Sean Spicer Resigns as White House Press Secretary After Objecting To Scaramucci Hire (cnbc.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sean Spicer Resigns as White House Press Secretary After Objecting To Scaramucci Hire (cnbc.com)

Posted by msmash on Friday July 21, 2017 @06:10AM from the what's-happening dept.

CNBC reports: White House press secretary Sean Spicer abruptly resigned Friday after opposing President Donald Trump's appointment of Anthony Scaramucci as communications director. The president asked Spicer to stay in his role, but Spicer said appointing Scaramucci was a major mistake, The New York Times, citing a person with direct knowledge of the conversation. NBC News confirmed the resignation with two people familiar with the matter. Spicer tweeted later that he will continue to serve through August. White House chief of staff Reince Priebus was said to have advocated naming Spicer as press secretary. The two worked at the Republican National Committee before joining the administration. Following Spicer's resignation, Priebus said he supports Scaramucci "100 percent," according to news reports.

62 of 543 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Checked... by XXongo · 2017-07-21 05:57 · Score: 5, Funny

I had to check to make sure this wasn't fake news, but seems to be true; it's reported elsewhere: http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/21/...
1. Re:Checked... by MightyMartian · 2017-07-21 05:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I got the impression that it was a matter of when, not if. I'm assuming Priebus won't be far behind. At this point, and with the way Trump is treating Sessions, I can't imagine many people will want to even work for the Administration.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
2. Re:Checked... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-07-21 06:09 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I can't imagine many people will want to even work for the Administration.
  The Administration can't even fill 500+ top-level positions because job candidates are automatically disqualified if they have ever said anything negative about Trump.
3. Re:Checked... by Baron_Yam · 2017-07-21 06:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Oh come on, what qualified individual wouldn't jump at the chance to work for someone who is impossible to please and will blame you (in public, shouting to basically the entire English-speaking world and reaching well beyond that) for failing to do the impossible?
  The pay must be great.
4. Re:Checked... by BKDotCom · 2017-07-21 06:12 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  He's not going to like what Scaramucci said about him in 2015
  “a hack anti-American bullies association don’t like the way he talks about women”
  https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy...
5. Re:Checked... by rahvin112 · 2017-07-21 06:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Not just that, but to fail to illegally stomp out an investigation. He's angry as Sessions for not stopping the Russia investigation. He wants to reorganize the FBI and put them under direct control of the president so he can politicize law enforcement.
  Just remember Trump supporters. The same things you let Trump do will be available to the next Democratic president.
6. Re:Checked... by OzPeter · 2017-07-21 06:44 · Score: 2
  
  Oh come on, what qualified individual wouldn't jump at the chance to work for someone who is impossible to please
  It's more than impossible to please. Apparently Sessions should either have been clairvoyant or used a time machine to predict that he would have to recuse himself prior to the actions that caused the need for that recusal.
  That's some wacky Trump level BS in just that.
  
  --
  I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
7. Re:Checked... by davester666 · 2017-07-21 06:48 · Score: 2
  
  The pay is better if you are a guy...
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
8. Re:Checked... by dszd0g · 2017-07-21 06:52 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You would think it would be fake with what Scaramucci has said about Trump in the past. Someone must not have shown Trump videos of what he's said about him. Trump isn't usually one to let go of past insults.
  Scaramucci has called Trump a "big mouth", "anti-American", and a "hack." "You’re an inherited money dude from Queens County." That Trump should be "president of" "the Queens County Bullies Association." He said Trump should "cut it out now and stop all this crazy rhetoric spinning everybody’s heads around.”
  https://thinkprogress.org/anth...
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  
  --
  This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
9. Re:Checked... by MightyMartian · 2017-07-21 06:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Does anyone actually believe he runs his companies? He's the brand name, the wrapper on the chocolate bar.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
10. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 07:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Absolutely. +1. Demos got pissed at "unconstitutional" crap Bush did. Repos got pissed at "unconstitutional" crap Obama did...some of the very stuff that Bush did. And of course, Bush was also *mostly* following precedent. But each new precedent makes it easier for the next president.
  sr
  Not that Obama was perfect by any means, but he did try to get Congress to remove some of the crazy powers the President now has but the GOP wanted those powers if it won so they refused. Or maybe it was just because Obama was black. Honestly, I can't even tell anymore why the GOP hated him so much there is video of it's leaders publicly stating they will oppose anything Obama does, no matter what it is. They weren't banking on Trump winning, though, and now the most unstable, thin-skinned, easily manipulated, foolish, childish, moron on the planet has scary, relatively unchecked power.
11. Re:Checked... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 07:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I think it's straightforward - Trump expected him to lie.
12. Re:Checked... by Freischutz · 2017-07-21 07:07 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I can't imagine many people will want to even work for the Administration.
  The Administration can't even fill 500+ top-level positions because job candidates are automatically disqualified if they have ever said anything negative about Trump.
  Automatically disqualified? Some of these people seem to think that if it ever got out that they had been even so much as considered for a position by the Trump administration it would be damaging to their careers so they are calling in and preemptively asking to be removed from all lists of people under consideration by the Trump admin.
13. Re:Checked... by interkin3tic · 2017-07-21 07:13 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  At this point, and with the way Trump is treating Sessions,
  I'm not convinced that's a real thing. Sessions is part of Trump's core appeal to people who still think law and order are on the brink of breaking down, with drug-addled black lives matters activists plotting to murder us all.
  
  The part of the right wing that hasn't completely abandoned reality recognizes crime is at a 50 year low., but there's a big contingent that doesn't believe evidence is important when dealing with crime.
  
  Without Sessions focusing the right wing's fear onto the usual target of black men who use drugs, it might be tough to keep them distracted from questions about crimes inside the white house. Trump could easily be dumb enough to not realize that, but I have to think whoever of his allies he listens to realize it. That line in the interview was just part of the usual stream of consciousness coming out of the POTUS' mouth. He likely forgot he said it a minute later.
  
  Furthermore, I'm skeptical how much Sessions actually recused himself. I have no proof he was or is meddling with the investigation, but why would we just assume anyone in the administration has done behind closed doors what they said they would? For that matter, even a more respectable administration, why would we just take their word for it?
  
  Until Trump gets impeached and Sessions carries out whatever role he is supposed to play in the process, I'm going to remain convinced this whole "Trump and sessions breakup!?!?" is just another plan to distract attention from Russia, tax cuts for the wealthy, and the health care repeal.
14. Re: Checked... by sexconker · 2017-07-21 08:06 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Excellent. We have excellent chocolate, the best. Trust me, I know chocolate. We'll have the top chocolate people in our administration and we're going to make chocolate great again.
15. Re:Checked... by painandgreed · 2017-07-21 08:11 · Score: 2
  
  Does anyone actually believe he runs his companies?
  I bet he does.
16. Re:Checked... by BarbaraHudson · 2017-07-21 09:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What's the mechanism for voting the President out of office, exactly?
  There is no mechanism for that in the Constitution.
  Sure there is - it's right in the constitution under impeachment. A simple majority of the house and a 2/3 majority of the senate can vote him out of office. If he becomes toxic enough to the incumbents, they'll vote to impeach to keep their own seats in a future election. Nothing personal, just business (or self-interest, which politicians are really good at when it comes to voting on legislation, etc.)
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
17. Re:Checked... by quantaman · 2017-07-21 09:07 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I can't imagine many people will want to even work for the Administration.
  The Administration can't even fill 500+ top-level positions because job candidates are automatically disqualified if they have ever said anything negative about Trump.
  Automatically disqualified? Some of these people seem to think that if it ever got out that they had been even so much as considered for a position by the Trump administration it would be damaging to their careers so they are calling in and preemptively asking to be removed from all lists of people under consideration by the Trump admin.
  So goes liberal influence. Be progressive or be left behind.
  It's about integrity, if you're a Trump appointee you're going to be put in a position where you have to publicly contradict your boss or lie your ass off. If you choose the first you'll have a really crappy job and you probably won't last long, if you choose the second you've destroyed your reputation and will have trouble finding reputable work afterwards.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
18. Re:Checked... by BarbaraHudson · 2017-07-21 09:09 · Score: 2
  
  People have withdrawn their names after Trump nominated them.
  Accepting a Trump position could turn out to be a career-ending move. Rejecting one could be seen as a positive.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
19. Re:Checked... by UnknowingFool · 2017-07-21 09:51 · Score: 2
  
  You be the judge.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
20. Re: Checked... by BarbaraHudson · 2017-07-21 10:03 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  What's the mechanism for voting the President out of office, exactly? There is no mechanism for that in the Constitution.
  
  he has to commit a crime. ping!
  Whether he has committed a crime is irrelevant to the quote I replied to, which claimed that the was no mechanism for voting him out of office in the constitution, when the simple fact is that the constitution specifies that a simple majority vote of the house and a 2/3 majority vote in the senate is exactly that mechanism the poster said doesn't exist.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
21. Re: Checked... by John.Banister · 2017-07-21 11:04 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  And, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" includes "conduct unbecoming the office." 30 Republican Representatives & 20 Republican Senators are what it would take (assuming all non-Republicans favored impeachment).
22. Re:Checked... by lgw · 2017-07-21 11:48 · Score: 2, Troll
  
  is idiot peasant followers from the village will come after you with social media attacks, pitchforks, handguns, and pit bulls.
  Wait, so progressives support Trump now? Or have you missed the fact that 100% of political violence since November was initiated by the progressives, and social media hate mobs are entirely a progressive phenomenon?
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
23. Re:Checked... by Baron_Yam · 2017-07-21 12:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Why are you Trumping? (Telling an easily falsified lie)
  The meeting has been confirmed by the participants (with documentation), its legality is questionable enough it should end up a court case, and the Trump team has only revealed details one at a time as the press forced them to do so.
  They conspired to violate American law by attempting to meet with agents of a foreign power to meddle in a domestic election. They covered their tracks. Now That they are exposed they're actually claiming it's OK because they failed at it.
  If you're defending that with the official "nothingburger" line, you're so partisan as to be brain damaged.
24. Re: Checked... by Darinbob · 2017-07-21 14:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I suspect the court gets to step in and decide if the crime really rises to the level necessary for impeachement. The constitution does not say "for any reason" and so any legal dispute here goes to the supreme court. This is not at all the same thing as a recall election.
  One would hope of course that any honest and sane representatives would refuse to vote to have the impeachment proceedings in the first place, and then vote against impeachment during the hearings, if there was no actual crime. Assuming that there are honest and sane representatives to be found.
25. Re: Checked... by Enigma2175 · 2017-07-21 14:08 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  But the constitution doesn't go into detail on what those impeachable offenses are, just "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors". High crimes are crimes against the state by a person in a position of power, like bribery or corruption. If 1/2 House decides that firing Comey was obstruction of justice (another "high crime") and 2/3 of the Senate agrees, then what he did is an impeachable offense whether or not it rises to the level of a criminal offense.
  
  --
  Enigma
26. Re: Checked... by dbIII · 2017-07-21 14:54 · Score: 2
  
  You called the other poster a moron unfairly. If the President has so little of the confidence of both houses that they are voted out then they are unfit by definition.
  The only "cause" required is that enough representatives want them gone. It makes perfect sense and avoid loopholes.
  You seem to think this is about the rule of law, it's not, it's just politics. An "innocent" President who has almost no support in Congress and Senate can be removed just as easily as a guilty one with the same lack of support.
27. Re: Checked... by BarbaraHudson · 2017-07-21 15:56 · Score: 2
  
  Again, read the original statement, which was the claim that there was no provision in the constitution to vote out the president. I pointed out that this was simply not true, that the constitution in fact allows for it. If you're too lazy to look a few posts up, here's the link.
  I was addressing ONLY the question of the constitution, not about whether Trump has actually done anything to be voted out. Learn to read before you call other people morons, moron. Why are you continuing to criticize me for something I never said or even implied? Practicing for when Scaramucci is thrown under the bus?
  I did say that if it came to that, both houses may decide at some point that it's more advantageous to vote him out, but that is not the same as saying that he may have done anything (specific or non-specific) to justify it.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
28. Re: Checked... by Grishnakh · 2017-07-22 04:32 · Score: 2
  
  Yep, that's the one.
  It's definitely an interesting legal question I think. It was clearly put there to handle cases of the President becoming incapacitated somehow (sickness usually, injury that doesn't kill him, like a coma), but "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" could also be argued to apply in cases in sheer incompetence or total lack of support (i.e., the President can't get anyone to work for him), which is what we're seeing now. But doing so can also be argued to be a method of carrying out a bloodless coup, just because Congress doesn't like the President.
  However, I would argue that this is just what's needed, even if it really does constitute a "coup". In countries with better governmental systems (which is pretty much all of them that are democratic republics), they don't have the problem where the legislature can't get along with the executive. They have parliaments, and the executive is chosen by parliament, not by the people in a popular election. Some of our own founders even promoted this idea, and it's unfortunate it didn't get adopted. When you can a country where the voters choose some people for the legislature, and then some other person for the executive (in a different party than the majority of the legislature), you get gridlock and a government brought to a complete standstill, just as we saw during the Clinton years during his impeachment. That's a really stupid way to run a country, and a stupid way to design its system of government. Every advanced nation on the planet, like Germany, Japan, the Scandinavian countries, etc. all have parliamentary systems. In the wake of WWII when the US was helping its defeated and occupied nations (Germany and Japan) set up new governments to its liking, did it have them model their new governments on our Constitution? Nope; they were made to resemble France's government instead. The only countries that resemble ours governmentally are a few Latin American countries like El Salvador, and they're a complete mess. If our constitution is so great, then why would we not make Germany and Japan copy it? Because it's a lousy system of government, that's why.
SNL... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-07-21 05:58 · Score: 4, Funny

Melissa McCarthy is signing up for unemployment benefits. So much for the Trump economy.
1. Re:SNL... by sexconker · 2017-07-21 08:11 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  That Amazon link (when unshortened) contains an affiliate tag (&tag=cdr-slashdot), meaning creimer gets a cut if you buy that product within a certain amount of time of clicking the link, or if you buy some other product.
  No thanks, creimer.
Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by Baron_Yam · 2017-07-21 06:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

Now that he doesn't have to spin (which is a really, really generous way to put it since it was more like bald-faced lying) to cover the outburst of five minutes ago knowing he'll be undermined by the ill-considered revelation of five minutes hence.
I also find it difficult to believe Spicer will find a less respectful, less loyal boss wherever he goes next, given how often he got thrown under the bus.
1. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by Drewdad · 2017-07-21 06:10 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  "Perhaps he can recovery some dignity..." ... but he'll never recover his integrity.
  Why anyone reported on what he said baffles me; he has to rank up there with Baghdad Bob.
2. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by American+AC+in+Paris · 2017-07-21 06:12 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I mean sure and maybe the Nazgûl can give their rings back to Sauron and become human again
  
  --
  Obliteracy: Words with explosions
3. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by sinij · 2017-07-21 06:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Spicer works in communications in politics. Integrity is not part of the job description.
4. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by HornWumpus · 2017-07-21 06:44 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Traditionally, the White House Press Secretary doesn't want to know the truth. So nothing he or she says can technically be called a lie.
  Worst informed person in any whitehouse.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
5. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by American+AC+in+Paris · 2017-07-21 06:49 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Nazgûl
  All right, what were you trying to write and why are you too stupid to use the Preview button?
  Exactly what I wrote: Nazgûl. If there's an issue with special characters displaying fine in my browser but getting munged across browsers/platforms, that's hardly my fault, yeah?
  Also, Slashdot doesn't let people post without previewing, but I suspect you knew that.
  
  --
  Obliteracy: Words with explosions
6. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by Mysticalfruit · 2017-07-21 08:08 · Score: 2
  
  I think a couple of things might happen.
  
  1. He'll simply slip into obscurity as that guy who was the first press secretary in a long line of press secretaries for Trump. Pitted by forgotten.
  
  2. He'll come out strong as being a voice of reason in the white house who finally left in disgust when he realized Trump is surrounded by sycophants and ultimately Trump is a shitweasel. His reputation will be salvaged as the guy who left.
  
  If option 2 becomes true maybe he becomes some kind of spokesman for/against the administration? Who knows!
  
  Remember. None of this is normal.
  
  --
  Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
7. Re:Perhaps he can recover some dignity... by BarbaraHudson · 2017-07-21 09:43 · Score: 2
  
  The way Trump is handling his appointments, it's probable that the next one will be so bad as to make Spicer look good in comparison. Same as Trump makes people nostalgic for the days of GWB. Or even Nixon's 1st term.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
One word... by Kergan · 2017-07-21 06:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

Finally.
Seriously... Biggest crowd ever on day one? "It's not a travel ban" when Trump was calling it just that on Twitter? “Not even Hitler” employed the use of chemical weapons? Has there ever been a US press secretary so ill informed and/or prone to lying?
1. Re:One word... by Baron_Yam · 2017-07-21 06:08 · Score: 2
  
  I don't respect him for lying - he should have resigned as soon as given orders about the mall crowd crap - but you can't lay the ultimate blame for the lies themselves at his feet.
  Well, probably for the Hitler one, that sounds like a really, really stupid ad lib.
2. Re:One word... by apoc.famine · 2017-07-21 06:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Press secretaries generally don't say stupid things all the time. They are chosen because they're eloquent, intelligent, well informed, and thoughtful. I.E. not the way Trump's are.
  
  --
  Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
3. Re:One word... by Nidi62 · 2017-07-21 06:53 · Score: 2
  
  Press secretaries generally don't say stupid things all the time. They are chosen because they're eloquent, intelligent, well informed, and thoughtful. I.E. not the way Trump's are.
  Spicer was between a rock and a hard place, though. The official message coming out of the White House was very often up against hard facts directly disputing the official line. In the face of clear contradictory evidence, the only option he had was to keep pounding out the line. They have to know most of the statements they make are pure bullshit, but it's their job. It's how Trump operates and how he expects his administration to operate. Look at Kelly Ann Conway for another example.
  Personally, I think SNL should do one last Spicey skit, it could be his last press conference, and have the actual Sean Spicer play a reporter and ask Spicey a question. He's seemed to at least publicly have a decent sense of humor around the Spicey sketches and it would be a good way for him to say "no hard feelings".
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
4. Re:One word... by apoc.famine · 2017-07-21 07:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I absolutely agree that he was fucked in his job. Press Secretaries are supposed to help drive the president's agenda, and when yours doesn't have one, that is really hard. Press Secretaries are supposed to work with the president to stay on message, and when the President can't do that, how can he? Super tough job, for sure. But Spicer wasn't anywhere near good enough to even make a half-assed attempt at it.
  
  But just because you're between a rock and a hard place doesn't mean you have to stay stupid shit, or every press secretary ever would be getting the same level of treatment that Spicer got. Hell, he gets Baghdad Bob comparisons! If you're between a rock and a hard place, you don't have to say that Hitler didn't use chemical weapons.
  
  Plenty of competent press secretaries have done this job, and have turned "no comment" into an art form. It's notable when one is unable to do that. Notable enough that their antics get into pop culture. The average joe couldn't name more than 1 other former press secretary. The average joe knows this one.
  
  --
  Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Re:So they won't quote anonymous sources... by MightyMartian · 2017-07-21 06:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yes, poor poor Donald Trump. What's a man to do?
Oh, that's right, try to find ways to fire the special prosecutor and indemnify himself and his close cohorts by pardoning the whole bloody lot.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Scaramucci's main qualifications by presidenteloco · 2017-07-21 06:13 · Score: 2

He's got well-developed shoulder and bicep muscles, which will be useful for shovelling the shit.

--

Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Rather and the lack of skepticism by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-21 06:16 · Score: 5, Informative

I think it's a little silly to think that Rather knew the Killian documents were fakes-- believing that the documents were real killed all respect for him in his chosen profession. and made the capstone to his long career in television the fact that he was a dupe. The exposure of fake documents very plausibly led to George W. Bush's election, so if he ran with the story because he "hated George W. Bush", he did exactly the opposite of what was intended.
A more real interpretation, however, is that since the faked documents confirmed the worst of exactly what he already believed, he failed to use his journalistic skepticism and just ran with it.
The take-away lesson is to continue to be skeptical even when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe-- in fact, to be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe.
Or, in the words of scam-busters: "if it's too good to be true... it probably isn't."
1. Re:Rather and the lack of skepticism by phantomfive · 2017-07-21 08:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe.
  Oh yeah, that's a quote worth remembering.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
2. Re:Rather and the lack of skepticism by skids · 2017-07-21 13:50 · Score: 2
  
  Nope.
  
  --
  Someone had to do it.
Can't be trusted! by Gravis+Zero · 2017-07-21 06:16 · Score: 3, Funny

You can't trust anything Reince Priebus says when you don't even know his real identity! Reince Priebus is just an anagram for his secret luddite society: Beeps Incur Ire! ;)

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
1. Re:Can't be trusted! by hyades1 · 2017-07-21 07:02 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  The conspiracy is even deeper than you think, and yet it is there for all to see, when you know where to look.
  If you take all the vowels out of his name, "Reince Priebus" becomes "RNC PR BS".
  
  --
  I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Re: why by alvinrod · 2017-07-21 06:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's here because it will get gobs of page views. This really is in no way related to technology at all though and is particularly egregious even by modern /. standards. I can see big political or world events getting reported on, or finding the tech connection, but tying this to technology or nerdy things requires the kind of stretch found only in advanced yoga.
Why not answer the real question? by EmagGeek · 2017-07-21 06:20 · Score: 5, Funny

Can Scaramucci do the fandango???
Re:And who the fuck cares exactly? by MightyMartian · 2017-07-21 06:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

Because that's the most serious thing happening in US politics going on right now.
If you don't like these kinds of stories, why do you bother to open them and comment? I think the answer is obvious; you do care, it makes you angry, and you feel compelled to open such stories, comment on how they don't matter and yet still try to throw out some red herring about the other team.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:why by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-07-21 06:29 · Score: 2

Politics on Slashdot goes back to Al Gore inventing the Intertubes.
Re:And who the fuck cares exactly? by MightyMartian · 2017-07-21 07:05 · Score: 3, Informative

There have been political stories on /. since I was started posting here (circa 2003). In other words, if you don't like the story in question, then don't open it up. It's really simple, and doesn't make you sound like an arse.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:And who the fuck cares exactly? by Baron_Yam · 2017-07-21 07:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

Try to stop being butthurt that this is news that makes Dems happy instead of news that makes Republicans happy. Maybe if you hadn't elected Trump the news would go your way more frequently.
Anyway, continuing to stand solidly behind Trump as he constantly shows himself to be inept and corrupt is just going to hurt your party in the next election cycle. At some point, you're going to have to admit you were wrong.
Which, by the way, doesn't mean you're turning into a Democrat, or that you're calling for the destruction of the Republican party or its fundamental policies. It means you recognize you screwed up and put the wrong figurehead on your organization.
Kind of like the Democrats screwed up by trying to build a Clinton dynasty with Hillary and condescendingly brushed off the disenfranchised voters who ultimately flocked to Trump.
Every second you dig in your heels instead of correcting your mistake is hurting your party AND your country further.
A little too far by SuperKendall · 2017-07-21 07:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

I was pretty happy when Trump was elected, because finally the press would be paying attention to things the president did...
However they have dialed it WAY TOO FAR towards over-coverage when on my technical news site I am getting stories about a press secretary resigning.
At this point any real news is going to get lost in the seas of mundanity, which rather defeats the point of covering actions.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Re:ho hum by cayenne8 · 2017-07-21 08:42 · Score: 5, Funny

Scarramuci, Scarrumuci...will you do the Fandango??
Thunderbolts and lightening, very very frightening ME!!!

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
That's not the problem by rsilvergun · 2017-07-21 11:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

the problem is Comey proved that even if you hand Trump victory on a platter he'll drop you like a bad habit at the first sign of trouble. I mean, Comey basically gave the election to Trump with that Oct surprise of his and Trump couldn't even understand that he had nothing to fear from him. Trump's dangerously unpredictable for all involved.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Re:Comedian on SNL by TsuruchiBrian · 2017-07-21 11:35 · Score: 2

I don't know if Spicer can be funny on purpose.
Re:Not true by interkin3tic · 2017-07-21 18:07 · Score: 3, Informative

But the fact is the majority of Americans _want_ the government to take a larger role in improving their lives. Trump played to that and the media played along and let him talk out of both sides of his mouth. Make no mistake, the Dems lost because they tried to have their cake (big money donations) and eat it to (populist left)
Those are good points, but I'd say you're missing the glue that holds it together is that the voters were stupid. Hillary came up with concrete, detailed plans that would help the populace. The voters ignored such boring things and voted for vague unrealistic one-line promises, first in the form of Obama, then almost in the form of Sanders, finally in the form of Trump.

I didn't hear much about big money donations, though maybe that was just because of the sheer volume of Trump related nonsense.