Donald Trump 2019

[Brandywine 1,317]

Trump is one of those long nightmares where you can’t move or wake up. Or when you’re walking and your foot falls into a ditch. Or you walk into class at the end of the semester having never attended, and your naked and not prepared for the final. That’s what a Trump presidency feels like.

[bad_teammate 13,226]

[HenryJames 66,228]

 

[Francisco 2.0 32,432]

So, if the NWS issues a tornado warning for the Dallas metroplex, and the President says that it isn't true, the NOAA and NWS can't speak out against the President, I reckon.  

This is what it has come to.  An apolitical federal government organization, that only works with data and to best protect the interests and lives of people, can't be trusted any longer if the President feels threatened.

Great job, you fucking shitstains who support Trump.  You deserve to be flogged in public.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/noaa-staff-warned-in-sept-1-directive-against-contradicting-trump/2019/09/07/12a52d1a-d18f-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html

 

Quote

Nearly a week before the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration publicly backed President Trump over its own scientists, a top NOAA official warned its staff against contradicting the president.

In an agencywide directive sent Sept. 1 to National Weather Service personnel, hours after Trump asserted, with no evidence, that Alabama “would most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated,” staff was told to “only stick with official National Hurricane Center forecasts if questions arise from some national level social media posts which hit the news this afternoon.”

 

Quote

They were also told not to “provide any opinion,” according to a copy of the email obtained by The Washington Post.

A NOAA meteorologist who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution said the note, understood internally to be referring to Trump, came after the National Weather Service office in Birmingham contradicted Trump by tweeting Alabama would “NOT see any impacts from the hurricane.”

 

Quote

The Birmingham office sent the tweet after receiving a flurry of phone calls from concerned residents following Trump’s message.

The agency sent a similar message warning scientists and meteorologists not to speak out on Sept. 4, after Trump showed a hurricane map from Aug. 29 modified with a hand-drawn, half-circle in black Sharpie around Alabama.

 

Quote

“This is the first time I’ve felt pressure from above to not say what truly is the forecast,” the meteorologist said. “It’s hard for me to wrap my head around. One of the things we train on is to dispel inaccurate rumors and ultimately that is what was occurring — ultimately what the Alabama office did is provide a forecast with their tweet, that is what they get paid to do.”

An NWS spokesperson said, “NWS leadership sent this guidance to field staff so they (and the entire agency) could maintain operational focus on Dorian and other severe weather hazards without distraction.”

 

Quote

Late Friday afternoon, NOAA officials further angered scientists within and beyond the agency by releasing a statement, attributed to an unnamed agency spokesperson, supporting Trump’s claims on Alabama and chastising the agency’s Birmingham meteorologists for speaking in absolutes.

That statement set off a firestorm among scientists, who attacked NOAA officials for bending to Trump’s will.

 

Spoiler

“This looks like classic politically motivated obfuscation to justify inaccurate statements made by the boss. It is truly sad to see political appointees undermining the superb, lifesaving work of NOAA’s talented and dedicated career servant,” said Jane Lubchenco, who served as NOAA administrator under President Barack Obama.

NOAA, which oversees the National Weather Service, isn’t the first agency in the Trump administration to publicly side with the president after he has doubled down on a widely disputed claim.

But the firestorm surrounding the president’s hurricane statements is unprecedented in the organization’s history, and threatens to politicize something that most Americans take for granted as an objective, if flawed, part of daily life: the weather forecast.

A NOAA official familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly, disputed the suggestion that the statement took sides, saying there was “no political motivation” behind it.

The official said agency leadership had considered making a statement for “a day or two” to clear up confusion. Acting NOAA administrator Neil Jacobs was involved in drawing up the statement as was the NOAA director of public affairs, Julie Kay Roberts, who has experience in emergency management and worked on the president’s campaign.

The leadership of the Commerce Department, headed by Secretary Wilbur Ross, also approved the release, though Ross was out of the country at the time.

The official said the statement called out Birmingham’s tweet because one NOAA hurricane forecast product showed a 5 to 20 percent chance of tropical-storm-force winds in a small part of Alabama.

“It was nothing against Birmingham, we needed to make sure forecast products reflect probabilistic guidance,” the official said, referencing the extremely low odds for tropical storm-force winds.

Such wind speeds, between 39 and 74 mph, rarely cause much damage or require the advance preparation.

The NOAA statement made no reference of the fact that when Trump tweeted that Alabama was at risk, the state was not in the National Hurricane Center’s “cone of uncertainty,” which forecasters use to determine where the storm is most likely to hit. Alabama also had not appeared in the cone in the days before that.

The acting NOAA director briefed the president on Hurricane Dorian on Aug. 29, using the forecast cone that the White House later adapted via Sharpie marker.

The director of the National Hurricane Center briefed the president on the storm’s likely track again on Sept. 1, shortly after his tweet about the threat to Alabama.

At other times, Trump was briefed by individuals, including the White House homeland security and counterterrorism adviser, who lacked the meteorological expertise to interpret what they were showing.

“If the president had been briefed by someone who understands the forecast, he never would’ve mentioned Alabama,” the NOAA official said.

NOAA’s Friday statement infuriated scientists, who worry the Trump administration is corroding faith in research and data.

“It makes me speechless that the leadership would put [Trump’s] feelings and ego ahead of putting out weather information accurately,” said Michael Halpern, a deputy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “If we’re politicizing the weather what is there left to politicize? We’re seeing this kind of clamp down of scientists across the government, and it’s been an escalating trend.”

In 2018, a survey of scientists at 16 federal agencies found a culture of fear and self-censorship in an administration that has sidelined scientific evidence, especially as it related to climate change, in favor of political expediency.

Keith Seitter, executive director of the American Meteorological Society, said in a statement that “the criticism of the Birmingham forecast office is unwarranted; rather they should have been commended for their quick action based on science in clearly communicating the lack of threat to the citizens of Alabama.”

One of the strongest reactions to the NOAA statement came from David Titley, an atmospheric scientist who served as the chief operating officer of NOAA under Obama.

“Perhaps the darkest day ever for leadership. Don’t know how they will ever look their workforce in the eye again. Moral cowardice,” he tweeted.

Others who weighed in on social media were also scathing in their response to NOAA’s decision to publicly defend Trump.

“I have never been so embarrassed by NOAA. What they did is just disgusting,” Dan Sobien, president of the National Weather Service’s labor union, wrote on Twitter Friday. “Let me assure you the hard working employees of the NWS had nothing to do with the utterly disgusting and disingenuous tweet sent out by NOAA management tonight.”

A popular television broadcast meteorologist in Birmingham also came to the defense of his city’s National Weather Service team.

“The tweet from NWS Birmingham was spot on and accurate,” James Spann tweeted. “If they are coming after them, they might as well come after me. How in the world has it come to this?”

On Saturday, the National Weather Service leadership seemingly tried to address the outcry in an all-hands letter to its employees to thank them for their hard work during the hurricane. The letter, obtained by The Washington Post, assured employees they were valued.

“We want to assure you that we stand behind our entire workforce and the integrity of the forecast process, including the incredible scientific, technical and engineering skill you demonstrated for this event,” the NWS leadership wrote. “We saw first hand that our integrated forecast process works, and we continue to embrace and uphold the essential integrity of the entire forecast process as it was applied by ALL NWS offices to ensure public safety first and foremost.”

 

[HenryJames 66,228]

Timely, imo.

[Message Board User 12,396]

 

[Message Board User 12,396]

 

[Red Five 41,009]

I had a nightmare last night that Donald Trump was president and he invited the Taliban to Camp David and LSU was running the spread and torched us for 600 yards. It was awful. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,821]

11 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I had a nightmare last night that Donald Trump was president and he invited the Taliban to Camp David and LSU was running the spread and torched us for 600 yards. It was awful. 

That ought to solidify the military vote.  Wonder if they have any proficient suicide bombers left?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Curious to find out what airline the Taliban was planning to fly in on. 

[Francisco 2.0 32,432]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Curious to find out what airline the Taliban was planning to fly in on. 

Probably under orders to fly in on a C-130 or some such.

 

EDIT: or on Emirates in First Class, paid for by the State Department.

Edited September 8, 2019 by Francisco 2.0

[Jive Turkey 12,673]

1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

So, if the NWS issues a tornado warning for the Dallas metroplex, and the President says that it isn't true, the NOAA and NWS can't speak out against the President, I reckon.  

This is what it has come to.  An apolitical federal government organization, that only works with data and to best protect the interests and lives of people, can't be trusted any longer if the President feels threatened.

Great job, you fucking shitstains who support Trump.  You deserve to be flogged in public.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/noaa-staff-warned-in-sept-1-directive-against-contradicting-trump/2019/09/07/12a52d1a-d18f-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

“This looks like classic politically motivated obfuscation to justify inaccurate statements made by the boss. It is truly sad to see political appointees undermining the superb, lifesaving work of NOAA’s talented and dedicated career servant,” said Jane Lubchenco, who served as NOAA administrator under President Barack Obama.

NOAA, which oversees the National Weather Service, isn’t the first agency in the Trump administration to publicly side with the president after he has doubled down on a widely disputed claim.

But the firestorm surrounding the president’s hurricane statements is unprecedented in the organization’s history, and threatens to politicize something that most Americans take for granted as an objective, if flawed, part of daily life: the weather forecast.

A NOAA official familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly, disputed the suggestion that the statement took sides, saying there was “no political motivation” behind it.

The official said agency leadership had considered making a statement for “a day or two” to clear up confusion. Acting NOAA administrator Neil Jacobs was involved in drawing up the statement as was the NOAA director of public affairs, Julie Kay Roberts, who has experience in emergency management and worked on the president’s campaign.

The leadership of the Commerce Department, headed by Secretary Wilbur Ross, also approved the release, though Ross was out of the country at the time.

The official said the statement called out Birmingham’s tweet because one NOAA hurricane forecast product showed a 5 to 20 percent chance of tropical-storm-force winds in a small part of Alabama.

“It was nothing against Birmingham, we needed to make sure forecast products reflect probabilistic guidance,” the official said, referencing the extremely low odds for tropical storm-force winds.

Such wind speeds, between 39 and 74 mph, rarely cause much damage or require the advance preparation.

The NOAA statement made no reference of the fact that when Trump tweeted that Alabama was at risk, the state was not in the National Hurricane Center’s “cone of uncertainty,” which forecasters use to determine where the storm is most likely to hit. Alabama also had not appeared in the cone in the days before that.

The acting NOAA director briefed the president on Hurricane Dorian on Aug. 29, using the forecast cone that the White House later adapted via Sharpie marker.

The director of the National Hurricane Center briefed the president on the storm’s likely track again on Sept. 1, shortly after his tweet about the threat to Alabama.

At other times, Trump was briefed by individuals, including the White House homeland security and counterterrorism adviser, who lacked the meteorological expertise to interpret what they were showing.

“If the president had been briefed by someone who understands the forecast, he never would’ve mentioned Alabama,” the NOAA official said.

NOAA’s Friday statement infuriated scientists, who worry the Trump administration is corroding faith in research and data.

“It makes me speechless that the leadership would put [Trump’s] feelings and ego ahead of putting out weather information accurately,” said Michael Halpern, a deputy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “If we’re politicizing the weather what is there left to politicize? We’re seeing this kind of clamp down of scientists across the government, and it’s been an escalating trend.”

In 2018, a survey of scientists at 16 federal agencies found a culture of fear and self-censorship in an administration that has sidelined scientific evidence, especially as it related to climate change, in favor of political expediency.

Keith Seitter, executive director of the American Meteorological Society, said in a statement that “the criticism of the Birmingham forecast office is unwarranted; rather they should have been commended for their quick action based on science in clearly communicating the lack of threat to the citizens of Alabama.”

One of the strongest reactions to the NOAA statement came from David Titley, an atmospheric scientist who served as the chief operating officer of NOAA under Obama.

“Perhaps the darkest day ever for leadership. Don’t know how they will ever look their workforce in the eye again. Moral cowardice,” he tweeted.

Others who weighed in on social media were also scathing in their response to NOAA’s decision to publicly defend Trump.

“I have never been so embarrassed by NOAA. What they did is just disgusting,” Dan Sobien, president of the National Weather Service’s labor union, wrote on Twitter Friday. “Let me assure you the hard working employees of the NWS had nothing to do with the utterly disgusting and disingenuous tweet sent out by NOAA management tonight.”

A popular television broadcast meteorologist in Birmingham also came to the defense of his city’s National Weather Service team.

“The tweet from NWS Birmingham was spot on and accurate,” James Spann tweeted. “If they are coming after them, they might as well come after me. How in the world has it come to this?”

On Saturday, the National Weather Service leadership seemingly tried to address the outcry in an all-hands letter to its employees to thank them for their hard work during the hurricane. The letter, obtained by The Washington Post, assured employees they were valued.

“We want to assure you that we stand behind our entire workforce and the integrity of the forecast process, including the incredible scientific, technical and engineering skill you demonstrated for this event,” the NWS leadership wrote. “We saw first hand that our integrated forecast process works, and we continue to embrace and uphold the essential integrity of the entire forecast process as it was applied by ALL NWS offices to ensure public safety first and foremost.”

 

I guess we can add this to Trump’s bragging montage.  “Nobody knows more about weather than me.”

 

[tx 3 putt 77,650]

Dumbest president ever. The perfect puppet for the big money republicans and just enough racist for legion of uneducated masses

big money republicans and the powers to be finally found a way to get their agenda and establish their uneducated, angry white male base 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,613]

So, if the NWS issues a tornado warning for the Dallas metroplex, and the President says that it isn't true, the NOAA and NWS can't speak out against the President, I reckon.  
This is what it has come to.  An apolitical federal government organization, that only works with data and to best protect the interests and lives of people, can't be trusted any longer if the President feels threatened.
Great job, you fucking shitstains who support Trump.  You deserve to be flogged in public.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/noaa-staff-warned-in-sept-1-directive-against-contradicting-trump/2019/09/07/12a52d1a-d18f-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html
 

Nearly a week before the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration publicly backed President Trump over its own scientists, a top NOAA official warned its staff against contradicting the president.
In an agencywide directive sent Sept. 1 to National Weather Service personnel, hours after Trump asserted, with no evidence, that Alabama “would most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated,” staff was told to “only stick with official National Hurricane Center forecasts if questions arise from some national level social media posts which hit the news this afternoon.”

 

They were also told not to “provide any opinion,” according to a copy of the email obtained by The Washington Post.
A NOAA meteorologist who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution said the note, understood internally to be referring to Trump, came after the National Weather Service office in Birmingham contradicted Trump by tweeting Alabama would “NOT see any impacts from the hurricane.”

 

The Birmingham office sent the tweet after receiving a flurry of phone calls from concerned residents following Trump’s message.
The agency sent a similar message warning scientists and meteorologists not to speak out on Sept. 4, after Trump showed a hurricane map from Aug. 29 modified with a hand-drawn, half-circle in black Sharpie around Alabama.

 

“This is the first time I’ve felt pressure from above to not say what truly is the forecast,” the meteorologist said. “It’s hard for me to wrap my head around. One of the things we train on is to dispel inaccurate rumors and ultimately that is what was occurring — ultimately what the Alabama office did is provide a forecast with their tweet, that is what they get paid to do.”
An NWS spokesperson said, “NWS leadership sent this guidance to field staff so they (and the entire agency) could maintain operational focus on Dorian and other severe weather hazards without distraction.”

 

Late Friday afternoon, NOAA officials further angered scientists within and beyond the agency by releasing a statement, attributed to an unnamed agency spokesperson, supporting Trump’s claims on Alabama and chastising the agency’s Birmingham meteorologists for speaking in absolutes.
That statement set off a firestorm among scientists, who attacked NOAA officials for bending to Trump’s will.

 
Spoiler

“This looks like classic politically motivated obfuscation to justify inaccurate statements made by the boss. It is truly sad to see political appointees undermining the superb, lifesaving work of NOAA’s talented and dedicated career servant,” said Jane Lubchenco, who served as NOAA administrator under President Barack Obama.
NOAA, which oversees the National Weather Service, isn’t the first agency in the Trump administration to publicly side with the president after he has doubled down on a widely disputed claim.
But the firestorm surrounding the president’s hurricane statements is unprecedented in the organization’s history, and threatens to politicize something that most Americans take for granted as an objective, if flawed, part of daily life: the weather forecast.
A NOAA official familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly, disputed the suggestion that the statement took sides, saying there was “no political motivation” behind it.
The official said agency leadership had considered making a statement for “a day or two” to clear up confusion. Acting NOAA administrator Neil Jacobs was involved in drawing up the statement as was the NOAA director of public affairs, Julie Kay Roberts, who has experience in emergency management and worked on the president’s campaign.
The leadership of the Commerce Department, headed by Secretary Wilbur Ross, also approved the release, though Ross was out of the country at the time.
The official said the statement called out Birmingham’s tweet because one NOAA hurricane forecast product showed a 5 to 20 percent chance of tropical-storm-force winds in a small part of Alabama.
“It was nothing against Birmingham, we needed to make sure forecast products reflect probabilistic guidance,” the official said, referencing the extremely low odds for tropical storm-force winds.
Such wind speeds, between 39 and 74 mph, rarely cause much damage or require the advance preparation.
The NOAA statement made no reference of the fact that when Trump tweeted that Alabama was at risk, the state was not in the National Hurricane Center’s “cone of uncertainty,” which forecasters use to determine where the storm is most likely to hit. Alabama also had not appeared in the cone in the days before that.
The acting NOAA director briefed the president on Hurricane Dorian on Aug. 29, using the forecast cone that the White House later adapted via Sharpie marker.
The director of the National Hurricane Center briefed the president on the storm’s likely track again on Sept. 1, shortly after his tweet about the threat to Alabama.
At other times, Trump was briefed by individuals, including the White House homeland security and counterterrorism adviser, who lacked the meteorological expertise to interpret what they were showing.
“If the president had been briefed by someone who understands the forecast, he never would’ve mentioned Alabama,” the NOAA official said.
NOAA’s Friday statement infuriated scientists, who worry the Trump administration is corroding faith in research and data.
“It makes me speechless that the leadership would put [Trump’s] feelings and ego ahead of putting out weather information accurately,” said Michael Halpern, a deputy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “If we’re politicizing the weather what is there left to politicize? We’re seeing this kind of clamp down of scientists across the government, and it’s been an escalating trend.”
In 2018, a survey of scientists at 16 federal agencies found a culture of fear and self-censorship in an administration that has sidelined scientific evidence, especially as it related to climate change, in favor of political expediency.
Keith Seitter, executive director of the American Meteorological Society, said in a statement that “the criticism of the Birmingham forecast office is unwarranted; rather they should have been commended for their quick action based on science in clearly communicating the lack of threat to the citizens of Alabama.”
One of the strongest reactions to the NOAA statement came from David Titley, an atmospheric scientist who served as the chief operating officer of NOAA under Obama.
“Perhaps the darkest day ever for leadership. Don’t know how they will ever look their workforce in the eye again. Moral cowardice,” he tweeted.
Others who weighed in on social media were also scathing in their response to NOAA’s decision to publicly defend Trump.
“I have never been so embarrassed by NOAA. What they did is just disgusting,” Dan Sobien, president of the National Weather Service’s labor union, wrote on Twitter Friday. “Let me assure you the hard working employees of the NWS had nothing to do with the utterly disgusting and disingenuous tweet sent out by NOAA management tonight.”
A popular television broadcast meteorologist in Birmingham also came to the defense of his city’s National Weather Service team.
“The tweet from NWS Birmingham was spot on and accurate,” James Spann tweeted. “If they are coming after them, they might as well come after me. How in the world has it come to this?”
On Saturday, the National Weather Service leadership seemingly tried to address the outcry in an all-hands letter to its employees to thank them for their hard work during the hurricane. The letter, obtained by The Washington Post, assured employees they were valued.
“We want to assure you that we stand behind our entire workforce and the integrity of the forecast process, including the incredible scientific, technical and engineering skill you demonstrated for this event,” the NWS leadership wrote. “We saw first hand that our integrated forecast process works, and we continue to embrace and uphold the essential integrity of the entire forecast process as it was applied by ALL NWS offices to ensure public safety first and foremost.”

 

But her emails?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[Degenerate Gardner 4,089]

2 hours ago, Message Board User said:

 

A thousand year reich!

[Guest Lobo]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Curious to find out what airline the Taliban was planning to fly in on. 

And some competitor to Clear Precheck could corner the market with a proper marketing campaign,

"We got the Fucking Taliban here with no delays.  We'll get you and your shoes to LaGuardia."  

[tx 3 putt 77,650]

So, Trump was going to invite the Taliban, to the US, on the week of 9/11 ?

any Trumpkins want to defend this one ? Maybe I’m a little harsh and such, but that’s borderline treason against your country. 

Edited September 8, 2019 by tx 3 putt

[Brisketexan 105,479]

So, Trump was going to invite the Taliban, to the US, on the week of 9/11 ?
any Trumpkins want to defend this one ? Maybe I’m a little harsh and such, but that’s borderline treason against your country. 

I don’t have an issue with negotiating with a hostile force. It’s what countries do.
I do have an issue with doing it at Camp David...on 9/11 week...and I especially have an issue with Trump publicizing his recent decision to dis-invite them. He’s a fucking toddler.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

[Upgrayedd 5,822]

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

So, Trump was going to invite the Taliban, to the US, on the week of 9/11 ?

any Trumpkins want to defend this one ? Maybe I’m a little harsh and such, but that’s borderline treason against your country. 

How are they going to take part in any ceremony now?

[Eskimohorn 5,644]

I had a nightmare last night that Donald Trump was president and he invited the Taliban to Camp David and LSU was running the spread and torched us for 600 yards. It was awful. 

Take it to the football board.

[Hornius Emeritus 12,495]

37 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

 

 

Let them eat Titleist!

[tx 3 putt 77,650]

I wonder if the taliban leadership plays golf ?

has to be tough in those robes ?

[Guest Lobo]

They find the golf swing very comparable to wielding a Scimitar.  They took the game quite easily, much like Larry David picked it up after playing polo for many years . 

[Mapache 1,117]

12 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

I wonder if the taliban leadership plays golf ?

has to be tough in those robes ?

Edited September 8, 2019 by Mapache

[Guest Lobo]

11 minutes ago, Lobo said:

 

nm, dp

Edited September 8, 2019 by Lobo

[lemonlime 5,503]

So, Trump was going to invite the Taliban, to the US, on the week of 9/11 ?
any Trumpkins want to defend this one ? Maybe I’m a little harsh and such, but that’s borderline treason against your country. 

Yeah. But once some Muslims who had nothing to do with 911 wanted to build a mosque a few crowded city blocks from ground zero

[4th&Five 41,619]

the North Carolina 

 

[Guest Lobo]

The North Carolina is probably one of the best, no...the best, Carolina out there.  It's fantastic, the North one.  It's also huge.  Just fantastic up there though, the North Carolina is.  Love it there.  Also, close to the Alabama and part of that hurricane path, so be prepared the North Carolina.  

James Taylor has rewritten his hit song to "The Carolina in my Mind"  

As of this press release, there has been no comment from The North Dakota on whether which is the best 'The North State' 

The West Virginia, however, likes its chances.  

 

[Radical Larry 28,664]

[Bama Chick 28,596]

He’s going to Baltimore on Thursday.

I hope the locals show up and protest like crazy.

[Guest Lobo]

Is Chris Partlow from Stanfield's crew still available for work?  

serious question though-what House Leadership Chief of Staff booked scheduled their retreat in Baltimore after what happened last month?  Somebody's getting fired.  

Edited September 8, 2019 by Lobo

[seven 1,368]

Honestly, that feels like it happened 6 months ago. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

6 hours ago, Message Board User said:

 

In the article that you linked, this sentence has chilling undertones given the context, the nationalism, the shooting of an immigrant by BPS, and the activism by the American Identity Movement, Campus Reform and Turning Point:

Quote

Speaking to a convention of Republican Party delegates in Indian Wells, California, Brad Parscale also said the campaign’s goal is to build a national army of 2 million trained volunteers, far beyond the president’s 2016 organization, that in California could help the GOP retake a string of U.S. House seats captured by Democrats last year.

It could be just a figure of speech, but given that Parscale still has the Cambridge Analytica link and:

Quote

he’s the one responsible for an ad so racist that Fox News wouldn’t air it. He’s also behind the new Trump-Pence logo for 2020, which was taken directly from a white supremacist group.... (Daily Kos, 2019)

 

[jimmyjazz 46,351]

Brad, Steve, Stephen, Paul . . . the best.

[Brandywine 1,317]

1 hour ago, 4th&Five said:

the North Carolina 

 

He’s gotten so boring, unoriginal, yada, yada, same o, same o, with his campaign tweets. Types them in his sleep or while he’s wiped.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

The North Carolina tweet was likely by him, but the site I check for attribution has 'unknown' for the Ivanka tweets. Does Ivanka have her own thread on here? They are pushing her more and more into this political ambassador role. She, like her father, majored in Economics. Not exactly reassuring.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

And of course, the Taliban corrects the record on our President. 

I remember a time when the Taliban was less credible than the White House. 

[Chad Fuck 17,829]

And of course, the Taliban corrects the record on our President. 

I remember a time when the Taliban was less credible than the White House. 

That time apparently ended today.

[Mapache 1,117]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

And write love letters. KJ Un would be jealous

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,541]

 

[DixonHur 11,405]

Be sure to short the market tomorrow

[TornACL 7,733]

6 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

 

Do you know how fat you have to be to have your boiler clearly visible from 500 yards away? 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,821]

11 minutes ago, TornACL said:

Do you know how fat you have to be to have your boiler clearly visible from 500 yards away? 

[GhostOfTomJoad 9,379]

14 minutes ago, TornACL said:

Do you know how fat you have to be to have your boiler clearly visible from 500 yards away? 

So you're saying he's not 239 lbs?

[burntorangebongos 10,752]

Fatsquatch.

[NWBuck 8,589]

3 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

Fatsquatch.

Bigfat. 

[TornACL 7,733]

6 minutes ago, GhostOfTomJoad said:

So you're saying he's not 239 lbs?

The healthiest president in the history of presidents.