Drumpf climbed into a big rig driver’s seat, but the Internet was at the wheel Thursday, March 23.
Seeking support for the House Republican health-care legislation, Drumpf invited members of the American Trucking Association to the White House on Thursday.
“As he greeted them, two large trucks were parked in front of the White House,” The Washington Post’s John Wagner reported.
“After shaking hands of ATA members positioned in front of the trucks, the president hopped into the rig of one of the 18-wheelers and tooted the horn a couple of times, then closed the door and waved to the news media through the window.”
In the photos, he appeared to be having the time of his life.
What is the real story of Donald Trump and Russia?
The answer is still unclear, and Democrats in Congress want to get to the bottom of it with an investigation. But there’s no doubt that a spider web of connections – some public, some private, some clear, some murky – exists between Trump, his associates and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The connections reveal the vast and mysteriously complex web behind a story that has vexed Trump’s young presidency from its start – and is certain to shake the White House for months to come.
On 20 January, inauguration day in the United States, a nameless, unknown military aide accompanied President Barack Obama to the handover ceremony at the US Capitol in Washington.
That military aide carried a satchel over his or her shoulder containing a briefcase known as “the nuclear football“.
Inside will be a piece of digital hardware measuring 3in (7.3cm) by 5in, known as “the biscuit“.
This contains the launch codes for a strategic nuclear strike.
The briefing for the ‘so-called president‘ on how to activate them took place out of public sight, but the moment Drumpf took the oath of office that aide, and the satchel, moved quietly over to his side.
A recent episode of This American Life featured a song written by Sara Bareilles and sung by Hamilton star Leslie Odom Jr. imagining what President Barak Obama might be thinking about Donald Trump and the current election.
Now, there’s a video to accompany it.
The four minute visual shows Odom Jr. in the studio with a band, delivering and impassioned performance as the lyrics roll out at the bottom of the screen.
In the song, Odom Jr. sings, Bareilles’ poetic verse,
“One man rewriting the book on bad behavior/ Maybe cheats the neighbors/ Feels they get what they pay for/ We can’t pat him on the back and send him on through/ No man’s ignorance will ever be his virtue/ Is this the best we can be?
This American Life, Sara Bareilles, and Leslie Odom, Jr.
~~Published on Oct 28, 2016~~
This American Life asked Sara Bareilles (Broadway’s “Waitress”) to imagine what President Obama might be thinking about the current election and Donald Trump, but can’t say publicly. Leslie Odom, Jr., performs the song.
~Matt Lauer Fields Storm of Criticism Over Clinton-Trump Forum~
It was a high-stakes political moment, far from the chummier confines of the “Today” show and, for Matt Lauer, NBC’s stalwart of the morning, a chance to prove his broadcasting mettle on the presidential stage.
The consensus afterward was not kind.
Charged with overseeing a live prime-time forum with Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton – widely seen as a dry run of sorts for the coming presidential debates – Mr. Lauer found himself besieged on Wednesday evening, September 7, by critics of all political stripes, who accused the anchor of unfairness, sloppiness and even sexism in his handling of the event.
“As it appears in … full read/full credit”
~~GRAPHICS SOURCE
Google Images
Personal iPhone Photos
I do not own these images.
No intention of taking credit.
If anyone knows the owner of any, please advise and it will be corrected immediately.
The Commander in Chief Forum was an embarrassment, but still enough to disqualify Trump
The idea for the Commander in Chief forum seemed decent, but two things utterly wrecked the evening: the half-hour slice given each candidate was inadequate to discuss substantive issues; and Matt Lauer.
Most of that fault?
Matt Lauer
Lauer started his interview by sandbagging Hillary Clinton, interrupting her first answer with a lengthy “question” about the email server that was both unrelated to the supposed topic of the evening, and weighted with built-in scorn up to and including the idea that Clinton’s non-crime was “disqualifying” of her candidacy. Before Hillary could complete her answer to this are-we-really-going-to-do-this zinger, Lauer interrupted her again. With another email question. Then he did it again.
Watching a replay of the affair, it’s not that Matt Lauer interrupted some of Hillary Clinton’s answers. It’s that he interrupted all of HIllary Clinton’s answers. Repeatedly, he leaped in mid-sentence, first to spew out ‘questions’ that were actually lengthy position statements allowing no obvious response, then to break in and remind Clinton that they were running out of time when she tried to beat Lauer’s words into an actual question. Lauer displayed a level of disrespect and antagonism to Hillary Clinton that wasn’t just unprofessional, it was punchable.
Even when Trump was producing a running stream of non-connected thoughts, Lauer sat back until Trump had come stumbling to a halt. He didn’t challenge Trump’s flat-out lies, and several times handed the Republican candidate open-ended questions with an intellectual challenge between “what’s your favorite color” and “how cool are puppies?” Lauer never hit Trump with anything remotely equivalent to emails – nothing about his taxes, his failed business deals, his 3,500 lawsuits, or the handy bribes that made some of those lawsuits go away.
Overall he treated Trump like a respected businessman, while addressing Clinton as if she was a PA assigned to warm up his coffee between floats in the Macy’s parade.
And still …
Without the much-scorned teleprompter that has kept Trump modestly on-track in recent speeches, what was revealed – again – was a man so utterly devoid of tact, truthfulness, or information that anyone watching should have seen enough to know that Donald Trump as president would be a catastrophe of dinosaur killer scale.
A commander-in-chief is the person or body that exercises supreme operational command and control of a nation’s military forces or significant elements of those forces. In the latter case, the force element is those forces within a particular region, or associated by function.
As a practical term, it refers to military competencies that reside in a nation-state’s executive leadership – either a head of state, a head of government, a minister of defense, a national cabinet, or some other body.
It’s definitely a scary thought to even consider “the donald” as the commander-in-chief of this country.
I can fathom him in any of the roles described above.
There are people who staunchly believe it’s unpatriotic to criticize the president of the United States. Apparently, these people think that “he’s our president, right or wrong, and we all need to support him, you know”.
It’s funny, because I know a few people who tell me it’s unpatriotic, but I don’t remember those people saying that when George W. Bush was president.
Well, there’s nothing in the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights that states we are obligated to support our government, or any elected official in it. There are laws against treasonous behavior and laws against making threats of bodily harm, as there should be.
But there is nothing obligating us to queue up and support all the policies and actions of those elected to public office. That’s a personal decision we are entitled to make. In fact, some would say it’s the solemn duty of every citizen to criticize elected officers when deserved, especially a president.
We live in a republic.
The president and commander in chief works for us. We “hire” him when we elect him. Then we pay close attention to what he does on the job. In your mind, if he makes good decisions and serves your interests, you rehire him. If he’s a poor leader and decision-maker, you try to fire him in the next election by voting for his opponent.
IMHO … again they are showing disrespect and total disregard to POTUS
WASHINGTON — The fractious debate over a possible nuclear deal with Iran escalated on Monday, March 9, as 47 Republican senators warned Iran about making an agreement with President Obama, and the White House accused them of undercutting foreign policy.
In a rare direct congressional intervention into diplomatic negotiations, the Republicans signed an open letter addressed to “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” declaring that any agreement without legislative approval could be reversed by the next president “with the stroke of a pen.”
The letter appeared aimed at unraveling a framework agreement even as negotiators grew close to reaching it. Mr. Obama, working with leaders of five other world powers, argues that the pact would be the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb. But critics from both parties say that such a deal would be a dangerous charade that would leave Iran with the opportunity to eventually build weapons that could be used against Israel or other foes.
While the possible agreement has drawn bipartisan criticism, the letter, signed only by Republicans, underscored the increasingly party-line flavor of the clash.
Just last week, the Republican House speaker, John A. Boehner, gave Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel the platform of a joint meeting of Congress to denounce the developing deal, and Senate Republicans briefly tried to advance legislation aimed at forcing Mr. Obama to submit it to Congress, alienating Democratic allies.
It Is What It Is 