Fake News

| May 13, 2017 | 80 Comments

So, I guess the media is done trying to hide the fact that everything Trump does pisses them off. Here’s a headline item from CNN;

The UK’s Independent on the same subject;

The President is bestowed with a Diet Coke while other diners are stuck with water.

What’s more, Mr Trump appears to be served “Thousand Island dressing” instead of the “creamy vinaigrette for his guests”. The former reality TV star is also given an “extra dish of sauce” to accompany his chicken.

Fake news doesn’t have to be completely fabricated stories – it can also be stories that some bonehead editor thinks is important, but it’s just so much BS. I’m expecting an expose` on how Trump doesn’t fold his own T-shirts.

Category: Media

Comments (80)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Atkron says:

    This makes my head hurt…

  2. UpNorth says:

    I expect Lars to show up any moment now, to complain about the ice cream disparity, and the tragedy of the salad dressings.

  3. Perry Gaskill says:

    Think of the outrage if Trump was served Russian salad dressing…

  4. MrBill says:

    Good point, although here I think “trivial” is a better description than “fake”. Trump’s done enough that can be legitimately criticized; why grasp at straws like this? It makes the opposition look desperate.

  5. Marvin says:

    Snowflakes eat it up…

  6. D says:

    Good thing I’m not the president, or the media would be running stories about my skyr habit. Is this really news? Enough of these stories and people don’t care about actual news.

  7. My, My, My says:

    Let them eat cake.

  8. Ex-PH2 says:

    There is nothing to write about, therefore, the media goes into the Microcosm of Flatulent Bloviation.

    1 – Thousand Island Dressing is kethcup, mayo, and pickle relish. The other stuff sounds better.
    2 – Drinks are unimportant unless there is a title or product name attached to them.
    3 – There is nothing that says people can’t ask for two scoops of ice cream, is there?
    4 – These soap opera wannabes have nothing to do, anyway, so it’s open season on their perceived target.

    • MSG Eric says:

      Hey hey hey, about your #1? Next time put Spoiler Alert! Some of us still wanted that mystery of what it was.

      Next thing you’ll tell us what the special sauce is on the big mac. Gosh!

  9. Commissar says:

    Every time we get a new president there is a news piece like the Time piece CNN references.

    These “life in the white house” or “weekend with the first family” type of stories usually they reveal idiosyncrasies of the new president that get pulled out and become news stories in of themselves because they are quirky, or unusual, or unconventional etc.

    Sometimes they just seem petty. Especially since people tend to see what they want to see when someone does something “different”.

    So the left sees this as evidence of a spoiled selfish child because two scoops of ice cream while everyone else gets one feeds that “selfish child” narrative.

    There is a lot of reasons to see Trump as a bloated spoiled impetulant toddler.

    Wanting two scoops of ice cream is not one of them.

    • GDContractor says:

      Anyone who didn’t know that Trump is a spoiled petulant child for the past 40 years, raise your hand. Yeah I thought so. The interesting thing to me is that he is now our president, thanks in large part to the actions of the democratic party and Hillary Rodham Clinton. He was identified as their preferred candidate, and I have no doubt that the complicit press did everything possible to ensure that his name was at the top of the ticket. Similarly, I have no doubt that they conspired to make sure that Bernie was left in the dust. I have never been a Trump fan but I must say that I enjoy the apoplexy of the left, and the Press, as well as their bullshit denial that they conspired to essentially put him in office. At the end of the day I’m really happy that that hapless corrupt bitch is not our president.

      • Commissar says:

        Yep. Clinton and the DNC used their media connections to try to elevate Trump so he would win the primary because they believed she had a slightly higher chance of winning against him than any of the other GoP candidates.

        So she was willing to put the future of the country at increased risk of a Trump presidency just for a 1-6% increase in the probability of winning the election in November.

        She literally put her own political ambition over the best interests of the country.

        Not to mention she planned to continue the disastrous pro-finance neoliberal agenda that was wreaking havoc on the American worker and the middle class. An agenda her husband set into motion and she had every intention of continuing despite the fact that a significant percentage of Americans on BOTH sides of the aisle had enough of it.

