SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Trump on Falcon Heavy: "I'm so used to hearing different numbers with NASA"
During a cabinet meeting on Thursday inside the White House, President Donald Trump called attention to several model rockets on the table before him. They included an Atlas V, a Falcon 9, a Space Launch System, and more. The president seemed enthused to see the launch vehicles. "Before me are some rocket ships," the president said. "You haven't seen that for this country in a long time."
Then, in remarks probably best characterized as spur of the moment, the president proceeded to absolutely demolish the government's own effort to build rockets by noting the recent launch of the Falcon Heavy rocket. He cited the cost as $80 million. (The list price on SpaceX's website is $90 million.)
"I noticed the prices of the last one they say cost $80 million," Trump said. "If the government did it, the same thing would have cost probably 40 or 50 times that amount of money. I mean literally. When I heard $80 million, I'm so used to hearing different numbers with NASA.''
NASA has not, in fact, set a price for flying the SLS rocket. But Ars has previously estimated that, including the billions of dollars in development cost, the per-flight fees for the SLS rocket will probably be close to $3 billion. Indeed, the development costs of SLS and its ground systems between now and its first flight could purchase 86 launches of the privately developed Falcon Heavy rocket. So President Trump's estimate of NASA's costs compared to private industry does not appear to be wildly off the mark.
[*] SLS: Space Launch System
Related: Maiden Flight of the Space Launch System Delayed to 2019
WFIRST Space Observatory Could be Scaled Back Due to Costs
Safety Panel Raises Concerns Over SpaceX and Boeing Commercial Crew Plans
After the Falcon Heavy Launch, Time to Defund the Space Launch System?
Trump Administration Budget Proposal Would Cancel WFIRST
Leaning Tower of NASA
NASA Moving to Scale Back the Space Technology Mission Directorate
(Score: 5, Insightful) by khallow on Friday March 09 2018, @04:51PM (16 children)
Instead, he hides out in Washington DC and says so little that we have murky stories like, "The White House seems interested in the Falcon Heavy launch" [arstechnica.com]. And that story was all about Vice President Pence not Trump with everything gleaned second-hand from anonymous sources and a tweet from Pence's Chief of Staff.
As I see it, that doesn't say much for Trump's pragmatism, does it? But at least he's on the bandwagon now with time to spare.
And it's worth noting that his remarks, mild as they were, were the most pro-space a president has uttered in many a decade because they speak about the camel in the tent, the enormous cost and low expectations of NASA projects (particularly, manned projects) over the past forty years. Maybe this will be the start of the shakeup that NASA desperately needs to adapt to a reality of aggressive space activities by a good portion of the world and financial constraints on the US government.
(Score: 5, Funny) by BananaPhone on Friday March 09 2018, @05:35PM (2 children)
If you want *this* POTUS to show up, create a golf course with a McDonalds near by.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday March 09 2018, @10:53PM (1 child)
He's got his own Golf courses, and restaurants.
Huge savings over having the secret service rent an entire course for a whole day so Obama could play 6 holes [obamagolfcounter.com] and retire to shoot baskets.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by dwilson on Saturday March 10 2018, @05:09AM
They could always do the sane thing, and just.. play a round of golf. Like any other person with bodyguards. He's just a man, like any other. He doesn't need the whole damn course sectioned off to play on it. Catering to a politicians sense of self-importance only inflates their ego. Even if it is the POTUS.
- D
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Friday March 09 2018, @05:44PM (8 children)
Maybe this will be the start of the shakeup that NASA desperately needs to adapt to a reality of aggressive space activities by a good portion of the world and financial constraints on the US government.
NASA isn't really the problem here. Look at all the stuff they have done on much smaller budgets, that have been massive successes. New Horizons is a good example of this, as well as some Mars rovers, and various other probes.
The simple truth is that NASA simply can't get anything done that takes more than one Presidential administration's worth of time. If it's going to take more than 8 years to do, they just shouldn't even bother, because it's going to be a failure. Really, if it needs more than 4, they should think twice.
There's simply nothing that NASA can do about Congressional micromanagement and pork-barrel financing ("you need to do this, but it has to be in some flyover state that makes no sense to do it in because that's where my constituents are"), or about presidential administrations changing course every 8 years. So many decisions are made not because of technical needs, but political ones (using a particular supplier because of political connections for instance).
There's really nothing that can be done about all of this.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by khallow on Friday March 09 2018, @05:46PM (4 children)
Except, of course, having a disciplined organization present a coherent plan and stick to it. Drop cost plus contracts while they're at it.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Grishnakh on Friday March 09 2018, @06:07PM (3 children)
The organization can present all the plans they want, it doesn't matter. They'll be overridden when there's a new election and the makeup of Congress changes or there's a new Administration.
There's nothing that can be done about it unless you either stop having elections so often (maybe every 20 years), or you somehow make it so NASA doesn't have to answer to Congress or the President, and can do whatever they want once they have some money. Obviously neither of those is going to happen, so NASA will never be able to have successful manned missions. It only barely managed to do as well as it did with the Apollo program because the political leadership was scared shitless about the Soviets and got into a "space race" when they were beaten by Sputnik, so they managed to stay politically focused long enough, and poured enough money into the project, to get it done. And even then they defunded it after they succeeded in landing on the Moon a few times and truncated the program.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday March 09 2018, @10:56PM
... And made it clear to the rest of the world that they could put way-more-than-necessary-of-mass nuclear payloads precisely anyplace they wanted to within 240,000 miles - one of the most major objectives of the space program.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Friday March 09 2018, @11:14PM (1 child)
Pretty sure khollow wasn't serious about fixing NASA. He well knows that ship has sailed.
With three (or is it four) companies competing for space launch capabilities, prices are coming down fast.
The best use of NASA is being a standard's body. Sure, it will be regulatory-captured eventually. But you should be
able to get a few decades of safety oriented standards review out of them.
Maybe they could used be like the Highway Department, keep the facilities maintained, clean up the mess after an accident, etc.
Set standards for vehicle minimum equipment.
Its sad, but that's what government does. Happened to ESA. Happened to the Russians (who actually beat the US to quasi-privatized hardware development).
I use to be NASA's biggest fan. They use to do crazy and cool shit like fly shuttles around the country on the backs of Airplanes ffs.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Saturday March 10 2018, @12:59AM
They did that less than 6 years ago [wikipedia.org].
I like cooler shit like discovering thousands of exoplanets [wikipedia.org], flying by Pluto [wikipedia.org], orbiting Ceres [wikipedia.org], returning samples from an asteroid [wikipedia.org], visiting Europa [wikipedia.org], orbiting the largest metallic asteroid [wikipedia.org], etc.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @07:12PM (2 children)
Why do you hate flyover states? Doing something in a flyover state makes more sense than doing it in 17 different non-flyover states.
Flyover states are affordable. The space industry is well-established in Huntsville, Alabama. That's a fine place to get things done. The same might be said of Stennis Space Center in Louisiana.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Friday March 09 2018, @07:19PM
I think the problem is not that it is being done in Alabama or Louisiana but that keeping these facilities open is a reason to continue to fund a program or to ignore waste in the system.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday March 11 2018, @02:34AM
Frequently, facilities are put in those states not because it makes any actual sense, but because some politician wants to bring home the pork. If it makes the most technical and logistical sense to put it there, fine, but it frequently isn't the optimal location. This process usually results in spreading work out all across the country, instead of more efficiently concentrating it.
Also, to get work done, you need people, usually with very specialized skills. You can't just plop a government facility someplace and expect people to come there; this isn't "Field of Government Dreams". You have to go where the workers are, at least when you have a competitive job market. If you build something out in bumfuck iowa or wherever, you could very well be missing out on more talented workers because they don't want to move to the boonies. There's a reason Musk put Tesla in Silicon Valley: there's a critical mass of tech workers there (plus an unused factory he could buy up cheap, but I'm really addressing the engineering here). I've seen this myself with the government: they just can't seem to figure out why they have a hard time getting experienced engineers to move to rural places where they thought it'd be a great idea to have a R&D facility. I guess it works OK if you're just looking for nuclear engineers (who don't have a lot of other commercial alternatives for work), but for software engineers in particular, it doesn't work that way. "Affordability" isn't very important when it comes to finding qualified workers. If NASA decided to do a ton of software work at the Stennis center, how much success do you think they'd have recruiting people? Not much. Slidell LA is the closest civilization within reasonable commuting distance (~30min), and that place is not going to attract many software engineers.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday March 09 2018, @06:13PM (1 child)
I see what you did there. But, you're thinking like a politician. Trump thinks more like a - uhhhh - a Trump. Subject for future research: Does Trump really think, or is he just acting a role? Or, How does Trump thought resemble human thought, while differing so much from human thought?
Do political debates really matter? Ask Joe!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday March 09 2018, @08:52PM
Trump is very simple: at any given moment, he thinks "what can i say or do that, as far as I know, makes me look good, strokes my ego, and advances my agenda?" None of this is being thought in such explicit terms, mind; it's more that this is what his thoughts on the matter would look like if spelled out. He's a textbook narcissist.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Friday March 09 2018, @08:22PM (1 child)
Actually, it could be better for President Trump to distance himself from SpaceX and continue to let VP Pence handle NASA matters. Trump's mere presence at the launch would have politicized it. Compare to the tech/business council clusterfuck. Elon Musk left early, citing climate change. Other business leaders left after Trump's Charlottesville comments. Trump alternated between insulting the CEOs that left and saying that he understood the need to not put "pressure" on them.
If you look at the related stories, you'll see that the Trump administration appears to be standing behind SLS and Orion so far. So the waste will probably continue. These comments over here could signal a small possibility of defunding the SLS, but it's a difficult call since Falcon Heavy won't necessarily be able to replicate the missions SLS can (less payload, and SpaceX is going to skip flying humans with Falcon Heavy).
The Falcon Heavy launch was a symbolic victory for SpaceX, but BFR is necessary in order to kill off the SLS. Further delays to SLS could make it possible, but the Trump administration has not indicated any deviation from continuing to spend billions on SLS+Orion. And don't forget this clown [soylentnews.org].
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 09 2018, @10:14PM
So why is politicization supposed to be a problem? It's not the tech/biz council meltdown. If someone tries to politicize watching a launch and shaking hands, then Trump has won a minor victory on top of everything else.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday March 09 2018, @05:06PM (14 children)
No we certainly [wikipedia.org] have not seen rocket launches [wikipedia.org] from the United States in such a very long time [wikipedia.org].
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Friday March 09 2018, @05:15PM (7 children)
And I have to agree with him. We've had launches back all the way to the late 1950s. But the game has changed. The US despite its economic drawbacks is the dominant power in space right now. And an enormous part of that are the US launch providers.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday March 09 2018, @06:17PM (6 children)
I can agree with you on that. I know he had a legitimate point to make. I assume it is that it has been awhile since we've had independent manned US capability - a little over 6 years, or had the class of lift capacity that Falcon Heavy will promise. But he is such a poor communicator that he is bumbling, and almost anything he says can be torn apart easily because he does not speak with precision. I'd rather have Obama fumbling with his teleprompter not working, because that at least implies there is indeed a plan at work instead of deciding things on the spur of the moment - a poor trait for someone who has authority to launch nukes and I hope he is stopped before he tries.
Right now Russia is the only one that can put people in orbit. And China has its eyes on the moon. India is continuing to improve its capabilities. So why does it take a profit motive for us to attempt to be the dominant power in space? And no, I wouldn't say we're dominant there. Space science, quite probably - it's still pretty much us and ESA in distance probes. But selling out our space program for profit will turn out to be a short term gain at best.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Friday March 09 2018, @06:36PM (1 child)
You're asking the wrong question. You should be asking why should we go to space, if every bit of activity is a large cost to us on Earth? The answer to that is that we don't have a good reason in that case beyond rather trivial space activity.
The profit motive means that we have space activity that is self-funding.
The problem here is that we have a space program not a space civilization. Selling out for profit, as you put it, is the sure way to create that space civilization. Without genuine economic activity in space that returns more than it costs, space stuff will always be a hobby.
And China.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday March 10 2018, @06:01AM
People going around and around in circles is not America's proud destiny in space. I want NASA to lead an innovative space exploration program to send American astronauts back to the Moon, and eventually Mars. Russia & China are doing a partnership about going to the Moon. Maybe we can join them. Why not?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @07:39PM (3 children)
You are blinded by your bias.
Speech patterns of high-ranking powerful people tend to be vague and decisive. Giving detailed information and allowing for nuances is the speech of a powerless nerd. One projects power by deciding things on the spur of the moment, or at least appearing to do so. In other words, it's intentional. These behavior traits are both a symptom of existing power and a means to gain power.
You claim he is a "poor communicator" without realizing what he is communicating. He isn't a powerless nerd supplying information to a superior. He doesn't need to communicate facts. He needs to communicate power. He is doing exactly as required.
The ability to decide things on the spur of the moment is 100% exactly what you need for the authority to launch nukes. Remember, there is very little warning before an SLBM strikes. Quick decision-making is essential.
Speaking of poor traits, Trump threatens North Korea and Hillary (as secretary of state and during her campaign) pisses off Russia. There is a difference. Threatening North Korea a bit has gotten good results, with Kim agreeing to meet Trump face-to-face to talk about ditching his nukes. Trump knew what he was doing. Hillary got Russia building advanced ICBMs, not that Russia couldn't nuke us pretty well already. I think the results speak for themselves; it is clear who understands international relations better and it isn't Hillary.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday March 09 2018, @11:01PM (1 child)
Please remember that when you are radioactive ash. Instability is the last thing the world stage needs, ever. And our President is not stable.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 10 2018, @08:43AM
I disagree. We don't want so much instability that nukes are flying. But we should want enough so that we can insure that our societies can handle it. Squashing instability altogether is a recipe for a fragile society.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @11:33PM
Ok then how to you explain this? classic!!
Donald Trump Repeats The Same Sentence 9 Times In 43 Seconds ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXeCpalMCeM [youtube.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday March 09 2018, @05:22PM (5 children)
A president doesn't have the time to learn everything about every topic that comes up. The solution is to get summaries from staff, and read a lot at every occasion. If you don't know much, don't get in front of the press, or keep it short.
This president doesn't like to read, takes time to watch a lot of TV and golf, and is always in front of the camera, trying to keep talking, because he got richer that way.
Obviously, he regularly runs out of material to fill in the blanks, and has not shame just saying whatever will make him look good, or he thinks people want to hear, regardless of facts.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday March 09 2018, @06:17PM (4 children)
Doesn't have time to learn every new topic? Nonsense. The old bastard under discussion has had a lot of time to learn every topic there is to learn. He was born in 1946? What the hell did he spend all his time on since then? I realize he did the wine, women, and song thing - but did he just waste all the rest of his time?
Do political debates really matter? Ask Joe!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @06:54PM
That's a known effect that Twitter has on time.
(Score: 3, Touché) by khallow on Friday March 09 2018, @10:22PM
Sounds like he spent a lot of time managing things, like construction projects.
You argument is terribad for the simple reason that assumes he did something merely because he had the time to do something. I could argue the same about 8,000 meter peaks. Trump would have had plenty of time to hit all fourteen therefore he must have done them all. He had plenty of time to fly a human-powered aircraft around the world, therefore he must have done it. He had plenty of time to individually insult every person on the Earth whose name begins with "Reginald", therefore he must have done it.
Opportunity != accomplishment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @05:25AM (1 child)
Trump does not drink alcohol. Admittedly, he probably made up for it with more of the other two.
(Score: 3, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday March 10 2018, @06:22AM
I don't sing, I'm no musician. But I MORE than made up for it, believe me.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by knarf on Friday March 09 2018, @05:18PM (26 children)
The amount of virtue-signalling in the comment section is staggering, it seems they feel they have to stumble over each other to show how much they despise Trump. This goes so far that the actual message - SLS is overly expensive compared to Falcon Heavy, also Falcon Heavy exists while SLS is still a pipe dream - is drowned. Comments which point this out without adding enough hate for Trump are voted down, comments which do nothing but spout hate for Trump are voted up higher than the proverbial SLS rocket.
What ever happened to the doctrine of not shooting the messenger? Who cares what you think about Trump when the subject matter is totally unrelated?
If this is an example of the discourse among the educated - which is whom I assume to be the ones commenting on a space-related article on Ars Technica - I'll have to think twice before sending my children to those institutions where the former received their education.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Snow on Friday March 09 2018, @05:20PM (25 children)
Ars Technica is one big circlejerk.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Friday March 09 2018, @05:23PM (23 children)
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @06:01PM (3 children)
Thankfully you won't be banned here, as free expression is prized.
A bonus is that we get to laugh at you. Good times!
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday March 09 2018, @06:42PM (1 child)
Hey, I've been here a while. I have not been involuntarily committed yet, so far as I can tell.
People who think Republicans wouldn't dare destroy Social Security or Medicare should ask women about Roe v Wade.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @06:37AM
Shhh...... nobody tell him!
-Lawn
(Score: 3, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday March 10 2018, @06:57AM
They don't call it a ban. They call it Karma and IP Karma. But it's a ban. If you tweet something that makes certain Moderators (establishment & global special interests) uncomfortable, they down mod your tweet. Get enough down mods -- especially Spam Mods, those kill your Karma like crazy -- they hide your Journal. This is the new thing for 2018. And they make it so you can't tweet anymore, they've been doing that one for a long time. Unless you get different Internet. And there's one guy. I don't know, probably one guy, could be a lady. People say a bot, if they're right that's an amazing bot -- he always tweets about murder. About ass rape. Writing things that are a little bit disturbing. And have nothing to do with the stories. To trick the Moderators & Administrators into giving very negative IP Karma to a lot of the Internet. By getting down mods and a lot of Spam Mods. And the VERY, VERY FOOLISH Administrators go along with him. A lot of people won't be able to tweet. But it won't be called a ban. It will be called free expression.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @06:03PM
Aren't echo chambers wonderful? They provide a place for people like myself to play in. No cacophony is complete without a little discord, is it?
(Score: 2, Troll) by aristarchus on Friday March 09 2018, @06:19PM (17 children)
Did you ever think, oh climate denying khallow, that banning is not censorship so much as an attempt to tell you something? Just wondering.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @06:36PM (1 child)
Of course, burn the heretic. SCIENCE! demands it!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 09 2018, @06:42PM
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday March 09 2018, @06:39PM
To the contrary, oh aristarchus, why would I think anything else? And you call yourself a philosopher.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday March 09 2018, @06:55PM (3 children)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @11:39PM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @11:42PM
No one said anything about the first amendment. The concept of freedom of speech is far broader than its legal implementation. Even if a website doesn't have to respect free speech, it can do so, as SoylentNews does to a very high degree.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Saturday March 10 2018, @08:55AM
There's a very generous assumption that "the people" are listening and thinking. If they're banning, they're not listening. And most of this echo chamber banning doesn't involve a lot of thinking either.
(Score: 3, Informative) by unauthorized on Saturday March 10 2018, @02:19AM (9 children)
What they are trying to say is "we don't want you to be able to argue your position on our platform". That is censorship.
Your non-argument is predicated on a double dichotomy, sending a message and censorship are not mutually exclusive.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Saturday March 10 2018, @05:55AM (8 children)
Maybe, just maybe, they are saying, "khallow, you are being a dick, and the first rule is, 'don't be a dick'." Or, maybe they are saying, you have your ideologically based opinion that is completely false, and you are only generating noise, so we are preventing you from doing that. Or, maybe, they were saying, as often we do here on SoylentNews as well, "khallow, you are a shill. How much does Exxon pay you to post here?" Censorship? Hardly. Not a matter of a different opinion, a matter of being a dick, spewing disonance, or shilling for corporations. These exclude one from good faith debate of the issues.
(Score: 3, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday March 10 2018, @07:21AM (4 children)
The first rule of global warming conspiracy is, don't talk about global warming conspiracy.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday March 10 2018, @08:43AM (3 children)
You have broke character. It is now apparent to all and sundry that you are not, in fact, the realDonaldTrump. You must be a fake real Donald Trump, which is strangely apropos. The President is Virtue Signaling! He is a covert cuckservative SJW New York Real Estate Developer, and Slum Lord. But we knew that, already.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday March 10 2018, @10:31AM (1 child)
I'm playing myself. I'm playing a WINNER. I'm always myself. And I always win. So I'm always in character.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 10 2018, @04:34PM
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 11 2018, @06:17AM
So, Donald has a broke character, and you have a broke dick. You have something in common!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 10 2018, @08:59AM (2 children)
Words have meaning. Censorship [oxforddictionaries.com]:
Banning someone suppresses their speech. Thus it is censorship.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday March 10 2018, @11:35AM (1 child)
No, it is not, since the obvious rebuttal is that you still are spouting your mothership's madness here on SoylentNews! Those fine folks over at ArsTechnica, on the other hand, do not owe you a platform from which to broadcast your dark master's propaganda, khallow, as well you know. You need to pay for that kind of platform, or you end up down here with the trolls, who will rip you a new one seven ways to Sunday. Not to mention that what you're selling has no traction in a place like this. Or did you think that your very special opinion has some right to be expressed? Who's the snowflake now, huh?
(Score: 1, Troll) by khallow on Saturday March 10 2018, @03:06PM
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday March 09 2018, @06:34PM
I don't think it is that big, actually.
People who think Republicans wouldn't dare destroy Social Security or Medicare should ask women about Roe v Wade.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @06:08PM (5 children)
Having brought that rogue North Korean to heel, Trump is going to ride a Musk rocket into the heavens, and bring all the aliens to justice! The Orange One will soon rule the galaxy! And he certainly won't rule from some stupid SLS. Sounds like a relic that was rejected by Canon, around 1950. Praise Trump, and pass the Kodachrome!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday March 09 2018, @06:35PM (4 children)
How to do Haiku
I'm trying to remember
I came up with these
The sad orange clown
Its vomit stream on Twitter
Can not tell the truth
Little idle hands
The Devil's Twitter play thing
Tiny little hands
Press Secretary
Evade Lie Stall and Distract
Must not tell the truth
Dotard Trump the clown
An executive order
Feeble minded one
I swear I will tell
Lies, made up lies, only lies
Fact checked by Fox News
People who think Republicans wouldn't dare destroy Social Security or Medicare should ask women about Roe v Wade.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 09 2018, @10:25PM (3 children)
Like galactic victory
Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday March 10 2018, @08:53AM (1 child)
If you are going to do Haiku, you go to the master, Matsuo Bashô (松尾芭蕉) [carlsensei.com]
SoylentNews version:
An ancient pond,
khallow jumps in.
The sound of water.
*the sound of water here can be construed as the basis for climate change denial, but then we are still faced with the fact that khallow is a frog in this haiku, which means, according to Kermit, that "Time's fun when you're having flies."
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 10 2018, @09:00AM
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Saturday March 10 2018, @05:47PM
Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump
Guns Guns Guns Guns Guns Guns Guns
Grab 'em by the part
People who think Republicans wouldn't dare destroy Social Security or Medicare should ask women about Roe v Wade.