Mark Esper says Trump's refusal to attend Biden's presidential inauguration a final act of petulance

[Tatetopa]

9 hours ago, Myles said:

honestly, I don't care if a president doesn't attend the inaugural.   I see politicians as scoundrels.   You see them in primaries telling us how evil and bad their competitors are and then the loser endorses the same person they said was unfit to hold the position.  

I understand that, I feel that way too a lot of the time.  But we can't give up or stop fighting.  It seems boring and dull, but it is a serious if slow burning conflict.  It starts on local levels with involvement and community organizations.  People have to start getting  together with other local people, their neighbors, and start changing things on a local level, then state, then national.

We can never wait for one party or the other to "take our country back", because whoever takes it will keep it.  Its not about confrontation or armed conflict either. As an example, people in Portland are sick of the violence and degrading of amenities. We are sick of our politicians and have an election coming up.  Fortunately for us, Portland has about 20 neighborhood associations for the various areas of the city and suburbs.  They are contacting people, pushing candidates in the next election, pushing city policies to mitigate the plethora of campers we have, volunteering to clean up parks and streets, and erasing graffiti.  Other people are working with charitable organizations and government to provide homeless shelters, food, medical care, drug counseling and other services some people specialize in and can volunteer extra time. But there is other stuff too.  I mentioned in another thread a church helping to locate and distribute baby formula.  I have helped elderly people keep fruit trees pruned and grow way more vegetable starts than I have room for to give away at neighborhood fairs and other events.  Everybody can do something, and every talent is needed.

If I remember correctly, that was what it was like when America was great.

[Grim Reaper 6]

4 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

You have been standing in a crowded, darkened room.  We aren't supposed to notice the "curtain", much less look behind it.  

So are we off to see the Wizard!

[+Desertrat56]

2 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

So are we off to see the Wizard!

Good lord I hope not!

[Tatetopa]

2 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

So are we off to see the Wizard!

Very good summation of his personality with that image.  His namesake Dr. Oz may not be in such good shape on the yellow brick road to being elected to the senate.

[Grim Reaper 6]

1 minute ago, Desertrat56 said:

Good lord I hope not!

 

[Grim Reaper 6]

1 minute ago, Tatetopa said:

Very good summation of his personality with that image.  His namesake Dr. Oz may not be in such good shape on the yellow brick road to being elected to the senate.

I certainly think you right, but he has been the man behind the curtain for many more years that most Americans realize!

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

No I did. His behaviour hadn't changed is my point, as such I can't see those as influences for such a childish act.

I have to say, I was stunned that at his actions. It was not a big FU to a handful of people, it was a service to his country to hand over gracefully. 

Plenty of threads on his s continued claims. 

Suffice to say it's probably worse if anything. 

Then your doing it backwards and have learned nothing from Trump's debacle leadership. He looks far worse on the global stage than Biden could even if he tried very hard to be as big an ass. 

He pretty much said sod the USA. He took personal issues up as part of the job. He was never fit to take that chair. 

She lost to Trump didn't she? 

She's so popular that Trump left her behind with the "not Hillary" vote. 

Yet Trump supporters accept ten times worse from him. Not sure how that works but there you go.

I think the blind support regardless of incidents clearly indicating he sees the people of America as his minions is more interesting. It's hard to fathom why so many Americans see such an ass as a potential leader. He claims to be running again, and that will indeed please his cult following, but is it enough? Refusing to attend inaugeration was a big screw you to the entire country, yet people are asking for more? Considering that, perhaps Emporor Xi could run for president and do the job quickly. 

 

 

I think Midge has a point.  If Trump was there, at the inauguration, he may have overshadowed everything.

I can easily imagine jeering for the outgoing POTUS turning it into a day about the loser rather than the winner.

It probably turned out for the best.

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

I think Midge has a point.  If Trump was there, at the inauguration, he may have overshadowed everything.

I can easily imagine jeering for the outgoing POTUS turning it into a day about the loser rather than the winner.

It probably turned out for the best.

That's pretty much the point I think. Any normal human being would be fine in that situation. Trump's petulant childish attitude not only ruins tradition, he was never the sort of person who deserved the chair. To self absorbed and unintelligent to lead a nation. He couldn't even leave it with dignity. He wasn't just a poor leader, he is a terrible example of a human being. 

Yet some say they would still vote for him. That's astounding IMHO. 

[Golden Duck]

20 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That's pretty much the point I think. Any normal human being would be fine in that situation. Trump's petulant childish attitude not only ruins tradition, he was never the sort of person who deserved the chair. To self absorbed and unintelligent to lead a nation. He couldn't even leave it with dignity. He wasn't just a poor leader, he is a terrible example of a human being. 

Yet some say they would still vote for him. That's astounding IMHO. 

Sure, he was in no way presidential. But, it is an argument about style versus substance - a la Kevin '07.

The Wall was a joke, but  he had a couple of big ticket achievements.

Now, Paul Murray says Albany Anthonese is the next Joe Biden.  What even is a Joe Biden?

Edited May 13, 2022 by Golden Duck

[psyche101]

18 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Sure, he was in no way presidential. But, is argument about style versus substance; a la Kevin '07.

He had, has neither though. Even Kev could teach him a thing or two about acting more appropriately in public. Kevin more went of behind the scenes, and at least tried to look like he gave a damn about the people. He would have shown up at inauguration.

18 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

The Wall was a joke, but he had a couple of big ticket achievements.

Most things he did and said were jokes. Still are. In your years, I think a plumber could have also had a couple good calls amongst a forrest of blunders. 

18 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Now, Paul Murray says Albany Anthonese is the next Joe Biden.  What even is a Joe Biden?

A second hand Joh Bjelke Peterson.

[Autochthon1990]

20 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

reinforced in many minds the message that Trump's supporters are racists and homophobes.

I mean, at that point it was adding a layer of barbed wire to a fortress surrounded by automatic turrets and landmines...they haven't exactly been subtle about the whole 'fascist ethnostate' agenda they have going on. 

[Autochthon1990]

18 hours ago, el midgetron said:

Eh…Trump was snubbed by the whole establishment for the entirety of his presidency. Had Trump gone to the inauguration, the media would have cooked up a controversy and Democrats would still be talking about it 5 years later. 
 

It’s entirely possible that NOT going to Biden’s inauguration was the most considerate and stately thing  Trump could do. His attendance probably would have overshadowed the event (certainly in the media coverage) and marred an otherwise completely forgettable ceremony. 

Yeah he was, because anybody who didn't sleep through 8th grade history on WWII knows exactly what happens when far right demagogues with a hateful and unstable following come to power. We're /lucky/ we just got off with roe in the crosshairs and a bunch of traumatized immigrant children used as weapons. If this was him when he was trying to get re-elected, how bad would it have been when he had no more need to 'play nice'?

[itsnotoutthere]

Petulance you say :

[Golden Duck]

3 hours ago, Autochthon1990 said:

Yeah he was, because anybody who didn't sleep through 8th grade history on WWII knows exactly what happens when far right demagogues with a hateful and unstable following come to power. We're /lucky/ we just got off with roe in the crosshairs and a bunch of traumatized immigrant children used as weapons. If this was him when he was trying to get re-elected, how bad would it have been when he had no more need to 'play nice'?

Most definitely the sky would've fallen in.

There is also another possibility that the checks and balances may have worked; but, that would've depended on at least one of the chambers having a majority of seat from a party opposing Trump.  And, like when has that ever happened.

PS. Kudos on your last two post not requiring the profanity filter.  Keep up the good work!

[Tom1200]

9 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Then your doing it backwards and have learned nothing from Trump's debacle leadership. He looks far worse on the global stage than Biden could even if he tried very hard to be as big an ass. 

Please don't tell me you're defending Biden's bumbling, shambolic performance?!

I've read, and taken on board, your point about Trump claiming widespread electoral fraud in 2020.  And if this indeed is his main/sole argument, and assuming it has been properly investigated by people cleverer than me, then it certainly seems a childish and petty line to take.  If all he has is airy-fairy suspicions based on 'unusual' voting patterns, with no useful evidence to back up his claims, then he really ought to quit flogging the dead horse - it ain't going anywhere.

So - I concede your point.  Trump's (still) being an ar$e.

But I DO think a great many people lied over and over again in the run-up to the election with one goal in mind: thwart Trump at any cost.  And I DO believe those lies strongly influenced enough public opinion and individual voters to make a significant difference to the result.  I can't say whether it changed the result - probably not, given the seven million difference to overcome.  But if the public/voters had then known certain truths (including, as I've repeated ad nauseam, Clinton's team paid 'experts' to invent dirt claiming Russia was bankrolling Trump; Joe Biden received pay-offs through his son from Ukrainian and Chinese companies for unspecified 'services'; tech companies like FaceBook and Twatter used their huge monopolies to aggressively suppress stories they knew would harm Biden's campaign; Trump supporters do not routinely wear MAGA hats and beat up innocent black homosexuals in Chicago at 3 am¹; Kyle Rittenhouse was acting in self-defence when he shot three people, even though Biden maliciously labelled him a Trump-supporting white supremacist; Kamala Harris would be even more abysmal and awful as VP than anyone feared; and those are just a few I can think off without digging through the history) then perhaps the election result would be less controversial and more accepted.

So @DonaldT, if you're reading this, stop banging on about election fraud and think of the real reasons you lost.

¹ @el midgetron - back me up here?  (Unless that's actually what Trump supporters really do get up to in the middle of the night.)

[itsnotoutthere]

24 minutes ago, Tom1200 said:

Please don't tell me you're defending Biden's bumbling, shambolic performance?!

I've read, and taken on board, your point about Trump claiming widespread electoral fraud in 2020.  And if this indeed is his main/sole argument, and assuming it has been properly investigated by people cleverer than me, then it certainly seems a childish and petty line to take.  If all he has is airy-fairy suspicions based on 'unusual' voting patterns, with no useful evidence to back up his claims, then he really ought to quit flogging the dead horse - it ain't going anywhere.

So - I concede your point.  Trump's (still) being an ar$e.

But I DO think a great many people lied over and over again in the run-up to the election with one goal in mind: thwart Trump at any cost.  And I DO believe those lies strongly influenced enough public opinion and individual voters to make a significant difference to the result.  I can't say whether it changed the result - probably not, given the seven million difference to overcome.  But if the public/voters had then known certain truths (including, as I've repeated ad nauseam, Clinton's team paid 'experts' to invent dirt claiming Russia was bankrolling Trump; Joe Biden received pay-offs through his son from Ukrainian and Chinese companies for unspecified 'services'; tech companies like FaceBook and Twatter used their huge monopolies to aggressively suppress stories they knew would harm Biden's campaign; Trump supporters do not routinely wear MAGA hats and beat up innocent black homosexuals in Chicago at 3 am¹; Kyle Rittenhouse was acting in self-defence when he shot three people, even though Biden maliciously labelled him a Trump-supporting white supremacist; Kamala Harris would be even more abysmal and awful as VP than anyone feared; and those are just a few I can think off without digging through the history) then perhaps the election result would be less controversial and more accepted.

So @DonaldT, if you're reading this, stop banging on about election fraud and think of the real reasons you lost.

¹ @el midgetron - back me up here?  (Unless that's actually what Trump supporters really do get up to in the middle of the night.)

Plus Nancy :-

 

 

[Golden Duck]

42 minutes ago, Tom1200 said:

Please don't tell me you're defending Biden's bumbling, shambolic performance?!

I've read, and taken on board, your point about Trump claiming widespread electoral fraud in 2020.  And if this indeed is his main/sole argument, and assuming it has been properly investigated by people cleverer than me, then it certainly seems a childish and petty line to take.  If all he has is airy-fairy suspicions based on 'unusual' voting patterns, with no useful evidence to back up his claims, then he really ought to quit flogging the dead horse - it ain't going anywhere.

So - I concede your point.  Trump's (still) being an ar$e.

But I DO think a great many people lied over and over again in the run-up to the election with one goal in mind: thwart Trump at any cost.  And I DO believe those lies strongly influenced enough public opinion and individual voters to make a significant difference to the result.  I can't say whether it changed the result - probably not, given the seven million difference to overcome.  But if the public/voters had then known certain truths (including, as I've repeated ad nauseam, Clinton's team paid 'experts' to invent dirt claiming Russia was bankrolling Trump; Joe Biden received pay-offs through his son from Ukrainian and Chinese companies for unspecified 'services'; tech companies like FaceBook and Twatter used their huge monopolies to aggressively suppress stories they knew would harm Biden's campaign; Trump supporters do not routinely wear MAGA hats and beat up innocent black homosexuals in Chicago at 3 am¹; Kyle Rittenhouse was acting in self-defence when he shot three people, even though Biden maliciously labelled him a Trump-supporting white supremacist; Kamala Harris would be even more abysmal and awful as VP than anyone feared; and those are just a few I can think off without digging through the history) then perhaps the election result would be less controversial and more accepted.

So @DonaldT, if you're reading this, stop banging on about election fraud and think of the real reasons you lost.

¹ @el midgetron - back me up here?  (Unless that's actually what Trump supporters really do get up to in the middle of the night.)

Dave Chappelle, himself, tore the Juicy Smolliet apart well before the election.  By mid 2020 it was clear he was going to have to defend himself in court against the charges of six felonies.

Giuliani's October surprise could only have jeopardised the investigation in Hunter Biden. A LEO would not normally release information in the manner Giuliani did.  The investigation is still ongoing.  You can only play what is in front of you; and, at the time Giuliani's course of conduct was a smear campaign rather than justice.  If one was so inclined there could be an argument made that the actions of Facebook and Twitter preserved the possibility for a fair and unbiased trial for Hunter Biden.  The latest information from Mac Isaac retrieved 50-60 thousand emails from the desktop of Junior's MacBook; not the cloud.  There's a bit of a pong, but hey, even the left-leaning, but factual, Vox says that's not import they confirm Hunter did make an offer to the Big Guy which was subsequently rejected.  Like I said earlier, it's an investigation that dates back to Obama and the process has to run its course and Giuliani's conduct didn't help.

The Clintons, IMO, no longer turns things to gold.  They now have the Chlamydeous Touch.  And I didn't see Rittenhouse as a big issue from here.

There is also a tendency for the Democrats tend to win when there's a greater turnout.  Who needs policies just encourage people to vote?

But most of all I was dead set certain Trump was going to win a second term.

[el midgetron]

3 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

Please don't tell me you're defending Biden's bumbling, shambolic performance?!

I've read, and taken on board, your point about Trump claiming widespread electoral fraud in 2020.  And if this indeed is his main/sole argument, and assuming it has been properly investigated by people cleverer than me, then it certainly seems a childish and petty line to take.  If all he has is airy-fairy suspicions based on 'unusual' voting patterns, with no useful evidence to back up his claims, then he really ought to quit flogging the dead horse - it ain't going anywhere.

So - I concede your point.  Trump's (still) being an ar$e.

But I DO think a great many people lied over and over again in the run-up to the election with one goal in mind: thwart Trump at any cost.  And I DO believe those lies strongly influenced enough public opinion and individual voters to make a significant difference to the result.  I can't say whether it changed the result - probably not, given the seven million difference to overcome.  But if the public/voters had then known certain truths (including, as I've repeated ad nauseam, Clinton's team paid 'experts' to invent dirt claiming Russia was bankrolling Trump; Joe Biden received pay-offs through his son from Ukrainian and Chinese companies for unspecified 'services'; tech companies like FaceBook and Twatter used their huge monopolies to aggressively suppress stories they knew would harm Biden's campaign; Trump supporters do not routinely wear MAGA hats and beat up innocent black homosexuals in Chicago at 3 am¹; Kyle Rittenhouse was acting in self-defence when he shot three people, even though Biden maliciously labelled him a Trump-supporting white supremacist; Kamala Harris would be even more abysmal and awful as VP than anyone feared; and those are just a few I can think off without digging through the history) then perhaps the election result would be less controversial and more accepted.

So @DonaldT, if you're reading this, stop banging on about election fraud and think of the real reasons you lost.

¹ @el midgetron - back me up here?  (Unless that's actually what Trump supporters really do get up to in the middle of the night.)

No you are absolutely correct and that’s why so many Trump supporters don’t trust the media. They know they have been portrayed inaccurately.

[+Desertrat56]

13 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

I think Midge has a point.  If Trump was there, at the inauguration, he may have overshadowed everything.

I can easily imagine jeering for the outgoing POTUS turning it into a day about the loser rather than the winner.

It probably turned out for the best.

Yeah they would have had to drag him out and then that would be all everyone noticed and all the media would have shown of the event.

[+Desertrat56]

10 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Sure, he was in no way presidential. But, it is an argument about style versus substance - a la Kevin '07.

The Wall was a joke, but  he had a couple of big ticket achievements.

Now, Paul Murray says Albany Anthonese is the next Joe Biden.  What even is a Joe Biden?

Name those "couple of big ticket acheivements".    He was no  more effective as president than Old Bush and he made a lot more noise.

[Tom1200]

2 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Dave Chappelle, himself, tore the Juicy Smolliet apart well before the election.  ...  And I didn't see Rittenhouse as a big issue from here.

It is my perception (from a zillion miles away, and with more pressing daily concerns on my mind) that Democrat politicians and Democrat-supporting media play the race card wherever possible.  Talking up BLM, Smollett and portraying black people as potential victims; and talking down cops, Rittenhouse and Republicans as white supremacists and potential murderers.  (Remember - this is just my perception.  I haven't performed any detailed study or analysis of genuine comments.)  If this accurately reflects the state of affairs in the US then that would be okay - say it like it is.  But if most of what they're saying is palpable nonsense or outright lies then that's wrong.  Can't the media present a balanced or neutral view?  Strangely the people most affected by racism - blacks and Hispanics - saw through this constant stream of drivel and voted for Trump in greater numbers than in 2016.  Perhaps classic lines like "if you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black" persuaded some of them that Biden and the Democrats are just using black people for their own ends.

Just to repeat - it's my perception that the Democrats play the race card at every opportunity and unjustly label Trump supporters as racists.

8 hours ago, Autochthon1990 said:

...they haven't exactly been subtle about the whole 'fascist ethnostate' agenda they have going on. 

What exactly is a 'fascist ethnostate' and why do you think it's on anyone's agenda?

Haven't we had this conversation before?  Just because you write something down doesn't make it real.  Try writing stuff that a) makes sense and b) has the faintest shred of evidence to back it up.

3 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

the actions of Facebook and Twitter preserved the possibility for a fair and unbiased trial for Hunter Biden

That's stretching credulity way, way too far.  They tried to blank the story by closing the Washington Post's account and accounts that retweeted or even mentioned the story.  They actively dismissed the report as Republican lies.  They did nothing to investigate the authenticity of the story and everything to suppress even mention of it.  They have since conceded that they got it wrong and had no valid reason to crush this story.  So - with no honest reason, what do we suppose their dishonest reasons were?

Compare that to the way they allow absolutely anybody to say whatever they like about genuinely innocent people, e.g. Nick Sandmann or Kyle Rittenhouse.  Nope, Facebook and Twatter are not interested in fair or unbiased anything.

4 hours ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Plus Nancy :-

What the flying flupp was that?  Is that really the speaker of the United States House of Representatives, or a comedienne taking the pi$$?

 

 

[Golden Duck]

29 minutes ago, Tom1200 said:

It is my perception (from a zillion miles away, and with more pressing daily concerns on my mind) that Democrat politicians and Democrat-supporting media play the race card wherever possible.  Talking up BLM, Smollett and portraying black people as potential victims; and talking down cops, Rittenhouse and Republicans as white supremacists and potential murderers.  (Remember - this is just my perception.  I haven't performed any detailed study or analysis of genuine comments.)  If this accurately reflects the state of affairs in the US then that would be okay - say it like it is.  But if most of what they're saying is palpable nonsense or outright lies then that's wrong.  Can't the media present a balanced or neutral view?  Strangely the people most affected by racism - blacks and Hispanics - saw through this constant stream of drivel and voted for Trump in greater numbers than in 2016.  Perhaps classic lines like "if you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black" persuaded some of them that Biden and the Democrats are just using black people for their own ends.

Just to repeat - it's my perception that the Democrats play the race card at every opportunity and unjustly label Trump supporters as racists.

What exactly is a 'fascist ethnostate' and why do you think it's on anyone's agenda?

Haven't we had this conversation before?  Just because you write something down doesn't make it real.  Try writing stuff that a) makes sense and b) has the faintest shred of evidence to back it up.

That's stretching credulity way, way too far.  They tried to blank the story by closing the Washington Post's account and accounts that retweeted or even mentioned the story.  They actively dismissed the report as Republican lies.  They did nothing to investigate the authenticity of the story and everything to suppress even mention of it.  They have since conceded that they got it wrong and had no valid reason to crush this story.  So - with no honest reason, what do we suppose their dishonest reasons were?

Compare that to the way they allow absolutely anybody to say whatever they like about genuinely innocent people, e.g. Nick Sandmann or Kyle Rittenhouse.  Nope, Facebook and Twatter are not interested in fair or unbiased anything.

What the flying flupp was that?  Is that really the speaker of the United States House of Representatives, or a comedienne taking the pi$$?

 

 

Hey, I'm just giving my perception  of the otherside of the world, too.

The Rittenhouse was just not big.  Some guy with an AR-15 only shoots two people - that's a good day.

It's my perception that Smollet and Sandmann fell off the RADAR quickly after truth was rather quickly revealed.

With the Biden laptop I said you play "what's in front you" it's implied that you can only play what's in front of you at the time.  Giuliani unveiling the "October Surprise" with the help of Murdoch looks like "smear campaign".  Bit, it's hard to make predictions though, especially about the future.

Hindsight is great and all, but the provenance of the emails still has not been verified with certainty. How long has the FBI had the evidence now, and still no word?

You quoted me a little out of context on the preservation of a fair trial. But, you should remember there was an injunction to ban media coverage before Cardinal Pell's trial.  I didn't say Twitter and Facebook acted for that purpose, merely that there actions may have somewhat countered Giuliani's attempted trial-by-media.

Is there any weight to white supremacist anymore? There's a bit of balkanisation, but that's not quite the same thing to me.

Edited May 13, 2022 by Golden Duck

[spartan max2]

If anything I feel like Smollet helped Trump a little bit. By being such an obvious lie.

Rittenhouse probably a neutral effect. 

[Golden Duck]

On 5/14/2022 at 12:09 AM, Desertrat56 said:

Name those "couple of big ticket acheivements".    He was no  more effective as president than Old Bush and he made a lot more noise.

First POTUS to meet leader of DPRK.

Project Warpspeed

Tax policy did what it was supposed to do.

[preacherman76]

On 5/12/2022 at 9:29 AM, lightly said:

Poor baby Donald.       Awwwwww   did him lose his little  binkyyyyyyy?

More like poor America. I don’t think a president could screw up more in every single area of politics then Biden. We are literally marching full steam towards the second Great Depression. It will be upon us probably before this summer ends.