Honest to goodness, the man is an idiot

[Mock Turtle]

I look at accomplishments. His administration has made many that I support.

Whine about him personally all you choose. He acts like an idiot at times.

However, he is a billionaire idiot, something that you nor I are likely to become, even with our exalted IQ's.

Some of us are not so insecure as to want such.

 

[Heyo]

I cannot understand, not with the best will in the world, how any American with an IQ that is at least as large as their neck size, can think that this POTUS is a fully functional, almost intelligent human being.

Please explain, if you are so deluded.

Trump isn't an idiot. Well, he is but that isn't his prime attribute. He is a clown. He plays an idiot on TV. He is, in the widest sense, entertaining. Politics, usually, is boring. Trump has made political news a prime time blockbuster. The media loves him for that. Media presence is what influences votes.

 

[Nimos]

Oh I see. The race card is being used.

It's clear who the buffoon is. It's the sensationalistic media twisting Trump's arrogance into something that it clearly isn't.

Should Trump have answered the questions? Yes. I think he should have. Trump was wrong in that regard.

Should the media have used the race card? No. What a bunch of whiny crab *** people but thats CNN for you. Racist, racist, race card, race card, racist!!

That's one of the dumbest videos by the sensationalistic media rag of CNN ever.

I didn't especially see his comment as being racist, but this guy is the president talking about this in a very immature way. He want to blame China...fine, but then he should provide clear evidence rather than stirring things up.

ANTHONY “TONY” FAUCI has become the scientific face of America’s COVID-19 response, and he says the best evidence shows the virus behind the pandemic was not made in a lab in China.

Fauci, the director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, shot down the discussion that has been raging among politicians and pundits, calling it “a circular argument” in a conversation Monday with National Geographic.

“If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats and what's out there now, [the scientific evidence] is very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated … Everything about the stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates that [this virus] evolved in nature and then jumped species,” Fauci says. Based on the scientific evidence, he also doesn’t entertain an alternate theory—that someone found the coronavirus in the wild, brought it to a lab, and then it accidentally escaped.

The US chose Trump to represent them as their face to the outside world, that was bad enough on its own, but this guy is not informed about anything, and it's really obvious that his knowledge of Covid is below even the average person's common sense in regards to this.

Look at her face when he starts to ask her questions, she looks like a person that just want to stand up and tell him to shut up, she is a doctor in front of the world's press being asked questions, that should be freaking obvious to anyone.

These stupid questions he ask, he should have asked before going on the freaking stage, how stupid is this guy?

He then chooses to follow that up with trying to say that it was sarcasm, first of all, if we are to believe that this was meant sarcastically, what type of completely mindless idiot, think it is a good idea to make sarcastic remarks, when people are dying from this?

Clearly this was not meant like such, but rather its obvious that this guy is just speaking his mind without thinking, because he doesn't know anything. Notice the very last comment, when he say to the reporter that he was speaking directly to him, and the reporter reply, that he weren't there. Jesus christ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Oh I see. The race card is being used.

An Asian American female reporter asks Trump a question that had nothing to do with China, and your pathetic leader has a pitiable mini-meltdown and aborts the press conference. And you scurry to his defense.

With regard to the OP: res ipsa loquitur

 

[Polymath257]

I look at accomplishments. His administration has made many that I support.

Whine about him personally all you choose. He acts like an idiot at times.

However, he is a billionaire idiot, something that you nor I are likely to become, even with our exalted IQ's.

He hasn't released his finances, even to Congress. I strongly suspect those billions are not as much as he claims. He is a LIAR, pure and simple. He is a CON ARTIST, pure and simple.

He started with his dad's money, so he probably does have millions, even hundreds of millions. But it is clear that the reason he doesn't reveal his finances is that they would show his lies.

Pretty much everything he has done has been done for reasons of bigotry or to funnel money to his friends. Past that, he is stacking the court system (funny how the GOP complains now when judges aren't confirmed after they stole one supreme court judge and dragged their feet for years on others).

 

[tytlyf]

I look at accomplishments. His administration has made many that I support.

What accomplishment is your top one?

Whine about him personally all you choose. He acts like an idiot at times.

That's because he is an idiot. Been that way his whole privileged life

However, he is a billionaire idiot, something that you nor I are likely to become, even with our exalted IQ's.

He inherited $400 million and squandered it. He's only a billionaire in debt.

 

[shmogie]

He hasn't released his finances, even to Congress. I strongly suspect those billions are not as much as he claims. He is a LIAR, pure and simple. He is a CON ARTIST, pure and simple.

He started with his dad's money, so he probably does have millions, even hundreds of millions. But it is clear that the reason he doesn't reveal his finances is that they would show his lies.

Pretty much everything he has done has been done for reasons of bigotry or to funnel money to his friends. Past that, he is stacking the court system (funny how the GOP complains now when judges aren't confirmed after they stole one supreme court judge and dragged their feet for years on others).

Are you so naive as to think the democrats have not packed the court and federal judiciary with left leaning judges who agree with their world view? Ever heard of Robert Bork?

I love to hear liberals whimper when the tables are turned on them and their very own tactics are used in a manner that offends them.

You have an opinion. W all have opinions. Spit in your right hand, look at it, and you will see the value of your opinion or mine.

Stole a Supreme court seat? Please, the Senate majority leader has the right to determine when a nomination comes up for conformation, period. The Senate minority leader, little Chuckie in years past, when he saw it as a democrat advantage, said that no Supreme Court nomination should be considered within a year of a presidential election, oops.

I again refer you to Judge Robert Bork. Before him, Supreme court nomination hearings were based on qualifications alone. The democrats began the ugliness of purely political nominations by savaging Bork, destroying his nomination. In fact, Borks name became synonymous for getting screwed over, you were Borked.

the democrats have richly been Borked, karma, as they say, can be a *****.

Right now Trump has appointed about 150 federal judges, a very excellent thing.

 

[shmogie]

What accomplishment is your top one?


That's because he is an idiot. Been that way his whole privileged life


He inherited $400 million and squandered it. He's only a billionaire in debt.

Top accomplishment? Two Supreme court justices, and 150 federal judges who believe the Constitution actually says what it says as it was originally written.

Amazing that you have so much insight into his financial situation. You ought to share with the democrats.

 

[tytlyf]

Top accomplishment? Two Supreme court justices, and 150 federal judges who believe the Constitution actually says what it says as it was originally written.

You think that's an accomplishment? Trump wasn't responsible for SCOTUS judges, congress is.

Amazing that you have so much insight into his financial situation. You ought to share with the democrats.

There's a reason Trump doesn't want you to see his taxes. (lost over a billion in the 90's)

 

[shmogie]

You think that's an accomplishment? Trump wasn't responsible for SCOTUS judges, congress is.



There's a reason Trump doesn't want you to see his taxes. (lost over a billion in the 90's)

Uh, he nominates them, and has a list of candidates. The senate votes on the nomination.

You may, or may not be right about him losing a billion dollars. I couldn't care less.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Oh I see. The race card is being used.

It's clear who the buffoon is. It's the sensationalistic media twisting Trump's arrogance into something that it clearly isn't.

Should Trump have answered the questions? Yes. I think he should have. Trump was wrong in that regard.

Should the media have used the race card? No. What a bunch of whiny crab *** people but thats CNN for you. Racist, racist, race card, race card, racist!!

That's one of the dumbest videos by the sensationalistic media rag of CNN ever.

This is absolutely ridiculous. The media didn't raise the race card -- TRUMP DID. He was asked a perfectly reasonable question: why are you making testing into some kind of contest with other nations. The questioner made no intimation about any specific nation, nor any race whatever. Trump answered: "Don't ask me: ask China." And he said that to a reporter of Chinese heritage, although fully American. There was no reason to do that, and it was not in any way an acceptable answer to the question.

 

[Polymath257]

Are you so naive as to think the democrats have not packed the court and federal judiciary with left leaning judges who agree with their world view? Ever heard of Robert Bork?

Really? Bringing up a case from how long ago? Bork was someone who should never be on the Supreme Court. The Congress rightfully rejected him using their oversight.

In contrast, the GOP has refused to give proposed judges a vote. They have been doing this for *decades*.

I love to hear liberals whimper when the tables are turned on them and their very own tactics are used in a manner that offends them.

If you have a problem with a judge, then bring the issues up. But GIVE THEM A VOTE. The GOP has consistently refused to do this when Dems are choosing the judges.

You have an opinion. W all have opinions. Spit in your right hand, look at it, and you will see the value of your opinion or mine.

Stole a Supreme court seat? Please, the Senate majority leader has the right to determine when a nomination comes up for conformation, period. The Senate minority leader, little Chuckie in years past, when he saw it as a democrat advantage, said that no Supreme Court nomination should be considered within a year of a presidential election, oops.

I wonder what would happen *today* if Justice Ginsburg passes away. Somehow I suspect that rule won't be relevant any longer.

I again refer you to Judge Robert Bork. Before him, Supreme court nomination hearings were based on qualifications alone. The democrats began the ugliness of purely political nominations by savaging Bork, destroying his nomination. In fact, Borks name became synonymous for getting screwed over, you were Borked.

And his name is also synonymous with someone who was an ideologue who should not be on the highest court. The Congress did exactly what it needed to do.

the democrats have richly been Borked, karma, as they say, can be a *****.

Right now Trump has appointed about 150 federal judges, a very excellent thing.

A bunch of ideologues that mostly are political cronies instead of qualified judges.

 

[Polymath257]

Uh, he nominates them, and has a list of candidates. The senate votes on the nomination.

Except that they didn't when it was Dems choosing the judges. The GOP *refused* to vote until *they* were doing the choosing.

 

[shmogie]

Except that they didn't when it was Dems choosing the judges. The GOP *refused* to vote until *they* were doing the choosing.

Correct, following the democrat Schumer principle.

 

[ChristineM]

I thought Bush was bad and that it couldn't be much worse,

 

[Heyo]

I love to hear liberals whimper

I have suspected that for a long time. Thank you for admitting it.

 

[shmogie]

Really? Bringing up a case from how long ago? Bork was someone who should never be on the Supreme Court. The Congress rightfully rejected him using their oversight.

In contrast, the GOP has refused to give proposed judges a vote. They have been doing this for *decades*.



If you have a problem with a judge, then bring the issues up. But GIVE THEM A VOTE. The GOP has consistently refused to do this when Dems are choosing the judges.



I wonder what would happen *today* if Justice Ginsburg passes away. Somehow I suspect that rule won't be relevant any longer.



And his name is also synonymous with someone who was an ideologue who should not be on the highest court. The Congress did exactly what it needed to do.



A bunch of ideologues that mostly are political cronies instead of qualified judges.

Tell me specifically of all the times the Republicans refused to vote on a democrat supreme court nominee, other than Garland, when the Schumer principle was applied. I don't think you can, because they don't exist.

What about legal qualifications do you not understand? Bork, had high legal qualifications, which had been the standard till the democrats opened pandoras box, and you can thank them and democrat Schumer for ensuring that Garland, a democrat legal hack not getting a hearing.

Your side developed the new rule, and my side will follow it.

You know nothing about the federal judges appointed by Trump, other than to repeat like a parrot the democrat line. They all have high ratings by the American bar association, the gold standard.

If Ginsburg shuffles off this mortal coil today, a replacement nominee would not go to the senate till way after November.

 

[shmogie]

I have suspected that for a long time. Thank you for admitting it.

You are welcome.

 

[Polymath257]

Tell me specifically of all the times the Republicans refused to vote on a democrat supreme court nominee, other than Garland, when the Schumer principle was applied. I don't think you can, because they don't exist.

I'm not just talking about supreme court judges. I am talking about lower court judges. And for *them*, there has been a consistent policy throughout the Obama administration to NOT vote.

What about legal qualifications do you not understand? Bork, had high legal qualifications, which had been the standard till the democrats opened pandoras box, and you can thank them and democrat Schumer for ensuring that Garland, a democrat legal hack not getting a hearing.

And, unusually, the ABA had four members that voted him unqualified and yet his nimination went forward.

Your side developed the new rule, and my side will follow it.

You know nothing about the federal judges appointed by Trump, other than to repeat like a parrot the democrat line. They all have high ratings by the American bar association, the gold standard.

Except, of course, that Trump has limited ABA access to information on the judges, so it cannot do a thorough assessment, like they have in the past. Funny about that, huh?

If Ginsburg shuffles off this mortal coil today, a replacement nominee would not go to the senate till way after November.

Somehow I doubt that. I bet the GOP would find a new urgency to vote for a new judge.

 

[Polymath257]

You know nothing about the federal judges appointed by Trump, other than to repeat like a parrot the democrat line. They all have high ratings by the American bar association, the gold standard.

False.

Brett Talley Middle District of Alabama Trump Unanimously not qualified Nomination withdrawn
Charles B. Goodwin Western District of Oklahoma Trump Majority not qualified Confirmed on August 28, 2018

Holly Lou Teeter District of Kansas Trump Substantial majority not qualified Confirmed on August 1, 2018

John O'Connor Northern, Eastern, and Western Districts of Oklahoma Trump Unanimously not qualified Nomination withdrawn

Jonathan Kobes Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Trump Substantial majority not qualified Confirmed on December 11, 2018

Justin Walker Western District of Kentucky Trump Substantial majority not qualified Confirmed on October 24, 2019

L. Steven Grasz Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Trump Unanimously not qualified Confirmed on December 12, 2017

Lawrence VanDkye Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Trump Substantial majority not qualified Confirmed on December 11, 2019

Sarah Pitlyk Eastern District of Missouri Trump Unanimously not qualified Confirmed on December 4, 2019


Notice only one was withdrawn and the others were confirmed, including two that were *unanimously* voted to be unqualified.