        She though she could trap the left into voting for her because they would have no other choice and then she could take votes from Trump by campaigning as a center right candidate.

        She tried to game the American election and ended up not resonating with anyone except centrist and slightly left middle class baby boomer women. Every other constituency wanted literally ANYONE but her.

        She though Trump would scare them into voting for her.

        She was wrong. People don’t turn out in large numbers to vote for someone that clearly does not give a fuck about them.

        And the American worker felt like they had nothing to lose by rejecting her neoliberal pro-finance policy agenda.

        • GDContractor says:

          Although I appreciate your cogent and logical response more than you know, here is where you are wrong about Trump being a windfall for the progressive left. I can take your reply above and copy it on my Facebook wall and everyone left-of-center that encounters that post will either call me a fascist or a Trump lover, etc…. thinking the words (your words) are my own. Presumably you are in Berkeley and I’m not. But from what I see, the sweet progressives out there are protesting something called fascism and God knows what else… shouting love Trumps hate while bashing in car windows with baseball bats. And On Any Given news cycle, the Press is trying to hunt down Russian conspiracy links. In short, the progressives have learned nothing… and as such they are doomed to repeat their mistakes, being duped by someone who was all form and no substance with a good lie to tell them. Also, the progressives need to realize that a strong central document of governance, limiting the power of a central government, is a good thing, for everyone. Especially so when a populist and presumed fascist gets placed in a position of power due to the stupidity and arrogance of comrades like HRC. Yet, they haven’t learned this either. In summary, can I have 10,000 marbles please? Because that is exactly what I think of when I think of The Left and their cluelessness, and their willingness to deny logic for passion.

  10. Commissar says:

    He definitely represents the plurality of Americans on this issue.

    But, still can’t seem to break through to majority support.

    Not even on ice cream.
    http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/personality-test/picks/results/360074/how-many-scoops-ice-cream-usually-take

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      Look at your previous two posts and you might get a clue AS TO why I gave you your nickname from me, Babbles McButthead. President Trump has already done more good for our Country than his predecessor ever did, just look at the job market recovery already but your fellow buttheads in the liberal media want to bawl about what he eats and how hweats instead.

      • Commissar says:

        The job market recovery has literally nothing to do with Trump. His administration budget does not go into effect until October (and still has not even been drafted).

        The current numbers are LITERALLY a continuation of a Trend that was happening through the last 6 years of the Obama Administration.

        https://www.google.com/?client=safari&channel=mac_bm#channel=mac_bm&q=Unemployment+rate+in+us

        And the Trump administration has not had a single bill passed that makes ANY structural changes to the economy. So there is NOTHING different to attribute the current job numbers too accept the trend that was happening already.

        I could accept you claiming that NEITHER president has much to do with the unemployment rate, but giving Trump credit for something he has not been in office long enough to effect while ignoring that it is a continuation of a clear 6 year trend under Obama is bullshit.

        I don’t care what nicknames you come up with for me. I have regarded you as one of the least informed and least intelligent people I have ever interacted more than one time with on any forum online or in real life.

        And the only reason we interact at all is because of your bizarre compulsion to respond to nearly every post I make with some empty ad hominem comprised entirely of schoolyard name calling gibberish.

        But I will say that Trump is doing far more for progressives than Hillary would have. She was a right of center neoliberal finance feudalist kleptocrat that would have continued the same “profit > responsibility” bullshit that is pervasive in US government.

        He presidency would have been a dismal grind that would have resulted in the most lopsided electoral defeats in history across all levels of government and US progressive politics would have been dead for the entire Clinton administration and another 8-10 years after.

        However, Trump is a windfall for the progressive cause. He is not only slapping them out of their senseless apathetic stupor and causing them to be more motivated and engaged than they have been since the civil rights era, but he is also deeply wounding and potentially destroying the influence and credibility of the authoritarian hard right in this country.

        The right will go into 2018 and 2020 fractured and discredited while the left will be angry and motivated for change.

        A Clinton presidency would have moved this country hard right for at least a decade after while trending right during her entire term of her presidency. 12-16 years of right wing drift.

        Instead we get a few tumultuous years of a clownfuck presidency (I don’t even think he will last 4) but a complete left wing control of congress and most states by the end of 2018 and a landslide for the left in 2020 with a strong left wing turn from 8-12 years after.

        The worst thing that could have happened to the democrats was a Hillary win. They went into this election with the lowest percentage of elected offices in the history of the party and ended her abysmal fuck over the left campaign with an even lower percentage.

        Her losing political influence has given the left an opportunity to dislodge all democratic politicians like her. Ones that try to charge people up over decisive social issues while fucking over American people economically and selling out American interests to the highest bidder.

        I hate Trump. But I thank god Clinton is not the president.

        Trump has done more from progressives than Clinton ever has.

        Hell, he is likely going to even destroy Jeff Sessions career by 2018. And Ryan is going to lose his house seat because of his loyalty to Trump.

        Talk about a windfall for the left.

        • Jonn Lilyea says:

          Yeah, well, “confidence” has a lot to do with performance of the job market as well as the stock market. There was no confidence in the economy for eight years and there is confidence now. I wonder why?

          • Commissar says:

            Confidence definitely impact the stock market.

            But stock market gains have very little to do with the health of the economy for the average American family.

            The financial markets have been disembedded from the economic reality of American families for more than a decade. At least since the run up to the financial crisis.

            • Silentium Est Aureum says:

              Tell that to the over 50 percent of Americans who own stock, either directly or via 401(k)’s.

              • Commissar says:

                The industry makes a profitable killing whether markets rise of fall. They bet for and against the economy and using automated trading systems always front run the trends so they take their profits and leave Americans holding the bag at every inflection point.

                The fact that the future retirement savings of 50% of American families is tied to the expectation that the market will continue to rise overall and not crash again before or during their retirement is NOT a good thing.

                Americans only benefit from ONE side of the market.

                The industry profits from it rising AND falling.

                And their profits come ENTIRELY from investors that move slower than their automated trading systems that execute trades in nanoseconds and can use 1000th of penny prices to always get their orders executed in front of non-industry owned systems.

                The entire American public reacts slower to the market than the financial industry. And 50% of the American public have their retirement savings waiting to be ripped from them.

                To be clear the automated systems the industry is using have not had a single losing day in the stock market for their entire existence. Whether the market goes up or down on any single day these systems ALWAYS extract a profit.

                And it comes out of the investment accounts of the rest of us. Every. Single. Day. Day in. and Day out.

                One firm had one losing day due to a algorithm error. And they held congressional hearing to find out why. Not to protect the American people or the economy. But to protect the industry.

                • Silentium Est Aureum says:

                  No offense, but I’ll put my money long in the market rather than in a Ponzi scheme the government sold as “insurance”, which is anything but.

                  I’m already betting on the fact that SS will be little more than beer and gas money by the time I retire, and maybe only one of them.

              • timactual says:

                I’m one of those 50%, and I believe it. I can remember both the Ford and Carter administrations, which were not what you would call boom years. The stock market went up.

                https://www.forbes.com/2004/07/21/cx_da_0721presidents.html

          • Commissar says:

            But to say there was no confidence in the last 8 years by using the stock market as the indicator is disingenuous.

            The market had hit record highs throughout the Obama presidency. It had gone up 235% by the end of the Obama presidency and exceeded the levels it was at prior to the financial crisis and market collapse that occurred at the end of the Bush presidency.

            I would say the stock market numbers indicate INCREASED confidence about the future of the profitability of the financial markets.

            But the future prosperity of financial markets does not necessarily reflect on the future prosperity of the average American family.

            The market has been transformed since Clinton and many of the most profitable aspects of the market make their profits off the average American family.

            It has become a predatory industry. And the fact that American worker retirement balances have been turned over to the markets has been a windfall for pillagers in the industry.

            • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

              HEY Babbles McButthead, the economic policies during the “Blowjob Willie” years were the result of the GOP’s Contract with America. “Blowjob Willie” signed off on them only after he looked at the latest polls supporting it and then took the credit for other people’s work.

              You lose yet again, Babbles McButthead.

              • Commissar says:

                WTF are you taking about? How does that address my post?

                And Clinton and congress made structural changes to the economy the DIRECTLY led to the financial crisis.

                I think BOTH parties are to blame. But if you want the GoP to take credit for it, be my guess.

                • Silentium Est Aureum says:

                  Congress had fuck-all to do with the CRA.

                  And that, more than any other single factor, caused the 2008 recession.

                  • Commissar says:

                    No. That is a completely false narrative NOT supported by the ACTUAL empirical evidence.

                    CRA loans had a lower default rate than the industry average.

                    The problem was changes in laws that provided a profit incentive for the industry to not only gamble with other people’s money, but to over leverage, lend to as many people as possible regardless of the likelihood of paying the loan back since the profit for the lion shifted from the interest and repayment to the handling and selling securities created by the loans, and because the organizations that were supposed to monitor and evaluate risk and a conflict of interest that gave them a profit incentive to under estimate risk.

                    And to say congress had “fuck all” to do with the CRA shows had ignorant you are about our system of government.

                    CRA was LEGISTLATION. It was passed by congress originally in 19977 and revised repeatedly through congressional legislative votes in 1989, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1999, 2005, and 2007.

                    The only non-congressional changes were regulatory revisions in 1995 and 1997. These regulatory changes did not change the law itself but tweaked regulator processes so that it would make bank compliance easier while giving them more options to diversify their lending.

                    Democrats OPPOSED these changes (one of the many times Clinton took sides with banks against his party).

                    These changes actually REDUCED mortgages to low income families because it allowed other loans to count toward the regulatory requirement that they used to measure whether banks were conducting fair lending practices to low income families and minorities.

                    But the CRA was scapegoated by the financial industry for the crisis. When the crisis was created by their OWN industry incentive system THEY created when regulatory oversize was removed through congressionally legislated changes to the ENTIRE regulatory regime, not just the CRA.

                    • Silentium Est Aureum says:

                      I suggest you look at what Clinton did in those changes in 95 and 97.

                      To say the CRA had nothing to do with the housing crisis is a flat-out lie. Mortgage lenders were incentivized (if not threatened with sanctions)for not giving loans under at best suspicious circumstances. Explain how people who had $30K incomes, who couldn’t qualify for a new refrigerator at a rent-to-own place suddenly qualified for a $500K+ mortgage? And yes, it happened.

                      A LOT.

                      But hey, your boy Bwaney Fwank (D-Rest Stop) was the one in 2006 saying, “Fweddie and Fwannie aw basicawwy sawnd.”

                  • timactual says:

                    “Congress had fuck-all to do with the CRA.”

                    ???????!

            • Jonn Lilyea says:

              My 401k investments have grown more since November than they had in the previous three years. How’re yours doing?

        • Silentium Est Aureum says:

          I see a wall of text and a shitload of wishful thinking.

          BTW, how are all those special elections going?

          Finally, Obama’s “booming economy”? I’d hate to see your idea of a shitty one.

          • Commissar says:

            We say a shitting one. At the end of the Bush presidency.

            And I never said it was booming under Obama. Just the jobless numbers had been on a downward trend for 6 years and continue to be.

            The American worker still has flat wages, uncertain future employment prospects, scarce life savings, and inadequate future retirement resources. We are also saddling workers with more debt and higher housing costs than previous generations.

            So the DJIA and jobless rate are not adequate metrics for determine true economic prosperity.

            • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

              Babbles McButthead, let’s NOT forget that the prevuious administration had an all-time high number of Americans on some Government assistance or another and they were handing out all they could as fast as they could to but votes for their party whether they had the vote rigged in certain locales or not. Let’s also not forget about the record number of Americans that simply gave up and ceased looking for work as well.

              You lose yet again.

            • Silentium Est Aureum says:

              You saw a shitty economy and a true “jobless recovery” under Obama. Look at how long it took to recover the jobs lost. NO recovery since the Great Depression was as weak and slow as the recovery from 2008-09.

              This country NEVER achieved 3 percent GDP growth under Obama. Ever. The workforce utilization percentage, were it the same as it was in 2009, would result in a U-3 number only about half a point lower than it was when Obama took office.

              So no, even the numbers were cooked.

              • Commissar says:

                I am not defending Obama. Just pointing out that the jobless numbers are not attributable to Trump but merely a continuation of a trend already well established prior to Trump taking office.

                I think the economic policies of both parties have failed American families for decades. While we saw brief lopsided prosperity in the 80s and 90s it was akin to putting nitrous in an engine with no regard for the long term function of the engine.

                Most of our prosperity is an illusion created by massive debt spending. It is not sustainable.

                The problem is rather than use that money to INVEST in the American economy by investing in education access , public health, and infrasctucture (spending that has been historically proven to generate a greater return than the initial public investment), we spent this money on largely CONSUMPTION expenses like war, or diverted it to large windfalls for various industries and the top 0.1% of wealth holders.

                So now we have a lot of debt, an under skilled workforce inadequately prepared to compete in a global economy, large segments of our labor population with structurally obsolete professional expertise, poor infrastructure, poor public health, skyrocketing health costs, skyrocketing tuition costs…

                We are fucked.

                We spent enough money to generate prosperity for generations and squandered it while leaving future generations with the bill and an economy incapable of providing sufficient prosperity to a sufficient percentage of families to pay the debt back.

                • Silentium Est Aureum says:

                  You do realize that nearly half of state budgets go towards education, right? That we spend $11K/year per K-12 student in this country? That it far outstrips even DoD spending?

                  In the early 60’s, we spent $450/year per K-12 student. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $2700/year. So note that we spend 4X more per student than we did back then. We put people on the moon and built the best infrastructure system in the world. Today, we have kids who can’t handle stress and need safe spaces, lest they get “triggered”.

                  We didn’t spend to generate prosperity. We’ve redistributed wealth. To the tune of $25 TRILLION over the last 50 years. Rather than developing the next generation, we’re enablers for the sake of political power.

                  That’s the real tragedy here.

                  • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

                    Another tragedy is that Johnny/Susie have trouble doing basing reading, writing and arithmetic… it’s been sacrificed for the sake of political correctness/indoctrination.

          • Commissar says:

            *we saw a shitty one.

            Not sure if it was a typo or autocorrect. Incoherent none the less.

        • Hondo says:

          “Job market recovery”? WHAT freaking job market recovery?

          You did know that it’s possible for the “official” unemployment rate (U3) to fall while employment also falls – right, Berkeley-boi? That’s exactly what happens when more workers are discouraged and quit looking for work than jobs are lost. Actual employment declines – but so does the “official” unemployment rate U3.

          U3 is essentially worthless as an economic indicator. If you want a single number indicator of national economic performance, a much better indicator is the US labor participation rate.

          The US civilian labor participation rate effectively steadily declined from Feb 2009 to Feb 2014. It’s been stable, but in the toilet (63% or less) since March 2014 – or for over 3 freaking years.

          https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART

          The US civilian labor participation rate was at 65.8% on 1 Feb 2009 – and hasn’t been that high since. On 1 Feb 2017, it was 63% – about where it is today. Prior to 2014, the US civilian labor participation rate hadn’t been at 63% or lower since those “boom years” of the Carter Administration and its 4 years of stagflation produced by a Liberal application of economic idiocy.

          Since the US civilian labor force is somewhere around 165M, that means the US is roughly 5 million jobs short of being as well off, employment-wise, as we were on 1 Feb 2009.

          And that doesn’t even account for the fact that many of those counted as “employed” are underemployed – e.g., are working involuntarily part-time because they can’t find full-time work.

          You want to see a bona fide economic recovery? Keep an eye on the labor participation rate. When that consistently begins to rise, you’ll almost certainly also see a temporary rise in U3 as formerly-discouraged workers re-enter the job market. When both of those happen simultaneously and continue for a few months, a true economic recovery may well have begun. But history says not until then.

          Sheesh. Didn’t you learn a damn thing about the US national economy and recession/recovery while you were at Berkeley?

          • Commissar says:

            Knock it off.

            I am not the one the brought up the “job market economy”.

            Only pointed out what Infidel was referring to abut the “job market recovery” was a trend already established over the past 6 years under Obama.

            I did not like Obama’s economic policies.

            Nor do I think the economy is functioning well for the vast majority of the American people.

            If I was happy with Obama’s economic policies I would have voted for Hillary. Since she intended to continue most of them.

            Trying to shoehorn me into a position where you think I am defending Obama is bullshit.

            I was only pointing out that we sure as shit can’t give Trump credit for the jobless numbers.

            I am not even remotely indicating that I think the jobless numbers are sufficient metric to measure how good the economy is doing.

            • Ex-PH2 says:

              Uh, what? YOU aren’t the one who brought it up?????? Wow! Short term memory deficit disorder so early in life? Not a good sign.

              YOU ARE, in FACT, the One Who Brought It Up: your words:

              Commissar says:
              May 13, 2017 at 3:47 pm
              The job market recovery has literally nothing to do with Trump.

              Those are YOUR words, SPORT!!! Not only do you hijack comments at your pleasure, you also make stuff up to suit yourself.

              Attention-whoring must be the only fun you get out of life these days.

          • Commissar says:

            “job market recovery”

          • Commissar says:

            “Sheesh. Didn’t you learn a damn thing about the US national economy and recession/recovery while you were at Berkeley?”

            I did, you just like to twist anything I say into some absurdist position that I do not hold but that conforms to you assumption about me.

            And the few times I have gone further in explaining the economy you just flat dismissed it as nonsense because it does not conform to your economic assumption based on a empirically debunked economic ideology.

            I find the whole thing fucking tedious.

            • Hondo says:

              Pointing out logical or factual errors is hardly “twisting” your words, Berkeley-boi. And while you weren’t the first to bring up the subject of “job market recovery”, your original comment discussing a “job market recovery” did clearly imply that you believed one was now occurring. That comment also went on to discuss the matter further. So discussing it seems fair game to me.

              Moreover, you were indeed the first person to bring up U3 unemployment as an indicator that the “job market recovery” was in fact real. So discussing that point seems fair game also.

              So no, I’m not “twisting your words” above. Rather, I’m pointing out a factual error on your part.

              If you are seriously arguing that declining U3 – in isolation – is a good indicator of a “job market recovery” being underway in the US economy, you are either (1) dissembling or (2) IMO you need to march down to the UC-B finance office and demand they refund all or part of your past tuition.

              To recap what I’ve said before: by itself, U3 doesn’t say much if anything of significance about the US economy’s overall state. It’s actually a rather coarse – and sometimes misleading – indicator of national economic performance. Specifically, declining U3 does NOT always equate to “improving economic times” or even better employment prospects. As I noted earlier it is entirely possible for both U3 and total employment to decline simultaneously.

              Second: historical data regarding US unemployment rates (or, as you seem to like to put it, “empirical data”) indicates U3 unemployment does not in general peak at or near the “low point” of a recession, then improve steadily as economic conditions improve. Rather, in general during a recession it peaks twice: first during the early stages of the economic downturn, and again after significant economic recovery has begun. That appears to have been the case during every US recession since World War II. See the chart titled “Job Flows and Unemployment Rate” at this link:

              https://www.clevelandfed.org/en/newsroom-and-events/publications/forefront/ff-v2n03/ff-v2n0359-unemployment-and-the-great-recession.aspx

              There are probably better charts out there that show the same, but that one was easy to find and seems good enough.

              I believe you’ve indicated you studied “political economics” (or a related field) at UC-B. I’d expect someone who’s allegedly studied and has an advanced degree in such a subject to know the above basic historical fact concerning unemployment off the top of their head. You don’t seem to know that.

              So pardon me if I don’t exactly give your “infallible economic pronouncements from On High” much credence. You simply don’t seem to know certain basic facts that someone claiming to be an “expert” would be expected to know.

              Still waiting for an answer from you re: Kennedy and Khrushchev, by the way.

          • Commissar says:

            Infidel used “job market recovery” and attributed it to Trump.

            That is what my response was directed at and why the term was being used.

            • Ex-PH2 says:

              Incorrect. You used that phrase first, BOZO.

              Commissar says:
              May 13, 2017 at 3:47 pm
              The job market recovery has literally nothing to do with Trump.

              Own it or piss off.

            • Jonn Lilyea says:

              Employers have been sitting on a mountain of cash waiting for some sort of sign that they should begin hiring again.. Trump was that sign. Clinton would have drained confidence from the market.

              • Silentium Est Aureum says:

                The biggest reason is the “Not So” Affordable Care Act.

                The mandates employers are currently facing (and will be facing) are killing jobs, wages, and expansion, to say nothing of what the average worker faces.

                If there’s a major revision to the ACA, you’re going to see a SERIOUS upturn in the economy.

          • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

            Don’t forget – some of those that are “underemployed” are because of the 30 hour “full-time employee” rule under ACA (Obamacare). Some businesses are getting around covering employees by having them scheduled for 29 hours or less per week.

        • Warrior0369 says:

          I heard Trump wears one red and one blue sock everyday but changes which foot he wears it on at noon. That bit of information is more credible that the BS you just delivered to an uncaring audience.

  11. Pat says:

    I love these types of stories. When the media publishes nonsense like this it brings the truth of their bias the forefront. I’m not a big fan of Trump (or many other politicos in DC), but the fact that CNN and many other (fake) news outlets hates him is apparent. If anything, these garbage stories results in stronger support for him

    • Perry Gaskill says:

      When you set out to drain a swamp, it would be naive to imagine you’re not going to piss off the alligators who live there.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        If this particular swamp actually had any alligators, it wouldn’t need draining. The critters you’re referring to, PG, are swamp rats. This is not the muskrat, which is a relatively useful critter in a wetland ecosystem.

        No, the Foggy Bottom critter is the swamp rat personified.

      • W2 says:

        HAHAHAHA! Drain the swamp. That’s funny. Goldman Sachs dudes are still in charge of the “swamp” so there is nothing getting drained, except their lizards in some gold toilets at the White House. Drain the swamp, what a joke.

  12. FatCircles0311 says:

    Breaking news: President Trump privilege means Hollywood sends movies straight to him rather than having to buy a ticket in a movie theater like everyone else. Is it time for impeachment?

    • OWB says:

      Ya mean Hollyweird still sends their stuff to the White House, like it has always done? (Can you imagine what it would be like to arrange a movie out for a sitting president?)

      Oh, and they forgot to say in the story that the second scoop was not originally his – I gave him mine. Of course, by their new math, 1 + 1 is likely no longer 2.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      That’s interesting, FC, because the first time I saw ‘The Lion in Winter’ was in 1968 in the CHINFO White House Liaison screening theater at NPC BEFORE it was released to theaters. It was sent to LBJ ahead of the public. That has ALWAYS happened.

    • Fjardeson says:

      It’s a courtesy action, nothing more. Doesn’t cost them hardly anything and unlikely anyone is gonna pirate movies from 1600 Pennsylvania.

  13. Sapper3307 says:

    Russian dressing was also spotted in the area.

  14. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    “you just like to twist anything I say into some absurdist position that I do not hold but that conforms to you assumption about me.” Lsr Taylor

    Twist what you say? Cripes. Most of what you say is twisted. You are not to be trusted, Lars. You played fairly nice here, in this thread but the stink of all the shit you have served up over the past couple of years here is in many a nostril. You truly are not to be trusted and Hondo is dead on not to give you an inch.

  15. MSG Eric says:

    Wow, all this conversation about ice cream?

  16. HMCS(FMF) ret says:

    Sabo is at it again in SOCAL – “Impeach Maxine Waters” signs show up near a HS she was at yesterday:

    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/impeach-maxine-waters-street-art-appears-near-inglewood-town-hall-meeting/

    Sabo does this stuff all the time – pokes at Libs with his posters all over the LA area.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *