My guess is the decision has already been made and they are just waiting for the most opportune time. Likely to coincide with the next big negative story that needs to be buried.

But but but.. I thought Donnie loves him some generals?

"Great guy, doing fantastic job. We'll see what happens."

Ivanka is going to find a replacement? Well that's reassuring.

   As Hillary would say, at this point, what different does it make? I remember all the excitement of Tillerson's imminent departure, so don't get too excited here.

CBS News said that Rex Tillerson was going to be gone in two weeks. That was in early December.

The fakemedia's record in predicting anything is pretty bad. Pay no attention to them.

He loves them all right. Remember his stellar military record? Had his flat feet not held him back Donnie would have won the war single handily


.

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

I'm relatively adverse to commenting on politics in the LR but what sticks out to me is this is not a debate as to the fakemedia's predictions but rather Kay's question (I recognize the link shared in the OP). For the record I have no idea what the media is predicting (did not click the link) but I will agree with the opinion that Kelly is gone when most convenient (no timeline...but probably within a few months).

For the record - I hope I'm wrong.

I dont recall that exact prediction, though I'm sure you can cite it for us. Ever since Tillerson called Trump a moron (allegedly!!), his days seem numbered. It was in both their interests to make the relationship last a bit longer though. We'll see...

What about when the fake media said Sean Spicer would be out? Or Reince Priebus? Or Steve Bannon? Or Sebastian Gorka?

Umm... These aren’t the droids you’re looking for?

Uhh, you had to mention Gorka... That dude makes my skin crawl.

The more pressing question might be how much longer will FLOTUS stick around? And in the event of a split, who gets custody of Stormy's signed DVD boxset??

Uh oh. Trump just tweeted his support for Kelly. #kissofdeath


"Thank you to General John Kelly, who is doing a fantastic job, and all of the Staff and others in the White House, for a job well done. Long hours and Fake reporting makes your job more difficult, but it is always great to WIN, and few have won more than us"
#winning!

I would believe that she is miserable now as she is likely having to spend more time near Trump than she did before. Before he was president, she could probably travel, explore, dine and shop anytime she wanted. If she wanted to meet up with a friend, no problem. Now, she's a bit more confined. I can imagine that she's a bit unhappy about it. Then, throw in the fact that she's married to *him*. Ugh.

So, based on the #kissofdeath history, he's letting the entire WH staff go. He's gonna regret that when he pushes the Diet Coke button and one doesn't arrive.

---

Travis Rassat
Vector Cycle Works
Noblesville, IN
BikeFit Instructor | FMS | F.I.S.T. | IBFI
Toughman Triathlon Series Ambassador

It's simple color-by-numbers from here on out:

1. Very very special, one of the best
2. Doing a fantastic job
3. We'll see what happens
4. Thank you for your service
5. Was treated very unfairly by the media
6. Attack via twitter; include childish nickname

What about when the fake media said Sean Spicer would be out? Or Reince Priebus? Or Steve Bannon? Or Sebastian Gorka?

When Trump groupies like Jim talk about "fake media", they simply mean when the media reports things they don't agree with. They could be right 99 out of 100 times but they will focus on the one they get wrong and dismiss everything else.

You must be new around here.

Of all the goofy stuff this administration has done, nothing scare me more than the systematic attempt to discredit the media. How long before we have a Ministry of Truth?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJkc_C5-Cd8

i think he is a long way from the front of the line at the exit and they all can't leave in 2 months - so I'll go for over


he's been one of the disappointments to me. Some of his actions make him seem like a true believer rather than a moderating influence, although that may just be a following orders things.

Also, wasn't impressed with him not being able to comprehend that a grieving widow may need to receive a different type of phone call to a fellow general getting the same message about his son.

Still, i don't think he's front of the queue at the exit door unless he goes crazy and starts talking about DJT evolving his thinking on anything

Trump's recently announced fakenews awards were classic.

Number one on the list was the NY Time's economist, Paul Krugman, who previously won the Nobel prize in "economic sciences," LOL. Immediately after the election, Krugman was asked for his economic opinion. Calling Trump "the mother of all adverse effects," Krugman predicted that the markets would never recover and that we were heading for a global recession.

If the guy had been working as an economist, he would have been fired, and likely sued. Yet the NY Times still publishes his drivel. Irresponsible behavior by both.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Can you help me understand how an "opinion" can be deemed fake news? You do understand what actual fake news is, right?

He gave an opinion. DJT pretends that it was reported as news by the NY Times so that he can declare it fake. Just another attempt to blur the line between fact and fiction. When facts become subjective, people are free to believe what they want to believe.

This is textbook Orwell/Third Reich stuff.

It's anything you disagree with at the current moment, correct?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Krugman, proffered by the NY Times as an economic expert, offered a stupid opinion, which was irresponsible on his part and irresponsible for the NY Times to publish.

But let's discuss the meaning of "fakenews" as it is colloquially understood today in America.

Perhaps Trump should have said "fake economics" and "fake editorial intelligence." But since it is coming from what is still thought of as a newspaper, I think fakenews is close enough.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

That was a fake answer.

-
I think Howard Kurtz has a realistic take; here's excerpts of an excerpt from his new book:
-
"Donald Trump is staking his presidency, as he did his election, on nothing less than destroying the credibility of the news media; and the media are determined to do the same to him. This is not just a feud or a fight or a battle. It is scorched-earth warfare in which only one side can achieve victory. To a stunning degree, the press is falling into the president's trap. The country's top news organizations have targeted Trump with an unprecedented barrage of negative stories, with some no longer making much attempt to hide their contempt. Some stories are legitimate, some are not, and others are generated by the president's own falsehoods and exaggerations. But the mainstream media, subconsciously at first, has lurched into the opposition camp and is appealing to an anti-Trump base of viewers and readers, failing to grasp how deeply it is distrusted by a wide swath of the country."
-
"This is, at bottom, a battle over the truth. Who owns it, who controls it, who can sell their version to a polarized public that increasingly cannot agree on basic facts. Everything you read, hear and see about Trump's veracity is filtered through a mainstream media prism that reflects a lying president — and virtually never considers the press' own baggage and biases. Everything you read, hear and see from the Trump team is premised on the view that media news is fake news, that journalists are too prejudiced, angry and ideological to fairly report on the president. Trump and his acolytes use these attacks on the Fourth Estate to neutralize their own untruths, evasions and exaggerations. What many journalists fail to grasp is that Trump's supporters love his street talk and view the media critiques as nonsense driven by negativity. They don't care if he makes mistakes. As paradoxical as it sounds, negative coverage helps Trump because it bonds him to people who also feel disrespected by the denizens of the mainstream press. The media take everything literally, and Trump pitches his arguments at a gut level. It is asymmetrical warfare."
-
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/how-trump-trauma-is-crippling-news-media-guest-column-1077062

Get the whole story on that Krugman statement, why don't you?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

The Krugman statement I referenced contains no links to additional information or stories. Was there a retraction or corrective statement issued?

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

You have a very low standard for 'classic'.

Now classic would have been Trump including his own fake Time cover, his own fake historical marker, Obama wiretapping him claims, Obama not being born in the US, his physical results, ...

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

I largely agree with Kurtz' analysis and have read other similar opinions, or perhaps summaries of his analysis.

Trump is using the only strategy available to survive against a media out to take him down.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

wasn't it just recently proven and the investigation is still on going that yes members of his campaign were in fact wire tapped due to the recent abuse of the FISA warrants based of the fake dossier.

Yes, within days, Krugman retracted what he said.

https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/the-long-haul

An interesting prediction he made above, in light of the situation in Puerto Rico:

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I'll add that the kerfuffle about his physical is another thing lumped in the "fake news" category by Trump's supporters (using that term colloquially as it is understood by Trump supporters). I did not read the thread here about Trump's physical. I can't imagine learning anything.

I think the common sense view is that Trump is 71, people of that age can suffer sudden unpredictable ailments so there is not guarantee about his health. He is overweight. Yet he campaigned tirelessly making an order of magnitude more campaign appearances and press appearances than Hillary and his stamina always looked good. So when the liberal pundits go off on the physical thing, I just roll my eyes.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

The kerfuffle didn't have anything to do with his health, it was about him lying about his health.

I pretty much roll my eyes at all of the non- issue, over the top things they bring up.

Thank you for that. Good for Krugman. Still should not have gotten past the editor.

Yet still good on Trump for calling Krugman out. He did write it, and the NY Times did publish it, and that is itself a fair point to make. Especially since a common theme against him is that he acts irrationally (he does, everyone does, and Trump does it much less than commonly thought).

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

OK. I'll play. I ignored this because I assumed that this was just another one of the over the top things that get brought up. Like the WaPo article that recently said he was lying to everyone in the televised White House meeting with congress a couple weeks ago. That lie was saying "great idea" or some such pleasantry to everyone who spoke. It was a lie because he heard things he disagreed with and still said "great idea." Really. I did read that. Someone here linked to it and it was a supposedly intelligent WaPo pundit. Take my word for it, it is so stupid that I will not bother to find a link.

So I'll guess here without reading the thread and seeing maybe one article on the subject. Trump said his health was "great" or "super" or some other superlative. Maybe he said he was "a little overweight."

Is there more? Is there a great deception that Trump has foisted on the poor America public about his health? Is there something important I need to know about his health?

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

The non-kerfuffle kerfuffle is that he claims to be 6'3" and 239 lbs which magically gets him to a BMI of 29.9.

He has always been listed at 6'2" and appears to be the same height or shorter than the 6'1" Obama. And many people in the 239 range have doubts about that.

It isn't that he is fat or short. It is that he feels the need to force an admiral to lie about it.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Get past the editor? It was an *opinion* piece. Should the editor have said, "no, Dr. Krugman, you are not entitled to an opinion about the effects of this election on the economy, in spite of your Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences?"

Krugman has been correct far more than he's been wrong.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Are you serious? No one reads those opinion pieces before they are published?


That would have been better than nothing. Assuming the editor had better tact, perhaps, "Paul, I am in no position to question your economic views, but we are all very emotional about this election, and I wonder if a prediction about the markets and economy ought to wait a few days."

Krugman admitted he was hasty a few days later. Are you saying he is so hard-headed that he would not have listened to a voice of reason earlier?

I respect Krugman more knowing that he changed his mind.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

I'd be interested to see something that says what you have just stated.

I believe Manafort was caught up in wiretaps and has also been charged with crimes causing him to learn how to sing.

I'm pretty sure that Trump's claim was that Obama was spying on his campaign for political gain and not that some of his campaign officials were caught up in criminal investigations and therefore caught on wiretaps.

If there is more along the lines of what you have stated feel free to correct me. As long as those stories are not themselves fake news of course.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

I'm pretty sure that's not how opinion pieces by staff columnists are vetted.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

No way. Really? Did this occupy time of the talking heads on TV? Did liberal pundits editorialize about this? No wonder people are calling it fakenews and tuning out.

When the opposition talks about him instead of his policies and the policy actions his agencies are taking, he wins.

Meanwhile, last Friday he addressed the March for Life in Washington via video. First president to do that. Well done speech. He's got the pro life crowd locked up. He's locking up many other constituencies too. He's a little embarrassing but he is fulfilling his promises. His base will be stronger when he is up for re-election. If the economy stays good, he'll be re-elected easily.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

   Krugman is wrong on most everything right now, owing to the fact that he is a partisan first, and economist second. He's been repeatedly wrong about the market under Trump, wrong about who or what type of fed chair Trump would pick, etc. He reliably gives a center-left to left readership what they want, which is why he is still a great fit at the NYT.

Ok, from now on, I'll take every "climate change" prediction from the "experts" as an opinion.

Referring back to the earlier point about what is 'fake' or not, you seem to be dismissing the basic value of objective facts vs subjective opinions.

Again, it's not his health that's in question, it's the fact that he and his supporters are intentionally and specifically lying about clearly measurable and consistent facts like height ~ not simply different interpretations of disputable/aggregated measures like economic indicators or crime stats which can be parsed any number of ways.

So if I claim to have run a 2:45 marathon, are the actual race results showing I really ran a 4:15 just more fake news? Shit, why can't I go ahead and claim to be a sub-9 IMer too while I'm at it? (other than invoking the wrath of BLeP for contaminating the LR w/ Tri jibberish.) Hell, we could keep going... VW shoulda told everyone to fuck off w/ that recall noise and just claim the reports of fraudulent diesel emissions test results were fake, too. Why wouldn't you believe VW instead of the mainstream media reporting?

You say we should really be focused on policy positions instead, which sounds well and good, but again the point is that if he can't even admit/agree the sky is blue, what are the chances his claims about larger/more complex issues aren't entirely full of shit?

When asked if he knew that the market was up in the wake of Trump's election, he said, "I actually do not know that. But I imagine that is the case."

Yeah, you do that.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I take it you believe in the predictive ability of climate models to tell us the temperature of the earth decades from now, more than the predictive ability of economic models to say whether or not the market will collapse in a few days?

Please explain how climate models are so much better.

Or are you admitting that Krugman is a partisan hack that should never be referenced again.

What planet are you from? Name me one current or former politician in Washington whom you contend has not lied.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

That is not the point. The point is that the current administration is clearly waging a war against truth, and just making up shit that is clearly false (like Trumps BMI). Also, Trump appears to hold himself to a different standard than he said he would (reference his bitching and moaning about the amount of golf Obama played, indicating he would be too busy to golf, and then proceeding to play more golf than Obama).

The guy is in it for himself and his family. He does not care about you or America.

drn92

I have no idea who talked about it other than the girthers and those of us here that mocked him.

If that is enough for your outrageometer then have at it.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

....but, but ALL politicians lie!!

You're losing any semblance of credibility you might have had.

Duffy would be proud how far Trump's balls have managed to get down your throat.

My former Representative Rush Holt. For his 16 year tenure, he was the only Quaker in Congress. Now CEO of AAAS.

You can look him up.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

In Duffy's honor:



Do you feel you got the truth about her collapse?

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

If you say so, that is good enough for me.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Who ever said that? I guess your implication then is that all lies are the same? Claiming I ran a marathon in 2:45 when I really ran a 4:15 is no different than telling the wife I'll be home at 6:30 and getting home at 6:45?

The GOP nut-huggers love to point out how Obama made claims like "you can keep your doctor" and calling that a 'lie' when it turned out that some people had to get a different doctor upon changing plans, but it's not like the ACA specifically mandated having to change doctors and not everybody did, so while it certainly wasn't completely true it wasn't 100% false either. If you can't tell the difference between that or an economic projection (which are all based on a host of aggregated indicators and thus inherently debatable) which turns out to be wrong, vs a specifically and demonstrably false claim like having a 9" dick when it's really only 4.5, then I guess I can't help you.

I get the feeling some ppl on here need to get fitted for a tinfoil hat. "The best hats"...


Trumps #1 pick of "fake news" was an opinion piece by Krugman.
Opinion can't be fake; it's someone's opinion.

Nobody does fake news better than Donnie himself....
Remember in 2011, his 'team of investigators' in Hawaii with Obama birth certifcate bombshell info?
Donnie went on network TV to call it "one of the great cons in the history of politics." Now, that's rich..
(Later, Wolf Blitzer asked him point blank what his 'investigators' found.. Donnie wouldn't answer the question.)

This thread's not about Hilary, but I believe very little that comes out of her mouth.

Nice "...but, but Hilary" though. You're on a roll.

Nice derailment. This thread was about Kelly and you derailed it into the woods.

I it would be best for the TDS sufferers then to just take all of the President's tweets as his opinion from now on.

I apologize by the use of a period in my post. It was more of question as I have heard this brought up several times but don't remember where. I believe it is being investigated at the moment all though I cant confirm that either.

I you got some scoop on Kelly and Trump's relationship, lay it on me. Do you know when Kelly will leave?

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

The WH has said his Tweets are official statements. Do you suggest we take official statements as opinion?

He is officially stating his opinion.

Ok, from now on, I'll take every "climate change" prediction from the "experts" as an opinion.

I'm pretty sure that like most people who refuse to accept the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of scientists, that you don't really take the predictions as anything other than opinions now.

But if I can't accept the conclusions of a Nobel Prize winning economist as anything but his opinion, why should I accept the conclusions of climate 'scientists'.

Because science is science -- it uses the scientific method.
(Economics is nicknamed 'the dismal science', but it's not a science.)

And why would you put 'scientists' in quotes? Do you also believe the earth is flat?
"The 'doctor' told me huffing glue was harming my lungs..."

But if I can't accept the conclusions of a Nobel Prize winning economist as anything but his opinion, why should I accept the conclusions of climate 'scientists'.

You don't "have" to accept anything because most people believe what they believe and no amount of proof is going to change that.

That said, science and economics are a little different. one is based on a study of the natural world where things are learned through experiments and observations and using the scientific method to make conclusions. The other, is based on theories that are based on numerous unpredictable factors.

If you ignore the conclusions of Nobel Prize winning economist and then apply that same logic to a Nobel Prize winning scientist, then you have simply made up your mind about climate change and nothing will change it.

you do know who you're trying to have a rational conversation with, don't You?

Science is science, but climate 'science' is attempting to predict the future of the climate using complex, multi-variable, models, using data (that they've manipulated), and a lot of assumptions. Very much like economic models try to predict the future economy.

You left out the part that says they've been reasonably accurate to date.

Your continued putting science in quotes, and now claiming that the data has been manipulated, shows that you aren't really interested in discussing the topic in order to learn anything.

You do know that the raw data is available to anyone, that many groups have done the analysis, and all been in agreement with the results? Go look at berkeleyearth.org, and learn about scientists who started out as skeptics, analyzed the data in light of skeptics' concerns over the data, crawled through a river of shit and came out clean on the other side.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

True.

Thus, the Nobel Committee should no longer award the "Nobel Memorial Prize for Economic Sciences." (Note, that Nobel himself did not establish that prize in his will, it was added later.)

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Do you mean that the original model(s), with just additional data give the same results?

Or that the updated models, with updated (manipulated) data, give the same results, but additional funding for more research is needed?

I am not saying that I know that they are wrong, they could be right.

Do I believe the basic science, sure. But I have far less confidence in complex, predictive, models (including economic).

Could you provide, or point me toward, further information on this point please.

Edit: Nevermind please save yourself the time as I've found this as just one starting place.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Again with the "manipulated data" shtick. Everyone who has looked at the data with an open mind has determined that the data has not been "manipulated." As we learn more, we can use the raw data better, but the underlying data doesn't change. Go look at berkeleyearth.org and learn where they started and where they ended up. That is, if you actually want to learn anything. Which I doubt.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

By use the raw data better, I assume you mean, corrected, or fixed, or adjusted, or changed, or manipulated. ;-)

I would like to learn more, but I have a day job and don't have years to study the basic science and the data and the models to speak authoritatively about climate change. But I do know enough, even as a layman to know that complex, multi-variable models, are not accurate in the predictions. Or we wouldn't have weather disasters, or economic crashes, etc.

That plus the financial incentive behind continued study of climate change, and the (unable to accurately predict) economic consequences of the proposed 'solutions', leaves me a skeptic who isn't going to make any major lifestyle changes (not that many of the proponent of CC have) based on the models.

I mean exactly what I wrote. If we determine that certain data measurements have some built-in error, we adjust how the data is used, and we get better input for the models.

You don't know enough if you think that models can predict weather disasters. Sorry.

With all the funding available behind the climate skeptics (Koch brothers, fossil fuel interests, Heartland), *nothing* has been found to contradict the current research on climate change. Not a damned thing. Financial interest, cut me a break. The best thing that could happen to a climate researcher would be to find that climate change was not caused by humans. We're talking Nobel Prize territory. Yet you think there is this huge incentive to continue to refine models.

Lifestyle changes aren't the issue. Putting environmentally responsible policies in place are the issue, and that starts at the ballot box.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Fixed it for you.

Here is a link to a video showing how some models seem to predict temperatures. Hit pause as you go to study the slides.

However, predicting, for instance the last 30 years, could have been done by simply drawing pretty much a straight line on the same slope as the rise in temperature for about the first half or three quarters of the last century. I could have been just as accurate extrapolating by hand.

We have had a pretty steady rise in temperature over the last 50 years. I sure hope they can make a model the matches that. We won't know the flaws in the models until the rising trend changes drastically in one direction or another. Remember too that according to the IPCC, about half the rise has been natural.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

I would be hard pressed to find an experiment in any field that doesn't manipulate raw data. There is a reason that we do Cal/Val and it isn't to get the results we want, it is to get results period.

You probably already know I (along with many scientists) have little confidence in the models that are out there, modeling does need to improve. Recent news on a new study that shows things may not be as bad as feared:

That “known unknown” is called equilibrium climate sensitivity, and for the last 25 years the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the ultimate authority on climate science – has settled on a range of 1.5C to 4.5C (2.7 to 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit).
Cox and colleagues, using a new methodology, have come up with a far narrower range: 2.2C to 3.4C, with a best estimate of 2.8C.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jan/18/worst-case-global-warming-scenarios-not-credible-says-study

So, are all y'all trying to say the Kelly is going to be fired for climate change? ;)

Still happy with your "over 2 months" position? I'm going to double down on "under".

Kelly will last as long as Trump thinks his value as chief of staff is greater than the damage he could do as a potential witness. Or said another way the damage he does a chief of staff is less than the damage he could do as a potential witness.

So it might be a long time.

Kelly has disappointed me, especially in the last few weeks. He was one of the few that I had hoped would help level and positively influence POTUS.

His comments this week about DACA and immigrants are not in keeping with the values and ethos I thought he possessed. His comments about Porter, his political naivety about what he said about it, and inability to read the room show me he is not as grounded in the principles I thought he was. I was wrong about Kelly. He is not the man I thought he was.

---

Suffer Well.

i think he realized he wasn't going to escape before Tillerson Rosenstein, and Sessions unless he went really crazy.

not sure i would go "over" if the cut off was the end of the week given what we know now. The week started bad for him with the dreamer comments, crashed over the Porter stuff and now the defense of Todd Shane Tomko is getting some airtime. There isn't enough space here to list all of the really bad things Tomko has done but Kelly thought he was a fine officer.

Maybe Kelly's comments on Tomko were taken out of context, but i don't see how he can continue with that and everything else. If nothing else he looks like a completely hopeless judge of people and situations. i guess Tillerson, Rosenstein and Sessions will have to wait.

Q: what's Kelley's favorite kind of shirt?

A: the wifebeater!!!

I hoped for the same thing about kelly. However, my opinion on him went down after the whole calling congresswoman wilson (the one with the weird hats) an "empty barrel" and claiming that during a speech she has being a self promoter. Then when video came out showing nothing of the sorts, he didnt apologize. Instead he said something along the lines of "well me and my friends remembered and interpreted it differently."

Kelly, like everyone else in the administration, will be there until they start getting more airtime on the news programs than Trump.

Just a wild guess though.

-
Just reported that a second staffer (speech writer) is leaving due to domestic abuse. Wow

David Soreson, a speech writer, resigned today amid allegations he has been physically and verbally abusive to his wife.

I wonder if he was one of the 30+ staffers still awaiting to receive their full security clearances after 13 months.

Kelly reportedly offering to step down...

https://www.nytimes.com/...mp-porter-abuse.html

Some say.....Corey L. Ratted on Porter because they both interested in Hope H. And Kelly is not sharpest knife in drawer and directed staff to make up bogus story on when he was made aware. Some say....

Yeah, I don't understand why he's inserting himself publicly into ideological debates. I fully understand that part of his job is advancing Trump's agenda, but I thought he'd do so in a more professional, restrained way. He almost seems to have some desire to be a politician himself, rather than just manager of the White House staff. Among "my generals" I'm much preferring Mattis and McMaster.

We knew the man at the top is a bit nuts, but the supporting cast seems increasingly like a ragtag collection of wacky B-listers, all brought together to fight it out on a reality TV show.
Oh.. wait a minute..

... interested in Hope H.

Is there anyone who isn't?

(Standing by, steadfastly hoping this devolves into a normal LR thread with bathing suits.)

Maybe one, Mike Pence.

No way! He's having a (somewhat late) private dinner with her at this very moment.

Reports vary on exactly how private it is, though. Mrs. Pence might be there. Good clean fun.

Is McMaster in hiding?

That's the question I'd hoped we'd be asking about Kelly.

I like my woman like I like my coffee, dark and with an utter lack of morality.

Nice to look at, but I lost all respect when it was reported that she'd slept with C.Lewandowski. Ewwwww.....
There can be no doubt Trump just has her around for eye candy; her involvement in crafting Porter's goodbye statement is 5th grade level drama.

How 'bout the Speechwriter dude, though?
There must be a perfectly good reason to put out cigarettes on your wife's hand. No wonder most of Trump's speeches seem so..nasty.

The Whitehouse is sounding more and more like a summer camp for adolescents.

I might have to give Kelly a few more months. Seems Mike Pence looks forward to working with him for "months" (!)

“John Kelly has done a remarkable job as chief of staff for the president of the United States and I look forward to working with him for many, many months to come,” Pence said.

I guess that's how long they think it'll take to find someone else to agree to do the job. When Pence was asked if he thought Kelly had been completely honest about the Porter situation, instead of answering the question he went into a long diversion of how great Kelly's service to the country has been through his life...

To his credit though, Pence said there should be zero tolerance to domestic abuse and admitted the WH could have handled the Porter situation better (in contrast to Kelly who said everything was handled correctly).

I think the bigger picture here is a growing fear among Republicans in Congress that the mid-terms could be a disaster for the party given what is happening in the White House.

Re-upping this one. He's hasn't quit or gotten fired yet... but Comey's new book to be released on Tuesday 4/17 might change that.



https://www.thedailybeast.com/...orable-for-firing-me


How long with Kelly last, now? I'm not sure he will make it to next Friday. But Kelly is a tough, hard fighting SOB. Who knows.

---

Suffer Well.

//I think the bigger picture here is a growing fear among Republicans in Congress that the mid-terms could be a disaster for the party given what is happening in the White House. //

I'm curious to see if the 'Pubs will take the absolute beating Dems took over the 8 yrs of Obama in the WH - all the way from mayoral campaigns up through Congress. I would imagine it might take 8 yrs for Dems to recapture that ground but given the current dynamic, might be accomplished in less than 8 yrs. My own opinion is the midterms will not be pretty but 'Pubs will fair better than currently predicted. Then again, I saw absolutely no possible scenario where Trump would be POTUS so what the hell do I know?

I'm not sure this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back, because it was reported on last summer...

https://www.cnn.com/...all-angry/index.html

Seems some in the WH are also denying this version of events:

"According to a White House official who talked to The Daily Beast, the version of this story that Kelly has told senior staffers differs greatly from Comey's account."

Even so, all the reports about Kelly losing his influence and Trump just doing what he wants without consulting Kelly can only lead to one place, so I still think he'll be gone within a month or so.

Perhaps you are right. Trump is predictably unpredictable.

But given the Cohen rant and the musings of the President about firing Mueller or Rosenstein this week, I expect the Comey book to get a lot of press next week. Trump set Comey up for great success with this book.

Also, Kelly's comments would be seen by him as disloyal when he is already feeling attacked from many avenues of approach.

Trump hates it when people get more press than him or are disloyal to him. So, I saw this as two straws. And there have been many more straws bales on that camel's back since that original article came out.

---

Suffer Well.

Kelly wants to get fired again. Will he survive this report? He's lasted longer than anyone thought and weather more bad publicity than any CoS in a normal White House.

His descriptors remind me of Rex's comments about Trump a (not so) long time ago.

Quote:

White House chief of staff John Kelly has eroded morale in the West Wing in recent months with comments to aides that include insulting the president's intelligence and casting himself as the savior of the country, according to eight current and former White House officials.
The officials said Kelly portrays himself to Trump administration aides as the lone bulwark against catastrophe, curbing the erratic urges of a president who has a questionable grasp on policy issues and the functions of government. He has referred to Trump as "an idiot" multiple times to underscore his point, according to four officials who say they've witnessed the comments.

But wait there's this... he just might survive. Eight to Three.

Quote:

Three White House spokespeople said they don't believe it's accurate that Kelly called the president an "idiot," adding that none of them has ever heard him do that or otherwise use that word.

https://www.nbcnews.com/...-calls-trump-n868961

---

Suffer Well.

You realise an idiot is different to a moron? Words matter.

Sure, I realize (I type in Freedom) a "fucking moron" is different from a "coarse language" idiot... but I chalk up the difference to Kelly's greater time and more frequent interactions with Trump that allow him to better ascertain the true mental capacity of the Commander in Chief.

But directionally, Rex and Kelly seem to agree. Maybe another staffer will hit him in the middle with "imbecile" for the trifecta of IQ based insults.

And Kelly released this statement. He confirms he has more time with the President than anyone else but denies the idiot and saving the country comments.

His new statement again reminds me of Rex denying the 'fucking moron" comments.

---

Suffer Well.

Of course, if Kelly uses the r-word, all bets are off.

Kelly also called Trump "unhinged" apparently, which is becoming increasingly apparent from his Tweets this morning:

"So disgraceful that the questions concerning the Russian Witch Hunt were “leaked” to the media. No questions on Collusion. Oh, I see...you have a made up, phony crime, Collusion, that never existed, and an investigation begun with illegally leaked classified information. Nice!"


"It would seem very hard to obstruct justice for a crime that never happened! Witch Hunt!"


(Never mind that it was probably someone on his team that leaked the list of questions Mueller allegedely wants to ask, possibly intentionally by his legal team.)

Man that guy is so obsessed with "collusion."

Surprising. Not sure to take it at face value or recognize that the pattern in this WH is for these statements to be a sure sign that the person is in fact leaving sooner than later.

https://www.stripes.com/...-reelection-1.540324

---

Suffer Well.

https://www.cnbc.com/...rseeable-future.html

From the article:

• President Donald Trump has expanded his shortlist for potential Kelly replacements, sources say. The shortlist now includes Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin as well as Freedom Caucus Chairman Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C.

"The president has a track record of praising administration officials before they hit the chopping block."

Let's see...

So I got this one pretty wrong. But talk is that he will resign in the coming days and that he's no longer on speaking terms with the president anymore.

I commend him for sticking it out this long but he always had a losing ticket. Everyone Trump touches turns into sludge.

Or maybe not.

We all know that Trump hasn't fired anyone in this White House. Kelly has been the one to do the actual deed.

Did Kelly tell Trump that he has not intention of resigning and that Trump would have fire him? Or is this just more smoke?

Not sure anyone other than Kelly knows the real story and I acknowledge the source of this article.

---

Suffer Well.

Trump will just send Kelly out to pick up a McDonalds cheeseburger for him and then change the locks when he's out.
Then will come the awkward moment when he has to send the Secret Service guy to get the cheeseburger from the locked out Kelly.

---

Remember - It's important to be comfortable in your own skin... because it turns out society frowns on wearing other people's

So, yet again the fake news CNN and NYTimes are correct. Go figure.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Strategic Fellow at Stanford-https://www.hoover.org/profiles/h-r-mcmaster

To all...I came into this thread so see what kind of trash was being thrown at Kelly. WTF is wrong with some of you people? You're on the level of Maxine Waters type of scum. When a president, no matter the politics, calls, you answer and serve. Otherwise you need to go somewhere else.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

Can you point out what trash is being thrown at Kelly? Kelly deserves lots of criticism for lots of his actions as Chief of Staff. We are allowed to criticize people in the White House.

At least he's not churning through Chiefs of Staff like that Obama guy. SAD! Or maybe he meant Obama should have had more than 3 in 3 years?

https://twitter.com/...829591267328000?s=20

Literally a Tweet for every occasion.

When a president, no matter the politics, calls, you answer and serve.


If a President calls you only so you can serve him and not the country, should the President go somewhere else?

At least he's not churning through Chiefs of Staff like that Obama guy. SAD! Or maybe he meant Obama should have had more than 3 in 3 years?

Isn't that misleading though?


Why not compare all the administration positions and the number of firings that Trump did compared with Obama to get a better picture?

https://www.politifact.com/...hite-house-turnover/

And now Ayers, a die-hard career climber and #MAGA evangelist, turns down the Chief of Staff job.

You get the sense that people on the inside know what's coming.

Maybe he figures he can just stay where he is and get the job by default soon anyway..

Think big. He could be VP.

Except he is leaving too. He is a young up and coming guy that wants a long career. If I were him I would step aside too. That is a stink that just won't wash off.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

It’s truly becoming unbelievable. What a colossal landfill. Everyone that voted for Trump should be embarrasssed to the point of not being to able to cast a vote for 20 years. Sad.

Every Dem that doesn't want to hold the DNC accountable for stealing.. err.. gift-wrapping the nomination for Hillary should be embarrassed they allowed a truly unelectable candidate to represent their party.

Think about that. Donald Trump was elected when everyone believed Hillary was going to take it - potentially in a landslide. That is how unelectable she was. There are actually some Trump supporters, why .. who knows. But the election was a referendum on Hillary.

Now my question, and it was talked about in the other thread, why isn't the GOP moving to replace him? Are they figuring he's getting indicted anyway and the DJT problem will just "disappear"? Guilt by association if they don't grow a spine and go after him as well. Do nothing and you're complicit. Trump going away won't save face for the GOP. Putting Trump away at the behest of the GOP could.

The DNC said some mildly critical things about Bernie over internal email, that's about it, from what I can tell. I'm sure there was probably equivalent clutching-of-pearls within the RNC - they just didn't go public. Hillary won because all the Bernie crowd were holding party/rallies in solidly white, affluent college campuses, etc. instead of campaigning door-to-door in the South, where Bernie got killed by Hillary.


Oh, I'm sure there are conversations going on about the 2020 elections in smoky back rooms. They're just not public.

16 Republican candidates, weren't there? But it's Hillary's and the Democrats' fault?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Not to mention, if it was a referendum on Sec Clinton, and she secured 3 million more votes than Pres Trump, then it’s hard to claim it’s her fault, or that she was unelectable.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I don't think it matters if the GOP put out 2, 3, or 100 candidates. I said blame the DNC for presenting an unelectable candidate. The GOP puts out Donald F-- Trump and he still won. People are looking to assign blame for the DJT mess and the fact is he didn't have a chance until Hillary opened her big fat mouth and insulted everyone who weren't big city progressives. In the end the real Hillary shone through and it bit her and the Dems in the ass and it was beautiful. Except for the whole problem of DJT getting into office.

Oh come on.. they know the electoral game. The victory parade was planned and paid for. The sheer fact that she lost on election night was a referendum on her alone. The Dems never should have been able to lose the election.

I am curious: She won the popular vote by almost 3MM votes. I would say that the electorate was clear as to their preference. If you don't agree, please explain.

She was not elected president because of the idiosyncrasy of the Electoral College. 80K votes in three states was the difference. That was bad electioneering (if that's a word) by the DNC.

FWIW I was extremely drunk when I wrote this. Can’t believe there weren’t more spelling and grammatical errors. My comment on not being able to vote was harsh and based on my disagreement that the election was a referendum on Hillary. I think that is the typical and obvious scapegoat.

The election for the right was a cut off my nose off to spite my face moment. They were so infuriated with how badly Obama had destroyed our country, despite all evidence to the contrary, that they voted for a guy (many of them twice) who was a near certainty to bring a dumpster fire to the White House. If the right wasn’t blinded by ideologies with no basis in reality we could have avoided this administration. This isn’t Hillary’s fault. This isn’t Obama’s fault. This administration is the fault of people who are so bent on vengeance that they were willing to sacrifice our country’s world standing. Sad.

For the same reasons none of them blasted him during the primary. They are trying to keep his supporters on their side. If the GOP Congress actually provided any oversight they could change things dramatically. Instead Devin Nunes runs a sham investigation that was never going to do anything other than say Trump is fantastic.

Hillary locked up the traditional sources of money and no big names came forward to challenge her. Bernie was as surprised as anyone that he caught fire. I think most of the reason he didn't have the ground game is that he never really thought he had a chance to win. By the time it became obvious he could it was too late.

The GOP is stuck. Ignore/enable Trump and you lose the middle 20%. Abandon/challenge him and you lose his supporters because you have painted him as the chosen one and you are sacrificing him on the altar of the Demon Rats. And you still don't get the middle 20%.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

In any other time or administration the line of folks who would want the CoS job would be a mile long. So far two prominent candidates have said- in the most Washington of ways- not just No, but Hell No.

Makes me wonder how close to the bottom of the barrel that Trump will have to dig to find the someone willing -not necessarily capable of being - to be next CoS.

Or will he just do it himself and have executive time all day in his residence in front of Fox News and his twitter machine.

---

Suffer Well.

This to me means a lot. Ayers is the real deal. A real life Olivia Pope (Scandal reference). Piece of shit political operative who is really good at being a piece of shit political operative. As opposed to a Paul Manafort who is all of those things except good at them.

If Nick is giving up on a lifetime opportunity to be the 2nd most powerful person in America it's for a good reason. Unlike half the idiots in the current White House, this guys is NOT stupid.

Maybe he has seen that people in the administration get a bunch of scrutiny and he is getting out before people start looking into how he made over 50 million dollars being a political consultant at the age of 36. That totally seems above board.

Well, the kid delivers. He's made Pence look appealing for Christ's sake. And he's kept him amazingly clean throughout this whole mess of an administration. That's incredible.

Yeah but, once your name peculates to the top of the headlines, it's a matter of time before the shit slinging against you starts.

---

--------------------------
The secret of a long life is you try not to shorten it.
-Nobody

"Everybody Wants To Work In The White House"






This might need to be updated.

---

Suffer Well.

This kid's got potential for SOS...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/...eriority-tirade.html

What would happen if Chris Christie becomes the next Chief of Staff?

Some of you might recall that the Christie put Jared Kushner's father in jail. Christie initially lead the Trump transition team in the WH, but once he was out of the running for a new job in the Trump administration and young Kushner purged anyone with ties to Christie.

We might find a new level of dysfunction in the WH if that were to happen.

---

Suffer Well.

Double the kitchen budget and be on lookout for bridges closing.

"I am curious: She won the popular vote by almost 3MM votes. I would say that the electorate was clear as to their preference. If you don't agree, please explain."

You weren't addressing me, but I'll say that she lost by 3M votes given to her by one state, the most leftist state in the country. If you want to project her win there across the entire country as being some sort of preference for the rest of the population, you don't understand the reason for the electoral college nor the way the rest of the country felt about her. The Dems have participated in Presidential elections before, so I think they knew the electoral college rules and they aren't 'idiosyncrasies'. They knew, but they lost. Get over it.


Greg

---

If you are a Canuck that engages in gratuitous bashing of the US, you are probably on my Iggy List. So, save your self a bunch of typing a response unless you also feel the need to gratuitously bash me. If so, have fun.
"Don't underestimate Joe's ability to f___ things up" - Barack Obama, 2020

You weren’t addressing me, but you conveniently ignored the point by giving some parts of the country more importance than others. You can’t pick and choose which votes you count when talking about the entire elecorate. Their statement as quoted is wholly accurate.

You seem to be missing the fact that California has plenty of weight. Acting like it's weighted the same as New Hampshire or something.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

The quote had nothing to do with the electoral college. They specifically said electorate. I’m not missing anything.

Consider the position filled

Jose Canseco, who was the first player to join the 40-40 club back when he hit 40 home runs and stole 40 bases in 1988, would like to join a new club.
Yup, he wants to become President Trump's latest chief of staff, tweeting:


Hey little buddy @realDonaldTrump u need a bash brother for Chief if Staff. Got a secret reorg plan already. Also worried about you looking more like a Twinkie everyday. I will buff you up daily workouts. DM me. #yeswecanseco

https://twitter.com/...taff-because-2018%2F

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Your signature is appropriate.

If Canseco was on the apprentice, I think the odds of this happening are 50/50.

well, I think he got the job title right...Chief if Staff. Because with the way things are going its definitely getting iffyer that the President will even need staff.