Just...Awesome!
http://www.gettrumpybear.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...;v=6Vt3WdZYm3E
Printable View
My Christmas list-Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
DONE!!!
I wake up to find that the President has rebuked Theresa May with the astonishing advice 'Don't focus on me' when that seems to be what he needs most. There are arguments that these tweets were a diversion from the problems he is having getting his tax proposals through Congress, that he is deflecting any discussion of the claims he has sexually harassed women over many years, and that he is bunkered down in Washington reviving the 'birther controversy', and repeating the claim he won the popular vote in the election, while Mueller gets closer and closer.
Whatever the truth, this has been a remarkable moment in Anglo-US relations, as I can't think of another time when a US President has been so disrespectful of our Prime Minister, and became a partisan supporter of such an extremist group as Britain First. In the context of events earlier this year some will add it to the list confirming his preference for White Supremacist groups over others, or claim he is messaging his core voters, but I now wonder if even these voters are becoming tired of the routine tactic of 'stoking the fire' when in reality it does not produce anything that can be pointed to as an achievement. I don't suppose most Americans care one way or the other who Britain First is and like the President who tweeted the wrong Theresa May before having a second go, know little about Theresa May, but there used to be at least some sense of decency in the US-UK relationship, whether it is a 'special' one or not. That has ended. The US has abandoned human rights, and far from promoting democracy around the world, is tacked on to the tails of anti-democratic dictatorships and autocracies the President approves of, either because they give him money, or because their leaders 'get things done'. The only thought that gives comfort is that this idiot will one day leave the White House and never return, the sooner the better.
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/36...e-has-dementia
Take this with a few giant tablespoons of salt, but we have no way of evaluating it. His judgment is bad, his speech has changed over the years, but whether he has dementia or how quickly he's deteriorating, I don't know. Just thought it was interesting if Scarborough has heard that from people close to Trump.
Whether or not the President is literally or metaphorically demented, the important thing for me is the varied reaction to the re-tweets and the extent to which those responsible have dodged the key element in all this. I understand that for the British government the anxiety lies with those productive relationships with the USA in security and intelligence matters, NATO and politics at that level, which they do not want to undermine by becoming more involved with a dispute over tweets -I suspect May and her advisers just dismiss this as typical of the moron in the White House about which they can do nothing until he goes.
But when the BBC interviews the official cretin Sebastian Gorka or the tv channels and radio bring on Ann Coulter or apologists like the southern lady Mosbacher or Sarah Sanders, it is clear their agenda is skewed toward their definition of 'Islamst terrorism'. But the real impact is not Islam at all, but the extent to which fringe groups on the right have been empowered to the extent that they see the President as their ally, a situation that would have been unthinkable before, the only conceivable parallel being Regan's visit to Bitburg in 1985.
So Jada Fransen's twitter account has grown and she has appealed directly to the President to help her in her court case, while the American extremists like Robert Spencer, the KKK and Breitbart have all used this to legitimize their toxic politics of hate. Indeed whe Robert Spencer is quoted on his website saying
“The real question is not whether this or that video is accurate, but whether there is a problem with jihad terror and Islamic supremacism in Britain and elsewhere.”
-The words are almost identical to those used by the President's spokesperson Sarah Sanders, exposing not a gap between the Presidency and White Supremacists, but just how close to each other they are.
And thus we reach a point where the truth is no longer relevant, that a broader campaign is under-way that will use all and any means necessary to broadcast its message, in this case facilitated by a country that used to defend democracy and human rights. What else can explain this garbage? -
Perhaps most alarmingly, the outpouring of Islamophobic remarks triggered by the US president was not confined to the extreme margins of public life. The unofficial fan page for Judge Jeanine Pirro, the Fox News and NBC celebrity, was also full of toxic comments praising Trump and warning Britain that it was about to become a Muslim state.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ht-racism-hate
I agree with every word here...the dementia thing is at this point a frivolous side note, but in no way removes culpability or even explains the bigoted vituperation emanating from his twitter account. The Britain First scandal does explain the de-sensitizing effect that his behavior has on the American public, as it is almost as though we are taking cues on how appalling his behavior is from the international reaction. We have seen behavior like this that pushes the norms on an almost daily basis, from Muslim-bashing to bashing of Hispanics, to attacks on free press, to sentencing recommendations on twitter, to other attacks on the judiciary, to attacks on the independence of the justice department. For the British, the Britain First party is a known entity and so maybe the shock is immediate...there is no testing of norms or process of wondering whether there is accountability for the man's words and actions.
Later today I'm going to read about Flynn, which surely is part of the next news cycle on Trump.
Step back and look at this mess.
Every other Nation in the World has downgraded our standing, except Russia and Saudi Arabia,
I remember Reagan had full blown Alzheimers his last year in office, and nobody noticed,
but in Trump's case, he really does believe he's the only one who matters, he's said so.
Dementia is like the fifth worst flaw in his head.......
I can only hope, here on my 3,000th post, that the childlike nature of the months leading up to the election left childlike easy to unover mistakes, and Gen Mikey J Flynn is singing like a caged canary.
I don't think Bob Mueller wants to be a "player" in all this, but you gotta figure he's the guy right in the middle conducting not only the investigation, but real-time events happening in the Halls of Congress. There has to be a certain amount of red blooded personal revulsion he feels for Trump and what's he's done to his beloved FBI. I hope so.
michael flynn just pled guilty to lying the F.B.I. what else does anyone need to realize this idiot in charge is fucking retarded?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/u...stigation.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/o...takeaways.html
This is another new york times article, but a slightly less factual article and more of a legal analysis. The article argues that in addition to the lying to the fbi charges, there is other leverage against Flynn out there. As a result, he is going to be very cooperative with Mueller. What he has to offer Mueller (in addition to info on Kushner) is that Trump himself directed him to make contact with the Russians to basically conduct foreign policy to undermine a sitting President. There is also more evidence in this vein that Flynn interfered with U.S. foreign policy respecting the UN resolution against Israel for illegal settlements.
It also bolsters the obstruction charges against Trump if Flynn has direct information on them, we will no longer have to speculate on Trump's state of mind when he spoke to Comey or his confession to Lester Holt. Instead, we will have an accuser, a man who he reportedly obstructed justice on behalf of.
Therefore, no email evidence, no financial deals, no underlying conspiracy, just good old-fashioned abuse of power and rogue foreign policy. It doesn't mean these other things aren't out there. But why shouldn't obstructing justice and undermining the foreign policy of a sitting President be enough for impeachment?
Edit: please don't respond to the last rhetorical question by reminding me of the Republican Congress:)...I very much appreciated the optimistic tone of this article.
The BBC 2 Newsnight programme tonight claimed that there were only three people on the transition team higher than Flynn: the President-Elect, the Vice-President Elect, and Jared Kushner. The latter is already rumoured to be about to board the bus back to New York, Tillerson also in the process of being 'let go' before or after Christmas. But can this shambles be dismissed as the work of amateurs? Surely a transition team is given clear legal advice on what it can and cannot do. Also, Obama was explicit- he advised the President-Elect not to give Flynn a job, which suggests the FBI/CIA had concerns about him. That the President-Elect ignored the advice is precisely an example of resentment trumping reason, because anything Obama said was wrong, though it turns out he was right all along. Yet again, it is the lies, and the ease with which people in positions of authority tell them that undermines their legitimacy. And we are still just scratching the surface.
Edit: please don't respond to the last rhetorical question by reminding me of the Republican Congress...I very much appreciated the optimistic tone of this article.
Me too.Remember, just like Putin has tons of incriminating information on Americans they think they can use, we have tons of info on no-good-niks in Europe also. We don't advertise it, but we play as dirty as they do in some areas. They said the wires overseas lit up the night Trump was elected. Gossip City. And we heard most all of it through wiretaps. So I think MAYBE Mueller and his buddies in the FBI and CIA have known everything already, it's just a question of if they want to start a Political WWIII here and abroad. Taking down the President of the United States and maybe some Russians also would give anybody pause, it's going to create vast ripples and ramifications way past our little understandings. There's going to be pushbacks for years. They have to weigh and measure everything out before they act. But it looks like it's going down, if Trump goes nuts and starts talking real crazy shit.....I'm thinking more and more Republicans go to PLAN B and save what's left of their chickenshit asses. I'm pretty sure Mueller and his team have story-boarded everything that might happen, we do have some pretty capable people in this country, it takes a pretty big crisis to draw them out. By all accounts, the Mueller Team are the best and brightest, quite a contrast from Trump, Jared, Granny, and Jethro.
The one charge they decided to hit Flynn with was his involvement with Russia.
Yes indeed, but the investigations now under way are not about gossip, but concrete allegations that the Republican candidate during the election campaign, and the Transition Team of the President-Elect between November 2016 and January 2017 violated the 'Logan Act' of 1799 -a federal law (1 Stat. 613;18 U.S.C. §953) aimed at preventing private citizens from conducting foreign affairs without the permission or involvement of the US government.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38973965
There are also allegations of an obstruction of justice in relation to the above.
The issue related to Michael Flynn touches on the Logan Act with regard to the claim that the President-Elect's Transition Team had communications with the Russians which were intended to affect politics, thus:
Mr Flynn, a former army general, admitted that during telephone conversations with Mr Kislyak, he asked for Russia to try and delay a UN resolution criticising Israeli settlements and not to respond in kind to the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats by Barack Obama in response to Moscow’s alleged interference in the 2016 election. A day after the second request to Mr Kislyak, Vladimir Putin announced he was not going to expel US diplomats, a move that was subsequently praised by Mr Trump.
The point of interest here is who was senior to Flynn in the Transition Team, and that would appear to be the President-Elect, the Vice-President Elect, and Jared Kushner. Whether not the President's son was also on the team and considered senior I do not know, but the devil in this detail are two dates, the 22nd and the 29th of December. Thus:
The documents say that on December 22 2016, a "very senior member" of the team contacted him [Flynn] and asked him to speak with the Russian envoy about the UN vote on Israel as well as a number of other countries
and
Court documents show that Mr Flynn told investigators that on December 29, he called "a senior transition official", who was with other members of the team at Mr Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Florida “to discuss what, if anything, to communicate to the Russian ambassador about the US sanctions”.
But, Jared Kushner was not at Mar-a-Lago on the 29th, he was in Hawaii.
My rusty maths reckons that leaves two people in the frame for the 29th, unless there are others who have not been identified.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8087936.html
buttslinger's wetdream is that Flynn is going to raise one hand, put the other on a Bible and say
"Yeah, the Russians told Trump they would give him Hillary secret-emails and Hillary fake-news-internet-sites in exchange for relaxed sanctions from a Trump White House"
Then we'll see witness after witness to prove that happened.
Either that or one of them Honda Civic R cars.
C'mon Santa, I've been good this year.
Trump just admitted on twitter that he obstructed justice. He didn't do it in so many words but he supplied the last piece of evidence that could be controverted. In order to obstruct justice one needs to corruptly interfere with the due administration of justice.
This means that Trump would not be guilty if he asked Comey not to prosecute Flynn because he had a sincere belief that Flynn was innocent. It would be inappropriate and against ordinary procedure for him to direct the fbi in its investigations but he would be issuing an inappropriate directive for what he believed was a legitimate law enforcement purpose.
Today, Trump tweeted that he had to fire Flynn because he knew Flynn had lied to Pence and to the FBI. If he knew that, then his request to Comey could not have been made in the good faith belief that Flynn was innocent. His statement to Comey, "Flynn is a good guy" is ambiguous enough that it might be construed as a plea not to pursue a man who acted without the requisite intent, but his tweet today demonstrates that his dismissal of Flynn was because he knew Flynn committed a crime.
I honestly believe the tweet will be evidence, and goes to the "corruptly" element. But we'll see...The Logan Act stuff is interesting as well...it's not a statute that has been used very much I recall reading, but it's been on the books for over two hundred years. Violating it is a federal crime even if there are only a couple of instances of it being used.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/u...?smid=tw-share
Read about what KT Mcfarland said in an email at the bottom of paragraph 4. The qualification of what she might have meant is at the top of paragraph 5. Is this an admission that sanctions talk was the result of gratitude for Russia's help...or does context explain? Clear now that the administration was coordinating response to Obama's actions against Russia including expulsion of their diplomats.
The legal defence has been made thus:Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
One of Trump’s lawyers, Ty Cobb, said the Logan Act “certainly does not apply” to transition teams and told the Times “it would have been political malpractice not to discuss sanctions”. “The presidential transition guide specifically encourages contact with and outreach to foreign dignitaries,” the newspaper quoted Cobb as saying.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...on-were-lawful
I can't believe this. On the one hand a Transition Team may have the legal right to 'talk to' domestic and foreign policy with people in the USA and abroad, but it doesn't give them the legal right to interfere in political decision-making before the President has taken the Oath of Office on inauguration day, which is what happened. This is sophistry on Cobb's part.
But what it also reveals is a President who has never had to face a court of law, having slick and probably brilliant lawyers who were able to negotiate plea bargains, or simply pay their way out of justice through 'out of court settlements' probably with non-disclosure agreements. But this is not a fake university or a casino going broke, or a blonde with a grudge, it is politics at the highest level, the government of the USA. And yet he still doesn't 'get it'. One day soon he may indeed 'get it' -or he may just decide to fire Mueller and play the ensuing rage with diabolical delight.
In his heart of hearts Trump is and will always be a spoiled little rich brat.
He's been through tons of court cases. They think the Russian connection started because that's the only place he could borrow enough money to leverage real estate deals. From the Russian Mafia.
He is a totally different animal. Has he ever had a "conversation" with any of his wives???
It's all a game.
The Day to Day of this administration has been unlike any other.
I have always had the theory that Trump doesn't represent the Republican Party, he represents Fox News and Conservative Talk Media...... Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh.....they never have to balance a budget or find donors, all they have to do is hypnotize their listeners. Feed them candy. Find a rhythm with a beat that is easy to dance to. They are spiritual Mediums, not legislators.
One last rant while I'm amped up.
It used to be that AMERICA was 80% white, and 20% black.
Now, it seems like the Nation is 3% white, and 97% black.
You can still buy a good hammer, but it costs 50 bucks.
To whittle a long sad story to a short one, politicians have been forced to paint a happy face on a picture that just isn't as rosy as it used to be, it's been getting harder and harder for ANYBODY to get a really good job unless you're connected to a rich fat cat somehow. Stock tips and corner offices, The rest of the world has caught up from the post WWII American dominance of everything. Our slice of the pie is thinner.
I remember I wrote that Hillary Clinton was going to eliminate the national debt like Bill did in the 19990s, and one of the guys here laughed loudly at me. I investigated, and he was totally right, I don't think anyone in charge even has a plan to decrease the deficit.
Congress has a worse approval rate than Trump, the only thing I can figure is that Republican voters turned on Jeb and Marco and Establishment Republicans because nothing they promised ever cane true anymore.
I worry that this tax bill might be the FAT CATs grabbing up as much as they can before everything falls apart, so they can leave the bankrupt polluted USA for a nice Valley in Switzerland somewhere .
Part of my angst is the very real fact that a chunk of my retirement money is going to my Mom's retirement home that is costing about 100K/year now. And a modest home in Northern Virginia cost half a million dollars. And I've got it better than most.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politi...ce1053AMVODtop
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...ustice-n826231
If they really believed that the President cannot commit obstruction why did they spend so much effort denying that he did? If you look at either article look at the nbc article.
What I don't understand about Dershowitz' view is the fact that there is no limiting principle. If a President cannot be charged with obstruction for exercising his constitutional authority to tell the fbi who to investigate, then would he be able to direct the fbi to investigate one of his real estate competitors? What about a political enemy? If the President cannot be held accountable as long as he is acting within the scope of his constitutional power, then the rule of law does not apply to him as long as he acts under the color of his authority. This would be like saying a police officer cannot be charged with assault as long as he's wearing a uniform and using unlawful force while on duty.
I am closer to agreeing with the brilliant Preet Bharara, but I am not sure that charging a president should be a very high bar, or any higher than for anyone else. Sure, there is the task of determining how his conduct differs from what he's obligated to do, but the obstruction statute does not proscribe appropriate conduct for any individual. There is no overlap between corruptly interfering with the due administration of justice and duly administering justice. So I am not sure why the President even deserves deference if it's proved he did the former. He should be treated like any other citizen.
I know I've said this before, but this was once a potential argument. Now Trump's lawyer is trotting it out.
My eighth grade teacher told me a President can shoot someone and run back in the oval office and not be charged, because the way it's set up the President is the Top Cop.
You need to impeach him first.
Your teacher is right. I'm just talking about using the crime of obstruction as a guidepost for impeachment. The question of whether he committed a felony should be a decent predicate for determining whether he should be impeached and removed from power.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
https://www.vox.com/2017/12/4/167334...n-russia-comey
So zero professors out of 13 polled by vox agree with Dowd and Dershowitz but one unfortunately believes the act of lawfully firing someone cannot be obstruction. This makes no sense. An otherwise legal act can't be obstruction? Disposing of a bloody shirt is not a crime. How about disposing of a bloody shirt that's evidence in a case? In fact, often the only thing that makes the act that constitutes obstruction illegal is that it's done to obstruct. Now the means has to be illegal too?
But Dershowitz should be persona non grata on every network except fox. Last post on this.....but it's a slow news day.
I understand that the President's lawyer, John Dowd has claimed he wrote the tweet in the President's twitter feed-
"I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI," the Saturday tweet reads. "He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!"
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/03/po...eet/index.html
I am not sure if I believe a lawyer would use the term ''he has pled guilty" though a novelist like Dash Hammet might; and I don't know if this means Dowd is about to be fired, or if he agreed to wriggle under a bus for his boss.
What I don't know, and perhaps someone can tell me, is if I am right in thinking that every Tweet from the President's account including those that are deleted, is the property of the Government of the USA, that it amounts to an official document of the Presidency and will be stored in the National Archive as such -? I think it means that if in ten years time or whatever the right of access is to researchers, one can visit the Archive in Washington DC and call up the President's papers and read every Tweet since inauguration day. But on that basis, does it matter if the President's fingers did the tapping? Legally, surely it is the President who must take responsibility for documents issued in his name, and doesn't this add weight to the argument that he may have obstructed justice if he knew Flynn had lied before admitting it when questioned by the FBI?
With ref to the view of Lisa Giffin in Broncofan's link, does the President have the right to shred documents, if he doesn't own them, or what is ownership in the context of the Presidency? If Nixon had to hand over the tapes, surely a President, if he or she kept one, would also have to hand over a diary -? Nixon may provide the precedent here.
I'm not going to be satisfied if Trump's Presidency comes down to pled v. pleaded,
I remember Nixon was allowed to resign in shame,
Trump has no shame!!!!!!!!
I'm asking Santa for a pitchfork and torch, ......I can be in front of the White House in 40 minutes!!!
If Mueller comes up with compelling evidence that Trump and his team willingly offered Russia a relaxing of sanctions after the election in return for political hijinx...........
Jesus!!
Talk about new legal territory!!
With Republicans in control of everything,
Trump's pardon power,
THE LAW is going to be twisted into something totally unrecognizable.
FUBAR!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Records_ActQuote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
It depends on the type of records. I recall people were arguing about this on twitter and I don't recall whether his tweets count as records that he is not permitted to destroy. This came up when he deleted a tweet.
The funny thing about pled v. pleaded is that I've seen everyone on twitter say this is a tell and sadly I can say that I've seen plenty of lawyers write pled. I've also seen lawyers write plead, thinking it was past tense and pronounced pled. Maybe Dowd is a good enough lawyer that this mistake would be very uncharacteristic for him.
On the other hand, he should look out for the rules of professional conduct. For the alibi to work, he would have had to write a tweet that was a falsehood. Dowd, writing as Trump, claimed that Trump fired Flynn because he lied to the FBI. If Trump did not know Flynn lied to the FBI, then why would Dowd ghostwrite something that's not true? To me it violates one of the two rules below. Either he lied, or he did not demonstrate competence and did his client a disservice by uttering a false, inculpatory statement.
But then I think it's been established that Trump DID know Flynn lied to the FBI, which makes Dowd's alibi after the fact a lie. Uhh, let's just say Dowd's a liar....
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/p...to_others.html
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/p...ompetence.html
Thanks for the above link which took me elsewhere and a Bill going through the machine which will establish that Presidential tweets are official documents, assuming it is passed -this seems to be the key:Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Trump's tweets have been legally significant in the past. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer stated that Trump's tweets are "considered official statements by the President of the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commun...Engagement_Act
I was going to make a cynical point about the President and his lawyer, but we have our own twits in the British government, and they don't even need to tweet anything, just open their mouths, and sing. I think it's called the Why? factor when it makes a commitment at 9am that is redundant by 12.
If I understand correctly, Dowd has jumped in front of the bus with the claim that he drafted the message that Donald tweeted. But if Dowd’s claim is true, then Donald read the draft, understood what it said, deemed it correct and fit for public consumption, typed it into his phone and tweeted it. Does this not mean that Donald knew Flynn was guilty of lying to the FBI, that it was one of the primary reasons he fired him and that Donald knew this before he approached Comey on Flynn’s behalf? Isn't Donald's reading the draft, approving it and then sending the tweet tantamount to his confirming its content? How exactly does Dowd drafting the tweet exonerate Donald?
I'm very hopeful these Deutsche Bank subpoena rumors are true and the floodgates are about to open with Trump Eyeball deep in Russian Mob money laundering. That would explain a lot.
Hey Donald, if something seems to be too good to be true, it usually is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OImHUNVLlco
The article linked below focuses on the relentless assault that is being made on Robert Mueller by supporters of the President. The aim is not just to smear the reputation of Mueller (a Republican!) but the whole process of investigation, which by extension means the sustained ridicule and abuse of the FBI and the Justice Department, an abuse that begins at the top and works its way down through the President's allies in Congress and the Media.
I think the question now is whether this is a desperate attempt by people with something to lose to blame the system rather then themselves, or whether by tapping into a degree of public mistrust of Federal institutions the long term impact could be a more general loss of trust in those institutions and by extension the democratic system of which they are a part. It is one thing for Bannon and his associates to smash the duopoly of American party politics, but the danger is that they could be smashing everything, or at least causing it severe damage. What happens if half of America simply doesn't care that their President is a liar and a con-man who willingly accepted the help of a foreign government to win the highest office in the land? And what happens to those who do care?
We have a situation in the UK where I believe politicians are regarded by many people as being incapable, more so than ever before, but we have a head of state who is unelected so we may have a deep problem with the political system, but the state itself is not in danger, unless or until Brexit exposes more divisions that, in the case of Scotland in particular, cannot be resolved without secession or independence and, in effect, the break-up of the UK.
All political systems are vulnerable, yet in the American case I wonder if the greater danger lies in the divisions within the USA making it in effect, an ungovernable country at the Federal level. It means States will be in a strong position with the Federal government unable or unwilling to change anything -California will press ahead with its climate change policies, the southern States will continue to remove Black Americans from the electoral roll and prevent those who are on it from voting. Gerrymandering will remain a one-way ticket to permanent power. A President, this one or any succeeding one, can govern with 30% of the vote as long as he or she wins the Electoral College, but in a country where Presidential power becomes increasingly either ineffective or even meaningless.
I wonder if those baying for Mueller's blood realise what they are doing, with the chilling thought that they do, and don't care if the central institutions of government fall to pieces in rancour and despair.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...counsel-russia
I would say that article sums it up pretty well, it happened right after Flynn was given a sweetheart deal by Mueller. (hmmmmm) James Carville said in the nineties "It's the economy, stupid"...now he says "It's all polarity"
I think both sides hire guys from Madison Ave to sell their PRODUCT, if all the men in the army obey the General, you will win, at least for a while. I think we're at the Dunkirk stage, or Stalingrad, Fox News is ordering it's soldiers to fight to the last man.
Part of the Tax Bill might take away home interest deductions which will hit Democratic states like New York and California more than Georgia or Alabama, or did they drop that? Everything Republicans do is aimed at cutting taxes, that not only saves corporations money on the back side, more money pours in on the CONSUMER front, because the schmucks have more money to blow.
By kicking out Franken, Democrats want to highlight that it's REPUBLICANS who reward sleezoid behavior. If you drop all Business regulation and slash taxes in half, the economy will thrive, but only until there's not enough taxes to pay armymen, teachers, and cops, not to mention creditors. Dems are looking at the long game, Republicans are looking at get rich quick schemes. Because Democrats are on the outside right now. RNC is IN.
Hannity earns millions of dollars. I cannot really understand that, at all.
It's baffling
My hope is that Mueller makes Trump not only lose his money, take his liberty too.
The Trump presidency is putting the Con back in the constitution and the Dumb back in freedom.
I heard David Axelrod talking this morning about how President Obama spent all day swimming through paperwork, getting tough decisions made, looking ahead, leaving the office every day with an armful of folders to get a jump on the next day. This was just after a report that Trump watches TV for four to eight hours a day. Bush played video games. It sounds like Clinton and Obama did the sowing, and Bush and Trump do the reaping. Is this the pattern now?
I also heard a rumor somewhere that Mueller has the goods on A WHOLE LOT of PEOPLE.
Will Trump get his middle class tax break?
Will Alabamians pray to a golden goat next tuesday?
Will Biblical prophesies come true in Jerusalem????
Orwell (sic) Rocket Man beat them to it???
Stay tuned, unless you're Vladimir Putin, nobody knows!!
Owoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
I don't think it's half the population; more like 30-40%, but the key point is that it's a majority of the Republican party. Trump's entire strategy for staying in office is to do whatever he can to appeal to these people and hence intimidate any Republican members of Congress who may still have a conscience from doing anything meaningful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
I doubt that the Trumpistas really care about the future consequences for democracy and the rule of law because they don't really believe in these things. Sure they pay lip service to them, but their ideal system would be one in which their side is always in power and the law is just a tool to be used against their opponents. That's why they admire Putin - he is their role model.
On the one hand it is easy to feel depressed about the changes taking place in the US, particularly in the judiciary which is being transformed into a haven for men -and it is mostly white men- some of whom have little or no experience of the law but are members of the Federalist Society and this fit the ideological requirements of the Republican Party.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...r-court-system
I wonder if these people believe they are the 'last Americans' and realise that over time, in say 25 years 'white Americans' of European ancestry will be a minority. The best way to combat this is first to prevent the Americans they don't like -Black and Latino in particular- from voting, either through voter suppression at the registration stage, through denial of voting on the day of the poll, and the refusal to allow anyone with a criminal record to vote as happens in many if not all states- Alabama has actually reversed this law but not publicised it. What we don't know is precisely how many Americans have been denied the vote, with the assumption that in a close race it would make the difference between someone like Moore winning or losing. But as you say, politicians in Alabama don't even hide their contempt for democracy as a system that should bring all Americans together to vote, they just can't accept that Black people should have equal rights.
On the other hand, in time this may change as society changes and a new generation of voters enters the fray, but in the meantime many of the gains made in the 1960s on civil rights remain the most potent targets of the religious conservatives with LGBTQ rights, abortion and in time, welfare the primary targets, and in this they will to some extent be protected by the new generation of judges some of whom are only in their 30s. In ideological terms, it seems odd that the US would in its social legislation appear to moving closer to Afghanistan than most Afghans would believe possible. It is as if the gun-totin', women-and-homo hating, Quran/Bible bashing Taliban, undefeated in 21 years, now has a presence in the US, where it will remain in its tribal areas of the South for some time to come.
It was a narrow victory, but a victory nevertheless. The stats show a solid 30-35% of white people mostly men for Moore, with a perhaps encouraging majority of young people voting Jones, though as I write I am not sure if Roy Moore, who claims God is still in control, will get a recount.
Will this further deepen the rifts in the Republican Party? It appears to be another blow to Steve Bannon. The Chief of Strategy who, it turned out, didn't have one, left the White House months into the job claiming 'it's over' and attempted to 're-boot' the Republican Party by attacking it from within, always a risk. He lost. His organ has yet to produce a coherent explanation unless it comes up with a claim that thousands of illegal voters crossed the state line, or take a hint from Roy Moore and claim that when Satan gets serious, he makes himself invisible -and impersonates Alabama voters. This is a man who, when asked when America was great replied
"I think it was great at the time when families were united – even though we had slavery – they cared for one another,” he said. “Our families were strong, our country had a direction.”
-having lamented on radio in 2011 the abolition of slavery and the granting of votes to women and Black people.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...party-trumpism
18 sitting Republican Senators will not run in 2018. Some who are may be wondering what they can do hang on to their seat. Moore was an exceptionally poor candidate -and I even wonder if riding what often seemed like reluctant horse was a factor- but we have yet to get the full Monty on this from the President, who tweeted a typically sour congratulations to Doug Jones, but has yet to admit any role in the defeat and may be looking around for someone else to blame, because whatever happens, it is not, it is never, and it never will be his fault.
Hear me talkin' to ya
I don't bite my tongue...
The important thing is that Trump was right. It’s the most important thing - in Trump’s failing mind anyway:
“The reason I originally endorsed Luther Strange (and his numbers went up mightily), is that I said Roy Moore will not be able to win the General Election. I was right! ...”
The margin was close (about 1.5%) but not enough to trigger an automatic recount (the threshold is 0.5%). Still Doug Jones is not likely to take office before the GOP pushes through their tax bill.
To delay even further the day that Jones is seated, Moore could ask for recount. Delay would be the only point of such a request as there is no chance (barring malfeasance) a recount would change the outcome of the election. The last time I looked Jones was ahead by approximately nineteen-thousand votes. The last recount in Alabama occurred when the difference was just several hundred votes and the recount changed that difference by only three votes.
Moreover, since a recount is not triggered, Moore would have to pay for it. I think the question is, “Does the GOP want to pay for a recount that will just confirm last night’s result in order to delay Doug Jones being sworn into office?”
anyone else find the timing impeccable that the night african american women turned out in record numbers to vote in doug jones, omarosa, the highest ranking african american woman in the white house, was fired and escorted out of the white house?
also, it's frightening to think that alabama saw the choice between a democrat and a pedophile as a tough choice
ha ha ha
I heard Omarosa was cussing out Gen Kelly and demanding to see the President, and he refused so she tried to sneak into to the White House Residence section and was escorted out by Secret Service. Apparently her job description as "token black woman" wasn't fulfilled enough. Oprah? Condi? nope....
As much as I would have liked to have seen Senate Republicans in the same photos with Senator Roy "Prevert" Moore, I'm glad the Dems brought another one over Home Plate, I hope after we're done with Trump Charles Barkley will be able to get elected, if Trump has taught us anything, it's that you can't wait for it to be given to you, you have to go out and get it.
Rule #ONE: you've got to pull it off.
I guess Donald will be pulling one off later this week with his new tax bill to the poor and middle class.
ha ha ha
I saw on Rachel Maddow show that if tuesday night hand been an Alabama House of Representatives election, and the same people voted either democratic or republican, because of gerrymandering, you would have gotten 6 republicans, and one democrat.