Trump Derangement Syndrome - Orange man bad. Read the OP! (ᴛʜɪs ᴛʜʀᴇᴀᴅ ɪs ʟɪᴋᴇ ᴋɪᴡɪ ғᴀʀᴍs ʀᴇᴠɪᴇᴡs ɴᴏᴡ) 🗿🗿🗿🗿

Destacado
Francine StripeCheer dijo:
in the US it's pretty common to hear ex-officeholders still addressed by their titles. No other country does this as far as i know
Presiona para expandir...

It's not strictly correct, though, even by American standards. Whenever an office is held by only one person at a time, only the person in it should be using the title. This also applies to Congressmen and Senators, because they're elected for their districts.

Now, you can refer to someone by title of any position of which there are more than one, after they retire. It's why Eisenhower went back to "General Eisenhower" after he left the White House. But even then, "Mr." or "Ms." is still perfectly fine because this is America and our Constitution says titles are for faggots anyway.

The correct form of address here is "Mr. Obama", and if he's calling himself "President Obama", he's just being his usual social-grasping, basketball-in-the-dining-room, no-class self.
 
upload_2018-8-2_12-30-34.png

http://archive.is/WBhi6

I didn't know an artistic movement could have opinions, how :informative:
 
Vorhtbame dijo:
It's not strictly correct, though, even by American standards. Whenever an office is held by only one person at a time, only the person in it should be using the title. This also applies to Congressmen and Senators, because they're elected for their districts.

Now, you can refer to someone by title of any position of which there are more than one, after they retire. It's why Eisenhower went back to "General Eisenhower" after he left the White House. But even then, "Mr." or "Ms." is still perfectly fine because this is America and our Constitution says titles are for faggots anyway.

The correct form of address here is "Mr. Obama", and if he's calling himself "President Obama", he's just being his usual social-grasping, basketball-in-the-dining-room, no-class self.
Presiona para expandir...
You're supposed to address former governors as Governor So-and-so, but there's only one governor of a given state at a time.
 
Marvin dijo:
You're supposed to address former governors as Governor So-and-so, but there's only one governor of a given state at a time.
Presiona para expandir...

It is done, but it is not expected nor even really appropriate, according to the various sources I've reviewed. In the interests of even just my own private learning, though, got a source?
 
Vorhtbame dijo:
It is done, but it is not expected nor even really appropriate, according to the various sources I've reviewed. In the interests of even just my own private learning, though, got a source?
Presiona para expandir...
Judith Martin has said something to that effect a few times. You don't call a former president "Mr President" or "President So-and-so", because they're not the current president. But if they were a former governor, you can say Gov. So-and-so.

Unfortunately, etiquette is not always consistent.
 
I've hated brutalism ever since I saw it in action in Minneapolis. Riverside Plaza, now known as "Little Mogadishu", is an eyesore among eyesores.
 
Marvin dijo:
You're supposed to address former governors as Governor So-and-so, but there's only one governor of a given state at a time.
Presiona para expandir...

I was always under the impression that you could address them as "Former President X", as the "Former" is not a mark of disgrace, but rather acknowledgement of having held the office once, but having to give up the title to your successor and symbolically return to being a private citizen again. But there'd also be no real faux pas if you said "Mr" instead, unless I'm wrong.
 
Watching Jim Acosta equate being heckled to being shot in the street, and still not understanding why he doesn't get any respect, is as funny as it is distressing.

I do feel just a smidgen of pity for him that the career he envisioned and preened himself for as an important media figure has turned to such utter shit by the time he got there reducing him to the status of a hapless circus clown fumbling about for our amusement with a notepad and pen in hand, it wasn't on him his MSM masters went insane.

But the hubris of whining "not fair!" like a little baby about it instead of sitting down and thinking about it... well, that kind of "but I want my promised influence and power you plebs!" is what cost Louis XVI his head instead of a chance to remain a neutered figurehead that could at least still pretend to be loved and insightful and die as a happy, fat, deluded fool.

The media has truly reached a delusional state I never thought they'd get to, they can only react to the masses abandoning them as some nigh-on apocalyptic force from above, not that they are being given their just desserts for being shitty at the job.
 
TowinKarz dijo:
Treason-Does not meet criteria to charge
Collusion-Unproven
Conspiracy-Unproven
Obstruction-Unproven
Inciting Violence- Unproven
Racketeering-Does not meet criteria to charge
Sexual Assault-A case of flat-out alleged consensual sex has been somehow held up as proof of assault by a totally batshit lawyer. And Mrs. Grabbed-Pussy is no longer believed by even her own counsel.
Misconduct-Unconstitutionally vague claim
Perjury of Oath-Not applicable to statements not made under oath
Abuse of Authority - Not a crime, and vague
Bribery-Unproven
Intimidation - Unproven
Misuse of Assets - Unproven
Failure to Supervise - Not a crime
Dereliction of Duty - Not applicable to non service member
Unbecoming Conduct - Not a crime
Organizing Hate Crimes - Legally incoherent, even the notion of "hate crime" is Constitutionally suspect
Refusing to Follow Lawful Orders - Legality of his own aside. As chief executive, whose orders have more weight than his that he is beholden to follow?
Presiona para expandir...

Unbecoming conduct is a crime, but only under the UCMJ. It's Article 134.
 
Última edición:
Breaking news: Trump breathed today. Is this a coded message implicating a Nazi KKK gas attack on poor underprivileged latinos and people of color? Donate five dollars and find out!
 
Collusion narrative is such a joke. Its turning out the only fucking Russians were paid FBI informants pretending to be Russians. (Greenberg, velitskaya, halper)

Its kind of embarrassing but remember last year before we knew about all this deep state trash...trump was close to impeachment.or atleast the rhetoric was.

The entire thing is like a fucking murder trial with motive, planted evidence, and probable cause. Only problem is the murder victim just showed up in court alive and mueller and the judge have stricken it from the record...and the jury is like WTF how is this? so they delay the case closed indefinitely till they find a parking ticket from 1981 or something.


This shit cant go unpunished.
 
Última edición:
HarblMcDavid dijo:
I'm pretty sure it really isn't complicated, Russians = commies = BAD has been true for over half a decade until the wall fell, and now that Russians are the bad guys they are commies again.

Also from a marketing standpoint the Russian flag is too easily confused with the French flag so what do we all remember? Hammer and sickle. I'm not convinced that much thought went into it though.
Presiona para expandir...

They obviously forget that it isn't the Soviet Union and the more they feel that the more they turn into those out of touch right wingers they hate so much:

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/russia-not-soviet-union-27041
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/russia-not-soviet-union-27041?page=0,1

Russia Is Not the Soviet Union

Today's Russia is weak and not an existential threat. The messianic, superpower of the USSR was.

The American public and U.S. policymakers both have an unfortunate tendency to conflate Russia with the Soviet Union. That habit emerged again with the media and political reaction to the Helsinki summit between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump’s critics accused him of appeasing Putin and even of committing treason for not doing enough to defend American interests and for being far too solicitous to the Russian leader. They regarded that as an unforgivable offense because Russia supposedly poses a dire threat to the United States. Hostile pundits and politicians charged that Moscow’s alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. elections constituted an attack on America akin to Pearl Harbor and 9-11 .

Trump’s supplicant behavior, opponents contended, stood in shameful contrast to the behavior of previous presidents toward tyrants, especially toward the Kremlin’s threats to America and the West. They trotted out Ronald Reagan’s “evil empire” speech and his later demand that Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall as examples of how Trump should have acted.

The problem with citing such examples is that they applied to a different country: the Soviet Union. Too many Americans act as though there is no meaningful difference between that entity and Russia. Worse still, U.S. leaders have embraced the same kind of uncompromising, hostile policies that Washington pursued to contain Soviet power. It is a major blunder that has increasingly poisoned relations with Moscow since the demise of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) at the end of 1991.

One obvious difference between the Soviet Union and Russia is that the Soviet governing elite embraced Marxism-Leninism and its objective of world revolution. Today’s Russia is not a messianic power. Its economic system is a rather mundane variety of corrupt crony capitalism, not rigid state socialism. The political system is a conservative autocracy with aspects of a rigged democracy, not a one-party dictatorship that brooks no dissent whatsoever.

Russia is hardly a Western-style democracy, but neither is it a continuation of the Soviet Union’s horrifically brutal totalitarianism. Indeed, the country’s political and social philosophy is quite different from that of its predecessor. For example, the Orthodox Church had no meaningful influence during the Soviet era—something that was unsurprising, given communism’s official policy of atheism. But today, the Orthodox Church has a considerable influence in Putin’s Russia, especially on social issues.

The bottom line is that Russia is a conventional, somewhat conservative, power, whereas the Soviet Union was a messianic, totalitarian power. That’s a rather large and significant difference, and U.S. policy needs to reflect that realization.


An equally crucial difference is that the Soviet Union was a global power (and, for a time, arguably a superpower) with global ambitions and capabilities to match. It controlled an empire in Eastern Europe and cultivated allies and clients around the world, including in such far-flung places as Cuba, Vietnam, and Angola. The USSR also intensely contested the United States for influence in all of those areas. Conversely, Russia is merely a regional power with very limited extra-regional reach. The Kremlin’s ambitions are focused heavily on the near abroad, aimed at trying to block the eastward creep of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the U.S.-led intrusion into Russia’s core security zone. The orientation seems far more defensive than offensive.

It would be difficult for Russia to execute anything more than a very geographically limited expansionist agenda, even if it has one. The Soviet Union was the world’s number two economic power, second only to the United States. Russia has an economy roughly the size of Canada’s and is no longer ranked even in the global top ten . It also has only three-quarters of the Soviet Union’s territory (much of which is nearly-empty Siberia) and barely half the population of the old USSR. If that were not enough, that population is shrinking and is afflicted with an assortment of public health problems (especially rampant alcoholism).

All of these factors should make it evident that Russia is not a credible rival, much less an existential threat, to the United States and its democratic system . Russia's power is a pale shadow of the Soviet Union's. The only undiminished source of clout is the country's sizeable nuclear arsenal. But while nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent, they are not very useful for power projection or warfighting, unless the political leadership wants to risk national suicide. And there is no evidence whatsoever that Putin and his oligarch backers are suicidal. Quite the contrary, they seem wedded to accumulating ever greater wealth and perks.

Finally, Russia’s security interests actually overlap substantially with America’s—most notably regarding the desire to combat radical Islamic terrorism. If U.S. leaders did not insist on pursuing provocative policies , such as expanding NATO to Russia’s border, undermining longtime Russian clients in the Balkans (Serbia) and the Middle East (Syria), and excluding Russia from key international economic institutions such as the G-7, there would be relatively few occasions when vital American and Russian interests collide.

A fundamental shift in U.S. policy is needed, but that requires a major change in America's national psychology. For more than four decades, Americans saw (and were told to regard) the Soviet Union as a mortal threat to the nation's security and its most cherished values of freedom and democracy. Unfortunately, a mental reset did not take place when the USSR dissolved, and a quasi-democratic Russia emerged as one of the successor states. Too many Americans (including political leaders and policymakers) act as though they are still confronting the Soviet Union. It will be the ultimate tragic irony if, having avoided war with a totalitarian global adversary, America now stumbles into war because of an out-of-date image of, and policy toward, a conventional, declining regional power. Yet unless U.S. leaders change both their mindsets and their policies toward Russia, that outcome is a very real possibility.
Presiona para expandir...

http://www.mcall.com/opinion/yourvi...summit-reaction-dellicker-20180719-story.html

Putin's modern Russia is not the Evil Empire of the Soviet Union
Vladimir Putin reveals more about the American political establishment than the objects of their ire.

Russia is not the Soviet Union, Putin is not Stalin, and President Trump is right to attempt a dialogue that could defuse the start of a protracted conflict. The screaming elites from both political parties are the ones who lack context and perspective, not Trump or his supporters.

Relations with Russia are bad, but they have not reached the point of no return. Fortunately, the current state of bilateral relations is very different from the last time America and Russia clashed, with better opportunities to forge a productive understanding.

During the Cold War, that was impossible, as the Soviets possessed three traits that made them our mortal enemy and threatened our very existence.


First, the Soviets had an underlying ideology — communism — that was incompatible with our western way of life. Americans valued capitalism, liberty and self-government. Communists valued socialism, collectivism and totalitarianism. The ideologies were diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive.

Second, the Soviets had achievable plans to spread their ideology worldwide. Communist theorists believed that as long as capitalism and communism coexisted, the two systems would be in a perpetual state of war. So, the only way to guarantee their communist utopia was to destroy capitalism and achieve world domination. Accordingly, the Soviets set out to spread communist revolutions across the globe.

Finally, the Soviets possessed the means to carry out their plans. Their formidable industrial might sustained an immense military with the capability to roll across Europe and project power anywhere in the world. Their conventional weapons were backed by a nuclear arsenal that could instantly annihilate any place on earth.

That triple threat of communist ideology, expansionist planning and massive forces made the Soviet Union a true evil empire. No amount of engagement could change the fundamental nature of the relationship. The Soviets had to be defeated if we were to survive as a nation.

Not one of those characteristics describes Russia today.

Russia is not defined by some frightening ideology. Its pervasive corruption, crony capitalism and heavy-handed tactics are examples of individual failures to achieve desired reforms, not evidence of a collective longing to return to autocracy. Just 30 years ago, Russia was ruled by communist dictators, and before that by czars. Perhaps the real story is how far they have come in such a short period of time.

Russia has no plans for world domination. Yes, the country longs for its glory days of power and influence. But, annexing Crimea, interfering in Ukraine and propping up Syria are different than conquering Poland, invading Afghanistan and toppling governments across Central America. Russia has many desires but few achievable plans, and managing their wishful thinking requires a different approach than countering the marching orders of the Comintern.

Finally, Russia lacks the means to threaten the West. The U.S. dwarfs Russia in military power, spending 10 times more than Russia on its armed forces.

And, with an economy about the size of Spain’s, Russia will not catch up any time soon. Russia’s nuclear arsenal remains a viable deterrent. But only in the fantasies of Russian nationalists and Washington elites is Russia a peer power to the US.

In fact, Russian election ‘’meddling’’ is evidence of their weakness, not their strength. Amateurish and inconsequential, the episode is a textbook example of an asymmetric response by an inferior challenger against a dominant foe, nothing but a petty annoyance.

Yet, instead of dispensing a secret cyber-spanking, patching the vulnerabilities and otherwise ignoring the whole pathetic affair, the U.S. has incessantly whined about Russian “attacks” and elevated them to legendary status.

Russia still has the potential to devolve into an isolated mess that menaces the West for decades to come. Butthat is not who they are today. Defining them as such is factually inaccurate, offensive to their citizens and unhelpful to diplomacy.

Russia is a proud nation, recovering from a humiliating defeat and anxious to reclaim what they believe is their rightful place on the world stage. They seek to be a leader in the community of nations, not its pariah. If we can leverage their desire to re-engage, Russia could help us solve many stubborn and long-standing problems.

That is, unless the screaming elites are successful in turning minor conflicts with Russia into major battles. President Trump should be commended, not condemned, for trying to defuse a dangerous situation before it becomes Cold War II.
Presiona para expandir...
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo