Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

[Thryleon]

I would say that it was always going to be the case.  Ive never seen politicians achieve much in 100 days aside from cancelling deals.

[DJC]

That's a 'positive' not a 'negative'

That's one way of looking at it Lods 

I'm more concerned that it shows how ill-prepared and unsuitable the current POTUS is.  I'm not fussed about his inability to keep what were clearly unachievable election promises (that is a good thing) but I wonder what those who voted for him (or didn't vote) think.  Probably not very much!

[cookie2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz69-RkE4PA

Billy Connolly on Trump.

Caution - keep volume low if you are in public!

[sandsmere]

Trump has got through his first 100 days without achieving any of the objectives/promises he set/made ... and that's with a Republican majority in both houses  :

MMM ! sounds like several of our PMs. :

[Mav]

OMG! Trump admires strongmen who murder their citizens more than anything.  He's hosting Duterte in the White House.  Maybe he won't have to build a wall after all.  If he kills all the drug users in the US, then he won't need to worry about the cartels anymore.  And he says he'd be honoured to meet with Kim Jong-Un, saying he admires the way he was able to take over from his father at such a young age.  We're lucky Hitler's dead or the red carpet would have been rolled out for him too.  Now there was a strong guy - wow, he took on the world and almost won ...

He also has climbed aboard Steve Bannon's Andrew Jackson bandwagon. He says that Andrew Jackson would have been able to do a deal to stop the Civil War and that Jackson was angry about what happened.  Leaving aside the fact that Jackson died 15 years before the start of the war, so reports of his distaste for the war may have been greatly exaggerated, does Trump realise that the war was fought over slavery? Would Jackson, who apparently inherited 150 slaves, have made a deal short of abolition?  Maybe he might have capped slave ownership at, say, 150.  Then everybody would have been happy.

Of course Trump and Bannon would like to pretend that the Confederacy was all about the southern states defending state rights - they were sticking it to Washington, just like Trump says he's doing.  But as with Trump's many alternative realities, you can only make that case if you ignore the facts.  The Southern States were, in fact, angry that the Federal Government didn't enforce its own laws against the Northern States.  There was legislation called the Fugitive Slaves Act which required States to assist slaveowners track down and recover runaway slaves.  But the Northern States refused to comply.  Far from defending States rights, the southern States wanted the Federal Government to use the military to enforce that Federal law.  That set the scene for the Civil War. When Lincoln was elected on an anti-slavery platform, the Confederate States specifically seceded in order to maintain the right to keep slaves. They fought the war to be able to keep slaves, NOT because they were mounting a resistance to Federal power.

[Mav]

By the way, Trump has business interests in the Phillipines.  Trump's business partner there is a billionaire who has just opened a Trump Tower in Manila. He paid the Trump organisation handsomely for the right to use the Trump name.  And he just happens to be a special government Envoy to the US: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic...washington

Anything that's good for the Trump organisation has to be good for the US, I suppose.

[Mav]

Democracy died in the US today.

Trump has sacked FBI Director Comey.  Yep, the same guy who was in control of the investigation of Trump's campaign.  To add a note of irony to it, Trump did so based on a memo which said Comey was unfair to Hillary Clinton regarding the so-called email scandal :

This is being compared to "The Saturday Night Massacre" in which Nixon sacked Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor investigating Nixon over the Watergate scandal.

Presumably, Trump will appoint a stooge whose main role is to kill the investigation into the Trump campaign.

[Lods]

Democracy died in the US today.

Trump has sacked FBI Director Comey.  Yep, the same guy who was in control of the investigation of Trump's campaign.  To add a note of irony to it, Trump did so based on a memo which said Comey was unfair to Hillary Clinton regarding the so-called email scandal :

This is being compared to "The Saturday Night Massacre" in which Nixon sacked Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor investigating Nixon over the Watergate scandal.

Presumably, Trump will appoint a stooge whose main role is to kill the investigation into the Trump campaign.

That's the argument the left will mount......(although they called for his head when he "sunk" Hillary.)

Some on the right will argue that the bloke should have been fired long ago.....(although that's not the argument they would have mounted when he "sunk" Hillary.)

Hypocrisy on both sides :

Comey strikes me as a show-pony who thrived on the attention.
Not the right man for the job

As for the investigation into the campaign ...wait and see...any attempt to cover it up will be very transparent.

[Mav]

Poor effort to equate the 2 sides' views. A better analogy would be: would it have been okay for Obama to sack Comey months before the election when he revealed the FBI was investigating Clinton's emails and then appoint a Clinton associate as FBI Director?  Of course not.  It would have appeared to be an attempt to kill an investigation of a Democrat.  But this analogy falls short because Trump is the one with his nuts in the wringer rather than a colleague.

[LP]

The real controversy will come with the appointment of a replacement!

It's is interesting to see how power corrupts, I'm not sure anyone no matter who it is that sits at the top of the FBI, has much genuine control over the direction the organisation takes. Certainly they control dollars but they cannot control thoughts, and thoughts are the domain of leaks!

The minute they try to interfere with the general operations for political purposes they basically expire / limit their tenancy on control, they deliver an opportunity for ambitious underlings to expose their political meddling!

The upper levels of all powerful organisations are full of back-room(the faceless) politicians who are both psychopaths and megalomaniacs!