia didn’t bring a lot of class to the White House? I have to say that this one makes me mist up a bit.

89 Comments

  1. Hempenstein
    Posted January 20, 2017 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    To your question, no.

    • Claudia Baker
      Posted January 20, 2017 at 11:00 am | Permalink

      Not at all.

  2. rob smith
    Posted January 20, 2017 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    Obama’s presidency will be remembered for being scandal free. I’m just hoping Trump’s presidency will be remembered.

  3. nickswearsky
    Posted January 20, 2017 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    I consider Trump illegitimate. He has admitted to sexual assault and unfit to be President. I do not consider him legitimate leader of our nation. For years he claimed Obama was a fraud (the birther issue). The difference is that Trump is truly a sexual offender and the facts of Obama’s citizenship were never in dispute. Trump is illegitimate!

    • GM
      Posted January 20, 2017 at 10:08 am | Permalink

      He has admitted to sexual assault and unfit to be President.

      He has admitted no such thing, and even if he had, how does this make him unfit?

      Also, for the 99999th time, it’s really funny how prior to the election there was all this talk of whether Trump will acknowledge defeat, and how his reluctance to do so in advance was a threat to the traditions of American democracy.

      Then he got elected and the very same people who were talking about that did what? Started with the “Trump is illegitimate”, “Not my president”, etc.

      It’s also funny how Republicans spent 8 years trying to discredit Obama as an illegitimate president with the whole birth certificate thing.

      Then what happens once Trump is elected? The Democrats begin to do something quite analogous.

      To an unbiased observer watching from the sidelines, this is very telling. It doesn’t seem that there are a lot of principles involved in the behavior of either side, it’s all a game of adhering to and displaying tribal allegiances.

      Ironically, many of the people who are most passionate about those allegiances are in fact being royally screwed by the very system that uses that tribal game as a smokescreen….

      • colnago80
        Posted January 20, 2017 at 10:19 am | Permalink

        Actually, a case can be made that dummkopf Donald is ineligible to be president. His mother was not a US citizen at the time of his birth.

        • Posted January 20, 2017 at 11:28 am | Permalink

          It doesn’t matter if his mother was a citizen or not. What matters is where he was born. If he was born in the US, he’s a citizen regardless of the status of his parents. Google “Anchor Babies” for the role of this Constitutional clause.

          So no, you don’t have a case.

          Now, let’s see that birth certificate 🙂

          • colnago80
            Posted January 20, 2017 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

            Well, at least some of the birthers have made this argument, even if they admit that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.

      • nickswearsky
        Posted January 20, 2017 at 10:21 am | Permalink

        He boasted to Billy Bush on a live mic about grabbing women by their pussy. That is sexual assault. There are many unanswered questions about his ties to Russia and what role Russia played in assisting his election.

        • Posted January 20, 2017 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

          Unanswered questions? Until some proof comes up that means nothing.

          • nickswearsky
            Posted January 20, 2017 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

            Unanswered only because he refuses to answer.

            • gravelinspector-Aidan
              Posted January 20, 2017 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

              While I understand your anger and fear, your argument doesn’t hang together.
              It is perfectly possible for Trump to have been materially assisted into the White house by the actions of “Russia”, and for Trump to be completely innocent of any participation in this.
              If the FSS (or FIS) did what they perceived to be in the interests of the FSU (e.g. getting Trump elected) without telling anyone within Trump’s entourage (or only telling the absolute minimum of people, who didn’t tell Trump), then Trump’s innocence is possible. I don’t think it’s particularly likely, but maintaining a possible line of “plausible deniability” is likely worth the effort. Just because Trump is a dangerous buffoon doesn’t mean that the people around him are equally stupid.

          • colnago80
            Posted January 20, 2017 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

            And I suppose that Mr. Duncan thinks that Juanita Broaddrick’s claim about Bill Clinton was credible but that the numerous women who accused dummkopf Donald of sexual improprieties are not. In a pigs eye.

      • Jonathan Wallace
        Posted January 20, 2017 at 10:28 am | Permalink

        “…and even if he had, how does this make him unfit?”

        Is that a serious question? He may or may not have admitted it (and most reasonable people would consider that ‘grabbing women by the pussy’ certainly amounts to sexual assault and he’s definitely on record boasting of having done exactly that) but if he had then I’d certainly consider it makes him unfit to hold the office.

      • Posted January 20, 2017 at 10:30 am | Permalink

        “….and even if he had, how does this make him unfit?”

        The very fact that someone would ask that question is troubling.

        • GM
          Posted January 20, 2017 at 10:41 am | Permalink

          Whether the president is a rapist has zero relevance to his ability to do his job, that is correct.

          If you were able to understand what the job of the president actually is, and if you were also able to not look at everything through a highly emotionally charged prism, you would understand that too.

          By your logic, Stalin was completely unfit to lead the USSR yet in real life he was the most capable ruler that Russis has had in the last couple centuries or so.

          Politics at that level is not about feelings, and it is not about empty slogans such as “human rights”.

          For the record, I personally have serious doubts that Trump will be a capable president.

          But him being a rapist or not is at the very bottom of my reasons for that.

          • eoinkenobi
            Posted January 20, 2017 at 10:51 am | Permalink

            The reason that being a rapist renders someone ineligible to be president is that it normalises rape, in fact it makes it almost admirable.

          • nickswearsky
            Posted January 20, 2017 at 11:05 am | Permalink

            I could not disagree more. His many ill-informed statements (look up his answer to a question about nuclear triad) demonstrate a serious lack of awareness and fitness for the office he sought. That in addition to his admitted sexual assaults make him unfit to serve. The unanswered questions about involvement with a foreign government (Russia) also raise very serious questions about his fitness for office.

            • Rita
              Posted January 20, 2017 at 11:18 am | Permalink

              +1

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted January 20, 2017 at 11:30 am | Permalink

            Sure, Stalin “was the most capable ruler that Russis [sic] has had in the last couple centuries” — if you’re measuring by the number of Soviet citizens murdered. Hell, compared to Uncle Joe, Ivan the Terrible was a downright piker.

            • GM
              Posted January 20, 2017 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

              He wasn’t the one who said it, but the death of millions is indeed just a statistic.

              As I said above, most people seem to be too brainwashed by the combination of the culture they were raised in and what they are bombarded with by the media to understand that in politics at that level there is no place for feelings or for concerns about any particular individual.

              Stalin seems to have understood that very well. If you ask me, he went too far, which caused a lot of problems further down the line, but a lot of the atrocities actually make a lot of sense if you analyze them rationally and in the long term did help to stabilize the system.

              And if you look at the overall state of the system, you will see what was actually achieved. The country was a desperately poor peasant society in the early 1920s, 30 years later it was one of the two highly industrialized nuclear-armed superpowers, and just a few years after that it was the first to enter outer space. This is quite remarkable, but you never hear about it from that perspective in the West. For understandable reasons, it does not fit the narrative.

              The problem is that there was nobody of the same caliber to replace him. The story goes that at a meeting of Politburo in the late 1940s Stalin is looking at the people around him and murmuring “When I look at you, I know that the capitalists will eat you alive once I’m gone”. And that is indeed what happened.

              This is the genius of the Western system of government — it is not dependent on the autocrat in power being competent, it moves along irrespective of who is in power. That’s in the short to medium term though (on a grander historical scale).

              Long-term that is a fatal flaw, because when radical reforms are needed, there is no way to carry them out from within, and then it will fall apart. We haven’t yet reached that point but we’re almost there.

              • Ken Kukec
                Posted January 20, 2017 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

                “The country was a desperately poor peasant society in the early 1920s, 30 years later it was one of the two highly industrialized nuclear-armed superpowers, and just a few years after that it was the first to enter outer space.”

                And 30 years after that, it ceased to exist. Now Mother Russia is nothing but a filling-station, owned by plutocrats, and run by a tin-pot thug harboring delusions of 19th-century imperial grandeur.

                How many of Stalin’s “atrocities actually make a lot of sense” to you? Holodomor? The show trials and purges? The reign of terror conducted by Lavrentiy Beria?

                There’s a word for that kind of thinking: “sociopathic.”

              • Posted January 20, 2017 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

                Yeah but he’s unbiased so it must be true.

              • GM
                Posted January 20, 2017 at 10:43 pm | Permalink

                The Holodomor was a step too far.

                Moving various ethnic groups across the country made a lot of sense — you eliminate potential internal opposition while populating empty areas of the country that needed development.

                The GULAG camps made a lot of sense too — gold from Kolyma is what paid for a lot of the industrialization, Siberia has actual cities today because of the camps, etc. Should they have treated people in the camps better? Yes, they should have, but forcing people to move in those areas was a beneficial policy in the long term.

                The purges went too far too in the sense that they affected regular people who had nothing to do with power, but purging the party was a good idea.

                The reason communism fell apart in the 1980s was not the West’s ideological superiority, or internal popular resistance (despite official mythology on the issue) it was that the communist elites found their own system too restricting. They were a nomenclature, but they weren’t satisfied with just being that, they wanted to become a class. So they broke the system apart themselves. And they indeed did become a class after that — most obscenely rich people today there either directly originate from those circles or had close ties to them.

                Now who exactly were the members of the party that brought the system down? It was primarily second-generation communists who had by that point taken over power from the previous generation. It was quite the same in all countries in the Eastern bloc. Those were people raised in relative luxury, not the rugged individuals that came from the bottom, survived the wars, etc. who comprised the first generation. And they were much more corrupt and focused on their own enrichment than their predecessors.

                Stalin’s purges had two effects:

                1. Removing immediate potential (real or imagined) opposition to him
                2. Prevented that process from taking place by basically exterminating all original bolsheviks and their families. So new people entered from humble origins and the degradation of the second generation could not happen, because there was no second generation.

                Rigid ideological systems are difficult to maintain when you have wealth transmission across generations, because that has devastating corrupting effects.

                That’s a lesson that the Catholic church seems to have learned (the hard way, celibacy wasn’t always the norm) and it is one reason why priests are not allowed to have children. It does prevent the process of corruption to an extent (and it is no coincidence that in the Middle ages, when that restriction either did not exist yet or was not yet so strict, the Church went through the most decadent phases of its history, and eventually nearly collapsed).

              • Jonathan Wallace
                Posted January 21, 2017 at 10:33 am | Permalink

                If you measure fitness to govern simply on the ability to seize and cling on to power then Stalin may indeed represent the standard against which to measure others and no doubt Robert Mugabe, Chairman Mao and a few other grisly dictators would feature highly in your hierarchy of fitness. I am sure I am not alone, however, in feeling that Stalin is the absolute epitome of someone who was not remotely fit to govern. Whatever he may have achieved in terms of industrial output or military strength, the bottom line is that he terrorised his people and life under his regime was clearly miserable for the majority of Soviet citizens.
                I find your glib description of political purges (‘death of millions is indeed just a statistic’), gulags and the displacement of entire ethnic groups as effective and justified political tools absolutely chilling and scarcely tempered by your off-hand ‘he went too far’ (would the death of only hundreds of thousands have been on the right side of the limits of acceptability?).
                ‘Human rights’ is not at all an empty slogan as you suggest but refers to vital and precious and well defined legal rights – which amongst other things allow you and I to express our views publicly without fear of being frog-marched off to face a firing squad. They are bound up in the Constitution of the US and the constitution and laws of many other countries in the free word. The President is sworn to defend them and his fitness to govern is much more to do with his commitment and ability to uphold that oath than about his ability to outwit, out-muscle or eliminate his political enemies.

            • Ken Kukec
              Posted January 21, 2017 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

              Re: Holodomor — glad to see you think the murder of 5 to 10 million Ukrainians might’ve crossed the line, even for Joe Stalin.

              • Posted January 21, 2017 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

                Come on, don’t be so negative. He didn’t kill everyone

          • colnago80
            Posted January 20, 2017 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

            Actual, Stalin was incompetent as his refusal to consider that Germany might tear up the von Ribbentrop/Molotov pact and invade the former Soviet Union was malfeasance as it came close to the defeat of that former nation.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted January 20, 2017 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

      I don’t think the sexual assault thing makes Trump ‘unfit to be President’ (though one might have thought it should have made him unelectable). But check out FDR for example.

      Nor does his rather obnoxious public persona.

      What should make him unfit to be President would be his shallowness of thinking, his erratic and self-contradictory and absurd statements, and his unpredictability. None of those things, however, are valid legal reasons for dismissing him.

      From the viewpoint of the rest of the world, those last defects are far more significant and alarming than how many pussies he has obnoxiously grabbed.

      But you lot elected him by due legal process and now you – and the rest of the world – are stuck with him. Bugger.

      cr

      • nickswearsky
        Posted January 20, 2017 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

        The standard for impeachment is high crimes or misdemeanors. Sexual assault is at least a misdemeanor and possibly felonious if habitual.

        • gravelinspector-Aidan
          Posted January 20, 2017 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

          And if he commits those high crimes and misdemeanours in office, you may have a line of attack.

  4. Linda Calhoun
    Posted January 20, 2017 at 9:48 am | Permalink

    Funny, I was just thinking, before I came here, about why it is that Trump and his followers take such joy in their cruelty and their enjoyment of others’ pain.

    Not people I want to “find common ground with”. L

    • Posted January 20, 2017 at 10:09 am | Permalink

      “why it is that Trump and his followers take such joy in their cruelty and their enjoyment of others’ pain.”

      I don’t know why, but I think it’s true. It’s been my “theory” that “SJWs” are motivated by extreme empathy. They are so upset by perceived injustices, and insults that they are willing to limit people’s individual liberties like freedom of speech. On the other end of the spectrum you have those who are so lacking in empathy that they are unwilling to even voluntarily limit what they say, and do in order to alleviate suffering, and will in fact even go so far as to mock them. Those on that end are Trump, and many of his supporters.

      • Posted January 20, 2017 at 11:10 am | Permalink

        I doubt that. The SJWs closest to “our” atheist-skeptics communities where infamous for their outstanding comment section nastiness rudeness on a certain other blog/network. I never saw empathy or compassion there, only posturing and cruel powerplay — while pure hatred was dripping from the walls. To date, I’ve never seen anything like it. You could find fun, if you did not take the inmates seriously, but you would find more empathy from hyenas circling their prey than there. Also, consider self-licensing.

        • Posted January 20, 2017 at 11:44 am | Permalink

          “I never saw empathy or compassion there”

          I never claimed they they’re saints, they’re obviously not going to have empathy, or compassion for people who they believe are, or are defending the oppressor. How much empathy or compassion do you imagine their being even on this site for Trump supporters if it weren’t for the rules, and their vigorous enforcement.

        • GM
          Posted January 20, 2017 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

          +1

          Also, in general, it is a good idea to be extremely skeptical of anyone who claims to be doing anything out of empathy for anyone not in their immediate kin.

          • Linda Calhoun
            Posted January 20, 2017 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

            If they “claim” empathy, I agree with you.

            If their behavior is honestly generous, then I don’t. I have seen lots of people pitch in to help others just because that’s who they are. I have done it myself, and I have been on the receiving end of help I didn’t ask for. It was, and is, real.

            We are pretty far away from that at the moment as a society, though. L

  5. Ken Kukec
    Posted January 20, 2017 at 9:52 am | Permalink

    Donald Trump will place his hand on a book he has not read, to take an oath he will not keep, to uphold a constitution he does not comprehend.

    • Dave
      Posted January 20, 2017 at 10:07 am | Permalink

      Well done!

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted January 20, 2017 at 10:59 am | Permalink

        Credit due my brother, who texted me something similar first thing this morning.

    • Posted January 20, 2017 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

      Congratulations on your prescience. Could you please tell me what tomorrow’s winning lotto numbers will be?

  6. W.Benson
    Posted January 20, 2017 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    Yes indeed, “The work begins.”

  7. GM
    Posted January 20, 2017 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    An unbiased observer can interpret those tweets in precisely the opposite way, and for good reasons.

    And that interpretation is in fact quite revealing about why Trump won.

    What exactly is Obama saying in that tweet?

    In reality, nothing. It’s standard politician’s empty platitudes.

    Trump, on other hand, is seen as not being the standard politician who spews empty platitudes all the time, and as a man of action.

    Which is what people want and why many were willing to gamble on him.

    Now what will happen in practice may, and indeed looks like it will be, not to their liking, but those are the risks you run when you gamble.

    The deeper problem is that I still don’t see any real self-reflection on the so called “left”, as this comment thread demonstrates very well so far

    • Hempenstein
      Posted January 20, 2017 at 10:35 am | Permalink

      Boss Tweet won with 46% of the popular vote. Last approval rating I saw was 37%. That suggests that something like 20% of his supporters have already done some reflection. Not an auspicious start for him.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted January 20, 2017 at 10:55 am | Permalink

      Too bad that, to take the oath of office, Trump had to take time off from his busy schedule of giving tongue baths to that war criminal and thug Vladimir Putin, huh?

    • Torbjörn Larsson
      Posted January 20, 2017 at 11:34 am | Permalink

      If anyone has show him/herself to be an empty gasbag, it is the Trumpalist with his this-no-that and statistically significant most lying of the candidates. You are reading too much of your opinion into events, as witnessed by your so called “so called “left”” interpretation. (But then again, the US left is way “right” to the local “right”, so your claims would look absurd anyway.)

    • Mark R.
      Posted January 20, 2017 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

      An unbiased observer can interpret those tweets in precisely the opposite way, and for good reasons.

      Why do you premise so many of your comments/responses with this statement about being unbiased? It’s simply absurd; no one is without bias. It’s really a not so subtle way of telling those emotionally charged democrats that your reasoning (and person?) are superior. I would suggest a humbler approach to discourse.

      • GM
        Posted January 20, 2017 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

        OK, let substitute “unbiased” with “approximately unbiased”.

        I really despise both parties equally and I am looking at this from the outside. I get as close to playing the role of the behavioral biologist studying how fruit flies respond to various stimuli as possible.

        I have, however, witnessed numerous people reading into what I write here and declaring me to be various things I in no way am.

        • colnago80
          Posted January 20, 2017 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

          Sir, you are an apologist for the 2nd greatest mass murder in history, exceeded only by Mao.

      • Gayle
        Posted January 22, 2017 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

        Yeah, that guy is so “unbiased” he’s fucking Switzerland!

  8. ThyroidPlanet
    Posted January 20, 2017 at 10:13 am | Permalink

    Trump’s tweet suggests that he’s the boss and we all are his workers and if we’re late we are in big trouble.

    As for the Obamas – I’m wary of when I sound or appear like I’m a citizen of North Korea, but yes they are expressive, have depth, and I think they are genuine. The letter I read of Barack’s was powerful at the end… saw it on Twi##er somewhere…

  9. Jonathan Wallace
    Posted January 20, 2017 at 10:16 am | Permalink

    Those twitter handles @POTUS and @FLOTUS made me wonder if the appropriate twitter handle for Prez Trump should be @FLATUS (given the common British-English usage of his surname)?

  10. ThyroidPlanet
    Posted January 20, 2017 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    Tweet by Brian Greene

    Math Jeopardy:

    Answer:

    27%

    Question:

    What fraction of eligible voters cast their vote for Donald Trump?

    #MathematicalTherapy

  11. George
    Posted January 20, 2017 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    Whenever I see a picture of the orange short fingered vulgarian, all I can think is “Go f___ yourself!”

    I suggest everyone use the Chrome browser and install this extension:
    https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/make-america-kittens-agai/klchnmggepghlcolikgaekpibclpmgcm?hl=en

    It replaces pictures of this asswipe with a kitten.

  12. Redlivingblue
    Posted January 20, 2017 at 10:39 am | Permalink

    Perhaps an analgesic? Mark Hammel (Star Wars fame for the geek challenged) was the voice of the Joker for the Batman animated series back in the 90s and reprised the role recently in the animated telling of The Killing Joke, has been reading Trump tweets using his Joker voice and has dubbed the character “The Trumpster”. If you want a laugh or a cry, a quick Internet search will yield several recordings of The Trumpster with many more sure to follow leading up to what might be the inevitable impeachment of 45…

  13. Posted January 20, 2017 at 10:48 am | Permalink

    The Donald is unfit to be president. He’s a liar, a cheat and a fraud (and there’s direct, verifiable proof, not simply allegations). He has no experience at governing, legislation or diplomacy. Simply listening to him talk is evidence that he is ignorant and inarticulate. He’s a petulant man-child with access to lots of money and the internet who has diarrhea of the keyboard…he just can’t stop posting sh*t! To top it all off he’s got a moral and ethical deficit that would make Mussolini proud.

    For further proof of all this just look at the people he’s put in his cabinet. Sam Harris calls this administration, “A clown car of incompetents”. One can hardly disagree with that assessment.

    • Claudia Baker
      Posted January 20, 2017 at 11:10 am | Permalink

      +1

      • Mark R.
        Posted January 20, 2017 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

        1 + 1

    • GM
      Posted January 20, 2017 at 11:19 am | Permalink

      He’s a liar, a cheat and a fraud

      Hmm, tell me which president has not been that?

      As a recent example, do I need to go back to 2008 and compare and contrast campaign promises with the reality that followed? I know memories, especially those of political animals, are short, but still…

      • Mark R.
        Posted January 20, 2017 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

        Him being a liar, cheat and fraud have nothing to do with “campaign promises” of Obama or any other POTUS. Trump has been a liar, cheat and fraud his entire adult life…decades and decades of lying, cheating and fraudulent behavior. Why the false equivalency? Why are you trying to normalize Trump?

        • GM
          Posted January 20, 2017 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

          OK, so according to you tricking 50M people to vote for you on promises of change and hope and then delivering Bush terms III and IV (and on steroids in many aspects) is neither lying nor fraud?

          And that pattern of behavior absolutely only started on January 20th 2009, not before that?

          Sure, whatever you say…

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted January 20, 2017 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

        You can’t see the distinction between an unfulfilled campaign promise and a blatant misrepresentation of fact (like, say, that an opponent’s father participated in JFK’s assassination)?

    • Rita
      Posted January 20, 2017 at 11:25 am | Permalink

      Except: I see his administration not as “a clown car of incompetents” but as simply evil. With the possible exception of Rick Perry, who is, IMO, evil and incompetent.

      • Posted January 20, 2017 at 11:59 am | Permalink

        Yes, many of those cabinet members know exactly what they are doing, and will do it on purpose. Not incompetent at all.

    • nickswearsky
      Posted January 20, 2017 at 11:25 am | Permalink

      Completely agree. +1

  14. Posted January 20, 2017 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    It’s great to see the day start off with Trump in church – a place that probably not familiar territory to the Trumpster. Fittingly he chose Robert Jeffress as this morning’s pastor:

    “A pastor with a long history of inflammatory remarks about Muslims, Mormons, Catholics and gays preached at a private service for President-elect Trump and his family on Friday, shortly before Trump is to take the oath of office.

    The pastor, the Rev. Robert Jeffress, is a Southern Baptist who vigorously campaigned for Trump during the final months of the presidential election and is a member of his evangelical advisory board. “I love this guy!” Trump has said of Jeffress. Before the campaign, Trump, a Presbyterian, had no apparent connection to the pastor, who leads First Baptist Church in Dallas.”

    • Jeff Lewis
      Posted January 20, 2017 at 11:54 am | Permalink

      I’m a transplant to Wichita Falls, TX, and we had Jeffress here for a while. The guy was no better when he was here, but at least he had a smaller audience and was less influential.

  15. Diana MacPherson
    Posted January 20, 2017 at 11:19 am | Permalink

    He just said God protects America. Gott mit uns.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted January 20, 2017 at 11:26 am | Permalink

      sub

  16. Posted January 20, 2017 at 11:37 am | Permalink

    I see a lot of posters using unfit, ineligible, and illegitimate. Unfit, I’m OK with that. He’s not qualified for the job by either knowledge or temperament. And a host of other reasons.

    By ineligible or illegitimate, that’s way too far. He’s not convicted of a crime, he’s meets the constitutional requirements (where’s his birth certificate?), and he won the election fair and square, all fake news and all that aside. He’s the President. It sucks, but he’s yours, mine, and everybody else’s president. This “not my president” stuff hurts the cause way more than it helps.

    • Jeff Lewis
      Posted January 20, 2017 at 11:56 am | Permalink

      Agreed. He won fairly with the system that’s in place. Well, mostly fairly – there was still the influence of Russia and the FBI.

    • GM
      Posted January 20, 2017 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

      +1

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted January 20, 2017 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

      Trump is “unfit for office” by intellect, experience, and temperament.

      He was, however, duly elected by the electoral college (even though 11 million more Americans voted against him than voted for him). As to whether that election was “fair and square,” let’s see what the investigation into the Russian hacking scandal turns up. Thereupon will turn the question of his presidency’s “legitimacy.”

      • Mark R.
        Posted January 20, 2017 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

        As long as the investigation continues and isn’t scuttled by the incoming deplorables.

        I do hold out hope that the security services won’t bow to intimidation and will continue to investigate the hacking and go where the truth leads them, no matter what the cost.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted January 21, 2017 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

          I don’t believe Trump will be able scuttle the Russian hacking investigations, particularly not one undertaken by Congress. Were he to do so, however, I think it fair to presume the outcome would have been unfavorable for him and, thus, to declare his candidacy “illegitimate.”

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted January 21, 2017 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

            … his “presidency” illegitimate. (I still choke on that concept).

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted January 21, 2017 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

            Anonymous is determined to expose his ties to Russian oligarchs as well so he’s not going to have an easy time of it.

            • Posted January 22, 2017 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

              Hooray! So pleased to hear this!

  17. kieran
    Posted January 20, 2017 at 11:42 am | Permalink

    Remain indoors http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l28o6fJda1c

    Well now we know what the event was

  18. Posted January 20, 2017 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    Here we go …

  19. jrhs
    Posted January 20, 2017 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

    The dark feeling as if Emperor Palpatine has come alive sets in suddenly.

  20. Posted January 20, 2017 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

    I don’t think you can be the only one to think this. Considering his approval rating is hovering around the high 30s to 40% before he even takes office, this is “unpresidented.”

    Normally, modern Presidents have approval ratings somewhere around double that amount because there is an attempt to come together and give the new guy a chance. Any chance of this happening was squashed by Boss Tweet’s continued insistence on personally bashing everyone who disagrees with him.

    More importantly, I don’t think we should lose sight of the real problems these constant diversions cover. Meryl Streep’s speech went on about Trump’s mocking a disabled reporter. Was this distasteful? Absolutely. Was this as harmful as the fact the mockery was because Trump was called out on his lie about Muslims dancing in the streets after 9/11? Absolutely not. The latter wasn’t even mentioned. Rhetoric like that has real consequences and drove some of his more vile policy proposals. It’s quite possible a crude man could do a decent job running the country, but when the crudeness is used to cover up lies upon lies and ill thought out policy proposals, we need not lose focus on the actual harm he is likely to bring and already did bring during his divisive campaign.

  21. Mark Joseph
    Posted January 20, 2017 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

    There’s a word missing (maybe he ran up against the 140 character limit?).

    It should read: “The bowel movement continues”.

  22. ThyroidPlanet
    Posted January 20, 2017 at 10:52 pm | Permalink

    Attention!

    If you were following @POTUS before today, Twi##er automatically has your account follow @POTUS44 and @POTUS!

    So go and unfollow! It feels good!

    • ThyroidPlanet
      Posted January 21, 2017 at 7:44 pm | Permalink

      Don’t quote me, but I think @POTUS was ~81 million when I posted this, and it looks like 14 million now. Not that there’s 70 million WEIT readers, but….


%d bloggers like this: