Trump hard at work, signing a blank piece of paper with a Sharpie

It has kind of a “Jack Torrance at the Overlook” vibe.

The President posed for two pictures of him “hard at work.” They were staged photo-ops, shot a few minutes apart, using two different back-drops. His activity can be seen in one of them. He is scribbling his signature with a thick marker.


42 thoughts on “Trump hard at work, signing a blank piece of paper with a Sharpie

  1. Trump and the GOP have done remarkably well as “incompetents” at destroying US institutions and dividing US society. Maybe then other side is “incompetent” as well?

    1. Yes, in a sense, Tanner, in the same sense the Belgium and the Netherlands and Norway were all incompetent in 1940 because they did not realize that the Nazi’s simply were not playing by the rules, plus a BIG dose of wishful thinking in Belgium’s case. France was just plain literally incompetent, and had the legacy of political disunity analogous to what we have now, and politicized almost every aspect of defense policy in the 1920’s and 30’s. Their method of drafting men, for example, was done for political reasons, but made organizing and training the army very, very difficult.

      But I am digressing again. Yes, the Democrats cannot get their act together. I don’t have clear explanation for why that is.

  2. Roger:
    Look at the map of Europe in , let’s say, late Nov. 1941 (before Rostov and the Moscow counteroffensive) and tell me that they just lucked into that. Despite the usual flaws in intelligence and logistics (the Germans sucked there in 1870 and 1914 too – read Kenneth Macksey on that), that Army was good. Up until the moment Goering got involved, the campaign in the West was about the best pulled-off thing since the Little Corporal’s Ulm campaign (the one resulting in “Sire, you see before you the unfortunate Mack”). Their problem was not lack of talent. It was arrogance, racism, (particularly being dismissive of the Russians (untermenschen) and us (a mongrel nation)), the perfect is the enemy of the good, and biting off more than their under-resourced crony-riven economy could handle at one time. And being complacent that blitzkrieg was a one size fits all magic thing. Distances, terrain, nature of “roads”, force to space ratio, different rail gauge, horse-killing conditions, tank-killing dust were all factors they blithely overlooked in the East.
    My point with Tanner was that Trump’s crew has no comparable talent in its ranks compared to Hitler’s. Which is a good thing, considering that their lack of scruples is comparable. I’m not going to go into a comparative Catalogue of Thugs or this post will get too longer.
    And now for…
    I got up to the box and dunked my ballot (mile and a half hike). Now Biden just might take DC. Planning to reward my civic virtue with a good dinner, a good 1/2 bottle, a Dodgers win and a Yankees loss tonight.

    1. Well, Bill D., it’s impossible to deny results. But I suggest the German victory in over France, the Low Countries, and the BEF were victories over enemies who were just not ready to fight. The Russians were VERY unready in the summer of 1941, largely because of Stalin, who did his utmost to make the initial German attack a complete disaster for the Red Army. Stalin kept helping the Germans well into1942, when he finally began listening to the STAVKA and Zhukov in particular – sometimes. (Not that Zhukov was as perfect as he was later made out to be. See “Operations Mars”, for instance.)

      (As for their utter neglect of the logistics involved in Russia, and the poor performance of the “crony ridden” German economy, I am in complete agreement.)

      Then Hitler took over the job of “National Leader Who Is A National Disaster As A Strategist” (a position arguably held by Churchill before Stalin). Nazi “brilliance” was inversely proportional to the length of time they had been at war with a county, IMO.

      But I am afraid I am quibbling. Over your main point – the Trump Administration’s lack of first rate, or even competent, steady, second-raters, I cannot disagree with you. Trump has fired or repulsed everyone with actual ability. Even the Nazi’s were better off than that, largely because Hitler’s ambition was nationalist and racist, rather than utterly personal and nakedly corrupt. IMO, anyway. It is one of the few saving graces of this disaster, and a basis for hope in turning it around.

      Thank you for your replies.

      1. A lot of the Nazi brilliance (and in tactical terms many of them were brilliant) got sent packing in Dec 41-Jan42 and never got brought back. For example, Guderian (shameless self-promoter but also hellaciously good general) never had another field command. Just the opposite was happening on the other side. People like Rokossovsky, in my book the best field commander of the war, Konev, Vatutin, Bagramyan, et al. were getting bumped up. Incidentally Zhukov might well have talked Stalin out of shooting Konev the preceding fall – and the two loathed each other.

        1. Although some dispute how much influence he had, the main success of Hitler and the Nazis at the start of World War II was in recognizing that the new military technologies overcame trench warfare. The first person who recognized this was former British military strategist Liddell Hart, but he was largely ignored in Britain and listened to in Germany and France preferred the false security of the Maginot Line.

          The Nazi’s added to Liddell Hart’s theories a much greater use of air power.

          (Of course, given the terrain, trench warfare was much less likely on the Eastern Front.)

          Given this, it’s interesting to speculate on what would have happened had France and Germany decided to attack Nazi Germany after Germany invaded Poland rather than sit. I gather there are differences of opinion on this, but given the failure of trench warfare, had France and the U.K engaged Nazi Germany in something approaching ‘total war’ on German soil, I think the allies would have made relatively short work of Hitler.

          1. Should say “had France and the U.K decided to attack Nazi Germany”

            sorry for the error.

          2. Not just Liddell Hart but fellow tank prophet JFC Fuller. Total whack job – Fascist, occultist, big on enemas, Aleister Crowley buff. Short, temperamental, nasty, paranoid. Liddell Hart was tall, a slow talker, friendly, universally liked. They worked together, and remained friends despite their personality and intellectual differences. Looked like Mutt and Jeff when together ( I got that from my professor, Jay Luvaas, who knew both). To oversimplify, BLH was more into strategic doctrine, JFC was into tactics and technical things. But a lot of overlap.
            “Fuller’s ideas on mechanised warfare continued to be influential in the lead-up to the Second World War, ironically less with his countrymen than with the Nazis, notably Heinz Guderian who spent his own money to have Fuller’s Provisional Instructions for Tank and Armoured Car Training translated.” (Wiki)
            I wrote a paper on Fuller in Dr. Luvaas’ Military History course. Aced the sucker.
            There was another big prewar influence on the Germans – an Italian named Douhet- “The bomber will always get through.”
            Waygo Kiermeier! (baseball ref).

    2. I believe right-thinking people of all political stripes can agree that the Yankees suck dog balls. Maybe this is just the bipartisan point we can unite around and start rebuilding our fractured but whole nation.

      1. LOL. But I love dogs and would not want to expose their tender parts to Bronx Bummers. As an Ohioan, might I suggest wolverine balls?

  3. “felt that anyone who was too competent was a threat” or “feared anyone who was too competent” . Take your choice. Also, that should be a period after “overrated”, not a comma. You know, I can proofread OTHER people’s stuff really well.

  4. Tanner, there were people in that bunch with serious, if twisted, brains and ability. I’m not seeing any in this crowd of handpicked arschleckers.

    1. The Nazis are overrated, They had some first rate men, but a lot of the people at the top (Hitler and Goering, for instance) felt that anyone who was too competent and held them down or forced them out. The Nazis were at their best when pushing around the weak, the unready, and those who could not grasp that the Nazis were not bound by principles of any kind, including those of the Nazi Party (see the Hitler-Stalin pact for an example). That is how they were able to take over Germany, bowl over France, and make huge stride in Russia in 1941. They started losing when they had to deal with tough opposition that was ready for them (and after they were at war with almost the entire world – heckuva job, Adolf!)

      Himmler, for example, was not even second rate, and the guy Albert Speer replaced , Fritz Todt, wasn’t any too hot either, despite being in an absolutely key position.

        1. The eyes, right? Jared also gives off that strange viperface vibe. I’ve seen the “Heydrich Death Car” (probably genuine) in and the church crypt in Prague, not to mention the window the Catholics got chucked out of in 1618. Unfortunately the Commies had ruined the assassination site where Kubis and Gabcik nailed the Heartless Wonder. For some reason my historical sightseeing was minimal this last summer. Thanks Trumpy!

      1. Goering – morphine addict
        Hitler – wired for sound, with a side of IV animal adrenal extracts
        The Blitzkrieg worked mainly by gulping speed and not stopping to sleep
        The book is called Blitzed – totally worth finding

  5. It must be that catchy Republican Platform Resolution (there is no actual platform).
    “RESOLVED,
    That the Republican Party has and will continue to enthusiastically support the President’s America-first agenda”
    Yep, sounds like a cult to me.

  6. It “appears” to be blank. From that angle you can’t see what’s on it except for the marker he uses. He always signs with a marker like that. He has a cool signature. It looks like calligraphy. These juvenile attacks are so weak.

    1. Does it actually physically hurt to try and twist yourself so far to continue to explain your cult leader’s idiocy?

      But yeah, maybe they use invisible ink now. Actually, I’ll be unsurprised if this becomes the newest taking point from the cult. Have another gulp of that Kool-Aid!

      1. Kevin, when confronted with someone as gullible as stephen, the only right and proper thing to do is to try and sell them something. I suggest magic beans. If you can’t, it will only be because they have already given all their money to Trump, or Jerry Falwell, Jr., or spent it all buying Amway products.

  7. Ready to be puked…

    (Trump) seemed to argue his getting sick was a necessary risk to show he was a strong leader…

    “As your leader, I had to do that,”

    “I knew there’s danger to it — but I had to do it. I stood out front. I led. Nobody that’s a leader would not do what I did. And I know there’s a risk, there’s a danger — but that’s okay,”

    1. …which would certainly explain why “explain” why he waited seven months to so gallantly lead.

      How *anyone* can possibly believe this moron is still completely beyond me; it goes beyond idiocy to something more intrinsically pathetic. Even idiots occasionally figure it out.

  8. Still not as “good” as when Sarah Suckup’s people ineptly doctored video to try to show that the Zombie Girl had been assaulted by Jim Acosta when she tried and failed to take his mike away.
    Btw, Miller just tested positive.
    And Billy Beane’s shit still doesn’t work in the playoffs.

    1. Oh, no, not Miller! How the hell am I going to pretend to be sorry about that?! It was tough enough with Trump. Miller is going to break me.

        1. Stake through heart, cut off head, stuff mouth with garlic, plant at crossroads.
          I loved the hell out of Buffy but they only did that “dusting” thing because they were on a low budget.

  9. What’s actually really funny about this is how even after almost four years of experience, Trump and his cabal are so impressively terrible at this. Why in the world would you stage a photo and have him sign a *BLANK* sheet of paper ‽ For the love of god, someone print out a damn page of something, anything, and make it look even vaguely believable.

    To call the Trump Administration “amateur hour” would be to heap enormous praise upon it. These people are depriving villages of their idiots.

  10. Got my early vote in today against the moron, feels good to have it on the record, even if it’s just one a multitude.

    And he unilaterally ended any negotiations of a stimulus, taking sole responsibility of any chance for relief, so he doesn’t even have to pretend to sign anything now.

    You couldn’t imagine a better crash and burn than he’s pulling off right now. Four more weeks and this clown is done.

  11. He graduated fingerpainting in the top 2/3 of his class, owning the Libs (that is, the two Liberian kids who thought fingerpainting was stupid and wouldn’t do it).

  12. I wonder if that paper is blank because A) they won’t let Trump sign real laws in whatever condition he’s in now, or B) if he routinely signs blank paper so that Stephen Miller or Mitch McConnell or whoever can fill in the top part later with whatever they want?

    1. Nah. He usually watches several hours of TV, plays a few holes, knocks off a passel of tweets, THEN scribbles his name in front of a backdrop.

    2. I used to sign things in crayon, because Sharpies had not been invented. I am not sure I could write, but I could sign my name at least as well as Trump does.

      Then I got entered 1st grade, and we got pencils.

      Big, fat, pencils, but still, a pencil. I think we got regular pencils in 2nd grade, and maybe even pens by 3rd!

      I still use pens. Will I have to go back to big, fat crayons when I am Trump’s age? I hope I remember how to write. My father could, at that age, and for almost two decades more.

      He wasn’t a billionaire, though. I suppose you don’t have to try as hard if you’re a billionaire. Trump isn’t one, but he likes to act the way he thinks one would act.

      1. I vaguely recall using a #3 pencil a few times. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a #1 pencil though.

        1. The numbers on pencils are a reference to the hardness of the lead in them, IIRC. A number 2 was the average, and was in very wide use. Number 3 was harder, so it was less smeary and the pencil lasted longer, but it made a fainter mark as well. You saw them around some, usually with people who were concerned about neatness. Number 1 would have been very soft. Maybe the big pencils we had in 1st grade were Number 1s, but I have no memory of that hardness at all.

          Also, thanks for the compliment, Roger L. Sometimes my serious posts are funny, and my funny ones are just sad. I need to work on that.

        2. Everything you (n)ever wanted to know about pencil numbering.. Truly James L. Pencil was a mathematical genius in creating numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4, but it was up to his son, and inheritor of the family business, the great Johnny Pencil, to create the highly coveted 2 1/2.

          Talk about thinking outside the box.

          To this day, the Pencil family’s laboratories are at work night and day to break the “4 barrier.”

          1. Definitely more than I ever wanted to know, but now I feel so smart!

            Now that I’ve been reminded, I’ve definitely used a few 2.5 pencils in my time as well.

Comments are closed.