USA Today Editorial Board Calls Trump Unfit To Clean Obama’s Toilets

[enhanced_deficit]

This is probably unprecedented critique of a sitting POTUS who is also commander in chief of wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria:

12/13/2017 02:17 am ET

USA Today Editorial Board Calls Trump Unfit To Clean Obama’s Toilets In Scathing Editorial

By Rebecca Shapiro

USA Today published a brutal editorial (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/12/12/trump-lows-ever-hit-rock-bottom-editorials-debates/945947001/) from its editorial board Tuesday after President Donald Trump smeared Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) by saying she “would do anything” (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/12/12/trump-lows-ever-hit-rock-bottom-editorials-debates/945947001/) for campaign contributions.

“A president who’d all but call a senator a whore is unfit to clean toilets in Obama’s presidential library or to shine George W. Bush’s shoes,” USA Today’s Editorial Board wrote, adding Trump was clearly suggesting Gillibrand would trade sexual favors for campaign donations.

The board added that Trump is a “uniquely awful” person with “sickening behavior.” His tweet was a new low for a president redefining rock bottom, they wrote.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/usa-today-trump-obama-toilets_us_5a30cc54e4b07ff75afeb7de








Related

Donald Trump: I meant that Obama founded ISIS, literally
August 12, 2016
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/donald-trump-hugh-hewitt-obama-founder-isis/index.html



‘Trump Toilet’ Name Is Entirely Coincidental, Chinese Firm Says

https://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_46/1798471/161116-trump-toilet-cr-0343_04_e1dae7a28e8e5ccf1c72854a227f7e87.nbcnews-ux-600-480.jpg
Trump Toilet products on display. Courtesy Trump Toilet Co. Ltd
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/china/trump-toilet-name-entirely-coincidental-chinese-firm-says-n684686

[Swordsmyth]

USA Today is unfit to be used for TP.

[r3volution 3.0]

Trump's obviously unfit to be President.

Though this is also not news, so not sure why it's still being published and received like it is.

[oyarde]

Does the usa today have proof she would not do anything ? Or are they just being bad journalists ?

[TheCount]

I agree. He's probably never cleaned a toilet in his life and would do a terrible job.

[enhanced_deficit]

I agree. He's probably never cleaned a toilet in his life and would do a terrible job.

Not sure.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR0vY5BYQmI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR0vY5BYQmI

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

LOL. The media complains about all the competition on social media, but then it writes like some anonymous dunce posting on a forum.

[Swordsmyth]

LOL. The media complains about all the competition on social media, but then it writes like some anonymous dunce posting on a forum.

As an anonymous dunce posting on a forum I resent that, I write better stuff than they do.;)

[oyarde]

So far , nothing to make me think Trumps statement was not factual . His son said she had come to the office seeking contributions in as little as three days after having already been there for same .

[oyarde]

What if it is determined that Gillibrand is just a beggar ? Will the leftists say they were wrong ?

[dannno]

Trump should accuse her of sexual assault.

[Swordsmyth]

Trump should accuse her of sexual assault.

Or at least harassment.

[dannno]

Or at least harassment.

Is there a difference anymore :confused:

[Swordsmyth]

Is there a difference anymore :confused:

I keep forgetting.

[oyarde]

So in reality Gillibrand is addicted to Trump's essence .

[enhanced_deficit]

To give credit where due, Romney never accused Trump of such stuff when this was said about him:

Donald Trump: Mitt Romney 'would have dropped to his knees' for my endorsement
CNN
Mar 3, 2016 - The brash billionaire said Romney "would have dropped to his knees" for his support in 2012. ... Washington (CNN)Donald Trump struck back at 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney Thursday, blasting the former Massachusetts governor for "begging" for his endorsement four years ago ...

[fedupinmo]

USA Today's editorial board is unfit to soak up parrot shit.

[euphemia]

USA Today's editorial board is unfit to soak up parrot $#@!.

But the paper kind of works in the litter box.

[enhanced_deficit]

Incidentally, they are also concerned about diversity situation at White House ... that should have been renamed as Gray House during Obama regime.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcREA7A1_c61cqMsr31NV9CDUhoS8QBEf KM06IwtttUXjpkWed7rUK50rGqpxZM1dNGmB9TdlNXX73M (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/12/15/omarosas-departure-points-lack-diversity-he-white-house/954396001/)
Omarosa's departure points to lack of diversity at White House (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/12/15/omarosas-departure-points-lack-diversity-he-white-house/954396001/)
USA TODAY 2h ago


On unrelated note, there were also rumors that there were almost 0% arabs/palestinians in Trump administration.

[Madison320]

Trump's obviously unfit to be President.

Though this is also not news, so not sure why it's still being published and received like it is.

Bias check. Did you also feel Obama was unfit for office?

[Ender]

Bias check. Did you also feel Obama was unfit for office?

Probably the last president "fit for office" was JFK, but at least I could stand to look at Obama and he didn't send stupid, insulting, egocentric, bratty tweets around the world.

[PierzStyx]

Bias check. Did you also feel Obama was unfit for office?


Anyway the proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity. -Tolkien


No man is fit to rule another man.

[Madison320]

Probably the last president "fit for office" was JFK, but at least I could stand to look at Obama and he didn't send stupid, insulting, egocentric, bratty tweets around the world.

Yeah, but you tend to rank property rights pretty low on your list of priorities.

I cringed every time I heard Obama say "We need to ask the most fortunate to pay their fair share." That's sickening.

To me "fit for office" is a tough to define. On the liberty scale I'd give Obama a 3 and Trump a 4. At least Trump is making a slight change to one of the biggest injustices and that's the progressive taxation system.

[Madison320]

No man is fit to rule another man.

Have you guys noticed that anarchists never add any value to the discussion?

[Ender]

Yeah, but you tend to rank property rights pretty low on your list of priorities.

I cringed every time I heard Obama say "We need to ask the most fortunate to pay their fair share." That's sickening.

To me "fit for office" is a tough to define. On the liberty scale I'd give Obama a 3 and Trump a 4. At least Trump is making a slight change to one of the biggest injustices and that's the progressive taxation system.

I'd probably give them both a 2 and also most presidents from Lincoln on. Harding was an exception, although people tried to give him a bad rap after & now ignore him. Coolidge also carried on pretty well after.

Property rights are very high on my scale.

[TheCount]

I cringed every time I heard Obama say "We need to ask the most fortunate to pay their fair share." That's sickening.

When Trump says that tariffs have to be higher so the government can ensure that trade is fair, does it make you feel the same way?

[Jan2017]

USA Today adding . . . 'Trump was clearly suggesting Senator Gillibrand would trade sexual favors for campaign donations.' wtf?/lol

btw, Gillibrand's path to the Senate . . . started after BO's appointment of the junior Senator Clinton to the State Department

President-elect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States)Barack Obama (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama) announced his choice of Hillary Clinton, the junior (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seniority_in_the_United_States_Senate) U.S. Senator from New York, as Secretary of State (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_State).
Clinton was confirmed by a vote of 94-2 on January 21, 2009. Just hours before being sworn in as Secretary of State, Clinton resigned her senate seat, -Wikipedia

That confirmation was a cow dung stain on the BO transition team . . . Trump is the best odds to clean-up all the muck the nation is in from Hillary chit.

Cornyn: Clinton duped Congress during confirmation
Republicans say Clinton violated several terms of the memorandum of understanding from December 2008 that Bruce Lindsey, who then served as CEO of the Clinton Foundation, signed with Valerie Jarrett, who headed Obama’s transition team.

[Madison320]

When Trump says that tariffs have to be higher so the government can ensure that trade is fair, does it make you feel the same way?

No, tariffs are more like a flat tax or sales tax, everyone has to pay. If Trump had said we're going to have a new tariff and only people of mexican descent have to pay it, otherwise we are going to imprison them, then I'd feel the same way.

The biggest thing I don't like about tariffs is that they are not consistent. If you're going to have a tariff on imported goods we should just have it across the board on everything.

How did it make you feel when Obama used to say that?

Actually it's not just that one comment from Obama that pisses me off, it's a whole related collection. To make the analogy more accurate Trump would also have to declare that for US citizens of mexican descent, laws would be created after the non-crime was committed (antitrust). And then he'd have to declare that mexican descendants are going to be monitored to make sure they are associating with people of other groups or face criminal charges(discrimination).

[Madison320]

Property rights are very high on my scale.

Except you don't want them for everyone.

[Dr.3D]

Pelosi is much more qualified to clean toilets.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Actually it's not just that one comment from Obama that pisses me off, it's a whole related collection.



http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/64/646835838144e657d0e231f244a38ccdb1e654e37d2b8151a0 dff31bb163798e.jpg

[TheCount]

No, tariffs are more like a flat tax or sales tax, everyone has to pay.

Only if they choose an imported good, and only the particular imported good that is subject to the new tax. Trump is not advocating a flat, across-the-board tariff, he wants to selectively tax certain products as part of central planning of the market. The stated purpose of the tax is to change consumer behavior to benefit one group of people at the expense of another. I don't see the difference.


The biggest thing I don't like about tariffs is that they are not consistent. If you're going to have a tariff on imported goods we should just have it across the board on everything.That's a sales tax or some other kind of tax if you want it to apply to investments, etc.


How did it make you feel when Obama used to say that?Same way. Neither tax makes sense.


And then he'd have to declare that mexican descendants are going to be monitored to make sure they are associating with people of other groups or face criminal charges(discrimination).

Not Mexicans, just Muslims.

[Ender]

Except you don't want them for everyone.

Uhhhh.......wrong.

That would be big gov lovers who want the gov to take care of all their special little wantsies, while they pretend they want freedom for all.

I just want gov OUT.

[Madison320]

Only if they choose an imported good, and only the particular imported good that is subject to the new tax. Trump is not advocating a flat, across-the-board tariff, he wants to selectively tax certain products as part of central planning of the market. The stated purpose of the tax is to change consumer behavior to benefit one group of people at the expense of another. I don't see the difference.


I thought tariffs were for imports by definition? I can't think of a tariff that extorts large amounts of money from a minority and gives it the the majority in exchange for votes. For example sugar tariffs take money from almost everyone and give it to a small minority. I don't like it but it's not a criminal injustice the way targeting a small group would be. Nobody likes paying for government but there's a huge difference between asking a small minority to pay for it and spreading the pain evenly.

Give me an example of a tariff proposed by Trump that is anywhere near the injustice of the progressive tax system.

[TheCount]

I thought tariffs were for imports by definition? I can't think of a tariff that extorts large amounts of money from a minority and gives it the the majority in exchange for votes.

No, it's the opposite: It extorts a large amount of money from the majority and gives it to the minority. It's corporatist economic welfare.



For example sugar tariffs take money from almost everyone and give it to a small minority. I don't like it but it's not a criminal injustice the way targeting a small group would be.

It's either just or injust, it can't be more or less just based upon the quantity of people to whom it is applied.



Nobody likes paying for government but there's a huge difference between asking a small minority to pay for it and spreading the pain evenly.

That's the thing: Trump's tariffs are not designed to pay for government. The goal is that no one will pay them. Instead, the artificially increased price of the imported goods will drive people to purchase domestic goods instead, benefiting those involved in that industry at the expense of all other Americans.

In order for tariffs to pay for government, it would have to be either a tariff on something for which there were no alternatives, or else a tariff that did not increase the cost of the imported good above the cost of the domestic good, which would be unappealing for the corporate donor class which is pushing this issue.


Back when government was actually funded with tariffs, they were placed on luxury goods for which there was no domestic alternative... thereby taxing the minority to pay for government in exactly the way you say is particularly unjust.

[Madison320]

It's either just or injust, it can't be more or less just based upon the quantity of people to whom it is applied.


I disagree. I don't know the proper word but it's immoral when you target a small minority to pay for government as opposed to making everyone pay. Suppose there was a small island nation and they decided to build a port. Instead of taxing everyone the same they decided to make one rich guy pay for the entire port. So he ended up homeless and penniless and no one else had to pay. Do you see the moral difference?

Also the dynamics of "vote for me and I'll steal for you" don't really exist with tariffs so it doesn't get nearly as out of hand.

Again I'll ask you, name a tariff Trump has called for that compares to the injustice of the progressive income tax system that Obama promoted?

[Madison320]

Trump's obviously unfit to be President.



Bias confirmed.

[Madison320]

It's either just or injust, it can't be more or less just based upon the quantity of people to whom it is applied.


Apparently you were so outraged by Trump's tariffs that you blocked it out of your memory and couldn't think of one.

Anyway I looked it up. The worst one I could find was a proposed 20% steel tariff. So that's maybe a .01% tax on the majority of US citizens. As opposed to the income tax which is a 39% tax on 1% of the citizens. That's like comparing butt grabbing to forcible rape.

I don't like targeted tariffs but the reason they get enacted is because a small group gets a noticeable benefit, but the tax is spread out and small so most people don't notice it. If there was a tariff that transferred wealth from one small group to another small group the vote buying effect would be negated. Compare that to the Marxist progressive tax system where wealth is stolen from a small group, whose votes don't matter, and transferred to a large group whose votes do matter. That's why you get a 39% tax rate, antitrust laws, discrimination laws, etc that target a small group.

[enhanced_deficit]

12/13/2017 02:17 am ET

USA Today Editorial Board Calls Trump Unfit To Clean Obama’s Toilets In Scathing Editorial




Probably not connected but the Trumps-Obama situation is getting bit out of hand.


http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/12/Donald-Trump-Jr-Ted-Cruz-Obama-cookie-Instagram-640x480.jpg

Donald Trump Jr. showed up in Dallas with a big Obama cookie. A small furor ensued.

By Avi Selk December 19

The president's eldest son shared the photo on Sunday with no less than three tears-of-joy emoji, and more than 40,000 people clicked a heart beneath it.

But many most severely did not enjoy this little mix of confection and politics.
Some accused the cookie, and by extension the men with it, of disrespecting the office Trump Jr.'s father now occupies.
Some even saw racism (http://www.tmz.com/2017/12/18/donald-trump-jr-obama-cookie-pisses-off-restaurant-owner/) within Obama's glazed contours.

The Dallas Observer, the city's alternative weekly newspaper, reported on (http://www.dallasobserver.com/restaurants/dallas-restaurant-le-bilboquet-responds-to-sen-ted-cruz-and-donald-trump-jr-photo-with-obama-cake-10178484) calls to boycott the city's ritzy Le Bilboquet restaurant, where Trump Jr., Cruz and the Obama cookie had gathered for a party over the weekend.
Le Bilboquet's owner consequently disavowed the pastry in an open letter to his customers (https://demu.gr/10029999953), expressing “indignation” that people unknown had brought the cookie into his restaurant “to promote, disrespect, and spread hatred.”

Newsweek wrote the senator “appeared unmoved by the cookie,” though Bill Kristol saw a “sickly smile” (https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/942574648243482624) on his face — as though he had some foreboding of the storm to come.

And a storm there was.
The Hill described (https://twitter.com/thehill/status/942840417388818433) the cookie's decoration as a “distorted image of Obama.” (The poster it was modeled after was probably the most iconic image of the 2008 presidential campaign.)

The Daily Mail made a headline (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5192679/Don-Trump-Jr-Ted-Cruz-called-racist-Obama-cookie.html) out of a quote from an obscure tweeter: “racist minstrel show on cake,” which TMZ also picked up on.
Cruz's office did not immediately respond to questions about the cookie, and Trump Jr. declined to comment on it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/12/19/donald-trump-jr-showed-up-in-dallas-with-a-big-obama-cookie-a-small-furor-ensued/

[TheCount]

Apparently you were so outraged by Trump's tariffs that you blocked it out of your memory and couldn't think of one.

Anyway I looked it up. The worst one I could find was a proposed 20% steel tariff. So that's maybe a .01% tax on the majority of US citizens. As opposed to the income tax which is a 39% tax on 1% of the citizens. That's like comparing butt grabbing to forcible rape.

Sure, 20% steel. Are you going to pretend like that's the only protective tariff that we have or will have? How much is the tax on lumber? Beef? Aluminum? Cars? Trucks? Poultry?

A policy like this does not contain itself to one product or one industry. It grows until it reaches every industry that can afford lobbyists. Just like that income tax. Don't worry, it's just a small temporary income tax... The butt grab is just foreplay. When they grab your ass and you respond positively, they're going to go for more.





I don't like targeted tariffs but the reason they get enacted is because a small group gets a noticeable benefit, but the tax is spread out and small so most people don't notice it. If there was a tariff that transferred wealth from one small group to another small group the vote buying effect would be negated. Compare that to the Marxist progressive tax system where wealth is stolen from a small group, whose votes don't matter, and transferred to a large group whose votes do matter. That's why you get a 39% tax rate, antitrust laws, discrimination laws, etc that target a small group.

Do you think the import taxes on a Fiat and a Ferrari are the same?

[Madison320]

Sure, 20% steel. Are you going to pretend like that's the only protective tariff that we have or will have? How much is the tax on lumber? Beef? Aluminum? Cars? Trucks? Poultry?

A policy like this does not contain itself to one product or one industry. It grows until it reaches every industry that can afford lobbyists. Just like that income tax. Don't worry, it's just a small temporary income tax... The butt grab is just foreplay. When they grab your ass and you respond positively, they're going to go for more.



You're completely missing the point. The injustice of the progressive tax system is that it's a big amount stolen from a minority. Tariffs are a tiny amount stolen from the majority.

I just looked it up and the US collects about 30 billion a year in tariffs. Assuming 250 million adults that's $120 per adult. Assuming an average wage of 50K, that .24%.

So the progressive income tax steals 39% from a minority and tariffs steal .24% from the majority. See the difference? Not only is the amount 156 times greater, it's leveled at a minority. Remember that the immorality is greater when you target a minority verses spreading the pain evenly.

[TheCount]

You're completely missing the point.no u.


The injustice of the progressive tax system is that it's a big amount stolen from a minority. Tariffs are a tiny amount stolen from the majority.

I don't see your point. Trump wants to change that. People who want to fund the government via tariffs want to change that. People who want to replace the concept of free trade with the concept of "fair" trade want to change that.


I just looked it up and the US collects about 30 billion a year in tariffs. Assuming 250 million adults that's $120 per adult. Assuming an average wage of 50K, that .24%.

So the progressive income tax steals 39% from a minority and tariffs steal .24% from the majority. See the difference? Not only is the amount 156 times greater, it's leveled at a minority.

Still not getting what you're trying to say. If all of government was funded with tariffs and there was a .24% income tax, would the situation be reversed and now the income tax would be moral and the tariff immoral?


Remember that the immorality is greater when you target a minority verses spreading the pain evenly.

You have a fascinating ability to transform opinions into facts. It's like magic.

[Madison320]

I don't see your point. Trump wants to change that. People who want to fund the government via tariffs want to change that. People who want to replace the concept of free trade with the concept of "fair" trade want to change that.


Show me where Trump is proposing to eliminate the income tax and replace it with tariffs.




Still not getting what you're trying to say. If all of government was funded with tariffs and there was a .24% income tax, would the situation be reversed and now the income tax would be moral and the tariff immoral?


Yes, if the entire govt was funded by tariffs and only a small minority had to pay those tariffs, it would be just as immoral. But that's not what Trump is proposing, unless you know otherwise. As far as I can tell his proposals might raise it from .24% to .26%.



You have a fascinating ability to transform opinions into facts. It's like magic.

You mean like 39% and 30 billion? My posts are full of facts, you didn't post any. All you can do is hurl insults.

I have a question. Until you answer this the rest of the argument will never make sense. Do you agree that's it's more immoral to target a particular group to pay taxes as opposed to having everyone pay? Earlier I posted an example where an island nation decided to build a port and force one guy to pay it. Don't you agree that that is worse than having everyone pay?

[TheCount]

Show me where Trump is proposing to eliminate the income tax and replace it with tariffs.

There's a punctuation mark between the words about Trump and the words about funding the government. It is called a period. In common usage, it separates two discrete ideas.



Yes, if the entire govt was funded by tariffsImpossible.



You mean like 39% and 30 billion? My posts are full of facts, you didn't post any.As I pointed out, those are irrelevant numbers unless you believe that it's the quantity of tax that makes it bad rather than some other feature of the tax. So far you haven't answered that question and have been rather schizophrenic on that topic, sometimes talking about fairness/equality and sometimes about quantity.



I have a question. Until you answer this the rest of the argument will never make sense. Do you agree that's it's more immoral to target a particular group to pay taxes as opposed to having everyone pay? Earlier I posted an example where an island nation decided to build a port and force one guy to pay it. Don't you agree that that is worse than having everyone pay?

No. Ideally, taxes should be services-based, payment for those services rendered to the citizen by the state. All citizens of that nation should only pay taxes for the construction of the port if they benefit from that port. If, for whatever reason, that one guy is the only person who will benefit from that port, or will somehow benefit disproportionately from that port, it's entirely feasible and sensible that he alone pay for the port.

[Madison320]

No. Ideally, taxes should be services-based, payment for those services rendered to the citizen by the state. All citizens of that nation should only pay taxes for the construction of the port if they benefit from that port. If, for whatever reason, that one guy is the only person who will benefit from that port, or will somehow benefit disproportionately from that port, it's entirely feasible and sensible that he alone pay for the port.

You're avoiding the question. Ok, I'll try one more time. Assume the government service benefits everyone like the military. Is it more or less immoral to force a small group to pay or to make everyone pay?

[Raginfridus]

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/12/Donald-Trump-Jr-Ted-Cruz-Obama-cookie-Instagram-640x480.jpg


http://video.dailymail.co.uk/video/1418450360/2012/08/1418450360_1808428649001_55c52114930ba41b65cccc464 f3037ad-503b9131.jpg

[TheCount]

You're avoiding the question. Ok, I'll try one more time. Assume the government service benefits everyone like the military. Is it more or less immoral to force a small group to pay or to make everyone pay?

I didn't avoid the question. People who receive the benefit should pay for it. If that's all, then all should pay.

I'm not sure why you're presenting it as an either/or, though; as I pointed out, this is not eliminating the income tax. It cannot possibly replace the income tax. In addition to taxing different people differently, we're also taxing people for the express purpose of market manipulation.