Donald Trump and the Deathly Fallout (Part 15)

[send*the*ferrets]

8 minutes ago, JoyfulSel said:

I never read any of those books in high school, but as part of my communications degree, we had a class called Propaganda, and I know 1984 is read in that class. I was even discussing the class with my former professor/advisor recently and he couldn't believe how perfect it is in this climate we're currently in.

I really enjoyed 1984, it was much better than the entire semester spent on "A Room of One's Own" 

[onekidanddone]

16 minutes ago, JoyfulSel said:

I never read any of those books in high school, but as part of my communications degree, we had a class called Propaganda, and I know 1984 is read in that class. I was even discussing the class with my former professor/advisor recently and he couldn't believe how perfect it is in this climate we're currently in.

I highly recommend all these books. Freakishly foretelling what we have now. Fahrenheit 451 and 1984 both written the late 40s early 50s were responses to the anti-communist pro fascist/cold war fever of the times.  Fun fact 451 degrees Fahrenheit is the temperature at which paper burns. 

[VelociRapture]

We read Fahrenheit 451 in High School. 

--------

@Coy KoiI understand you're conflicted feelings. I personally wish he had run too, but I do think he made the right call. He had more than enough to focus on at the time between his VP responsibilities, his son's illness and death, and helping his son's two children and his widow cope with their loss. Like he said, you should only run if you feel your heart is really in it and his just wasn't. 

I'm not sure who I'd like to see run next time. I'm leaning towards someone on the newer side to Washington because they won't have decades of character assassination to overcome the way Hillary did. And because a big complaint a lot of the hardcore Bernie people seem to have is that there isn't enough new blood or super progressive people in leadership positions within the party. But most of all, we need someone charismatic that can inspire people the way Obama and Trump can. Hillary is extremely qualified, but lacks charisma and simply just doesn't inspire people in the same way.

(Kill me right now for comparing Trump to Obama like that. Please. Just kill me.)

[send*the*ferrets]

I think this election showed the importance of appealing to the rural voters. Overwhelmingly they felt Hillary just didn't get them, and even if they didn't like Trump they thought he was honest and liked that. They latched on to the "drain the swamp" and ignored the rest. They already were skeptical of the media, and Trump appealed to them. I have mostly weeded out the Trump supporters on my Facebook, but even yesterday I saw a post about the new healthcare act and how Trump was going to make everything affordable again. They have no idea what the law actually says and they don't believe the media that is telling them it won't actually be any cheaper. It's sad. 

[RoseWilder]

48 minutes ago, send*the*ferrets said:

I think this election showed the importance of appealing to the rural voters. 

I strongly disagree. Democrats have been helping the rural voters for years, and they threw that all away to vote for a bigot. 

[send*the*ferrets]

7 minutes ago, RoseWilder said:

I strongly disagree. Democrats have been helping the rural voters for years, and they threw that all away to vote for a bigot. 

I am not saying that Democrats haven't been helping the rural voters- without a doubt, their policies help the rural voters most. But Donald Trump specifically mentioned reviving the coal industry, he campaigned in states Hillary didn't even set foot in bc historically those were blue states. Trump worked the system- he got people to ignore their best interests.

[RoseWilder]

7 minutes ago, send*the*ferrets said:

I am not saying that Democrats haven't been helping the rural voters- without a doubt, their policies help the rural voters most. But Donald Trump specifically mentioned reviving the coal industry, he campaigned in states Hillary didn't even set foot in bc historically those were blue states. Trump worked the system- he got people to ignore their best interests.

Let's be real here. The biggest way that Trump appealed to the rural voters was through racism. So I just can't agree that this election showed the importance of appealing to rural voters. 

This election showed us several things: 

1. we need to have more open, honest conversations about racism in this country, because it's clearly a bigger problem than a lot of us realized

2. we need to fight harder against voter supression because that's a huge part of the reason why Clinton lost

3. we need to hold out media accountable for their actions because they gave Trump ridiculous amounts of free air time

4. when out own candidate warns us that Russia is trying to interfere in our election we need to take it seriously

Trying to appeal to the rural voters would be a huge mistake. Bigotry and lies are what motivate them. That's not a base we should be trying to cater to or appeal to, and if we do try to cater to them, we'll be doing so at the risk of losing the soul of our party. 

[Audrey2]

9 minutes ago, RoseWilder said:

I strongly disagree. Democrats have been helping the rural voters for years, and they threw that all away to vote for a bigot. 

Don't forget, the rural voters are frequently (but not always) the anti-abortion/anti gay/ don't take away my guns crowd. Those are the issues they vote for over issues that would really help them. 

Look at how red the well-known farming states are. I would think Democrats would be much more supportive of farm subsidies and Republicans would be much more likely to be against them, unless they are subsidies for agribusiness conglomerates. Even if the Republicans completely eliminate farm subsidies, these folks will still vote Republican.

 

I was thinking about it earlier today. Republicans are like the really cool, mean crowd was in high school. At the center, you had the really mean girls or really mean guys, just as big business (Koch brothers, etc) are at the middle of the Republican party. Then you had many more students who were definitely in the cool group, who let the mean folks lead, but still had the automatic invite to parties and activities. Theses are like the upper middle class, frequently suburban Republican voters. They  weren't usually the meanest ones in the clique, but they were still an integral part of the clique. Finally, you had the hangers on- you know, the ones the most popular and coolest kids would make fun of behind their back, but they'd still receive some (but not all) invites to larger events, like parties. These wouldn't be the ones the chief mean girls would invite along on a shopping trip, but you'd get a laugh over how drunk they got at a party, or who they slept with (as long as it wasn't the main love interest of someone in the center group. I see the third group as the Republican hangers on. You know, the ones who aspire to be in the cool group, but don't quite make it. Their clothes might be wrong, they might be less attractive, they might have stricter parents, or they might live in the wrong house. Nevertheless, this group desperately wants to convince themselves they are cool, too. These are like the smaller town/rural Fox News watching Republicans, or the "Don't take my guns" Republicans, or the Republicans because of religion. Even though those of us who have no desire to belong to the crowd see how badly these hangers on are treated, those on the outskirts of the crowd convince themselves that they still travel in the orbit of the cool crowd. By doing this, they convinced themselves they fit in with the cool crowd, even though the cool crowd made fun of them behind their backs. The poplar kids would especially court these hangers on when it was time for elections, or if they needed help in a class. 

 

Democrats, on the other hand, are like those nice kids with a group of friends, who would invite someone sitting  by themselves to join them for lunch. They would tend to look for students with disabilities, or who have fewer friends, or who couldn't afford to dress the right way, or were socially awkward. 

 

Please know, I'm using pretty gross generalizations in this analogy. I remember some of the "cool kids" from my high school class who were genuinely good, nice, caring people, but many were real twits. 

[send*the*ferrets]

7 minutes ago, RoseWilder said:

Let's be real here. The biggest way that Trump appealed to the rural voters was through racism. So I just can't agree that this election showed the importance of appealing to rural voters. 

This election showed us several things: 

1. we need to have more open, honest conversations about racism in this country, because it's clearly a bigger problem than a lot of us realized

2. we need to fight harder against voter supression because that's a huge part of the reason why Clinton lost

3. we need to hold out media accountable for their actions because they gave Trump ridiculous amounts of free air time

4. when out own candidate warns us that Russia is trying to interfere in our election we need to take it seriously

Trying to appeal to the rural voters would be a huge mistake. Bigotry and lies are what motivate them. That's not a base we should be trying to cater to or appeal to, and if we do try to cater to them, we'll be doing so at the risk of losing the soul of our party. 

Unfortunately, I have to agree with that too. There is a reason that when Obama went golfing they called it lazy, and when Trump goes golfing it's "strategic business meetings". I think Trump appealed to their racist side (lets blame the immigrants for the fact you are poor, not the fact CEOs are taking in billions and minimum wage hasn't gone up)... I think a lot of people didn't vote because they thought he couldn't win... I do think some people wouldn't acknowledge that they voted for him because of racism, but ultimately when you are willing to turn away from the things he was saying- you are coming from a place of privilege and giving him a seal of approval to keep saying them. There are soooo many issues involved in why Trump won- I always thought Michael Moore was fairly radical, but his essay on why Trump was going to win was spot on. He predicted it when nobody else did. 

[formergothardite]

Trump appealed to white rural voters. The GOP spent their time trying their best to gerrymander/pass racists voter laws to ensure the black rural and non-rural voters couldn't vote. 

Living in a pro-Trump rural area, the democrats could come hand out KJV Bibles to every person all while explaining how they were going to help rural America and these folks still wouldn't vote for them. The level of racism and intentional ignorance is so high that there is no appealing to them. Hillary couldn't have won these folks no matter what she did. 

I think what this election showed is that the GOP's voter suppression tactics worked. 

[RoseWilder]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

10 hours ago, sawasdee said:

Why can we not be told how much of the cost of the Tangerine Toddler's security goes straight into his (very large - too big for his hands ) pockets? How much is the Secret Service paying for accommodation at Mar-a Lago? At Trump Tower? How much for Secret Service operational centres at both places? Are they on the premises?

He accused Hillary of 'pay to play' with her extremely effective charity. What about  'pay to play' at Mar-a Lago - membership fees doubled after he was elected....and what about the bookings at the Old Post Office Hotel in Washington - staying there seems from the outside to guarantee Presidential access?

We have never seen anything resembling this monetarisation of the Presidency before. There are no precedents for such shameless behaviour. And because the Founding Fathers could never envisage such a charlatan winning office, they made no provisos to control him.

We need not just to see the Tangerine Toddler's own tax returns, but those of his businesses - to see how he  is using the presidency purely and simply to turn a profit.

 Incoherent with rage.

Related to your post: "Nearly 1 out of every 3 days he has been president, Trump has visited a Trump property"

Quote

For the eighth weekend in a row, President Trump has visited a property that bears his name. He has done so on 21 of the 66 days he has been in office, meaning that for the equivalent of three full weeks of his just-over-nine weeks as commander in chief, he has spent all or part of a day at a Trump property — earning that property mentions in the media and the ability to tell potential clients that they might be able to interact with the president. And, despite his insistence on the campaign trail that he would avoid the links — “I’m going to be working for you. I’m not going to have time to go play golf,” he said in August — he has made 13 visits to his own golf courses since becoming president, likely playing golf on at least 12 of those occasions.

Below, a breakdown of Trump’s visits to his properties. They include:

• Trump International Hotel in Washington.
• Trump National Golf Club in Potomac Falls, Va.
• Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla.
• Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Fla.

Trump has announced that he plans to host the Chinese president at Mar-a-Lago next month.

The one occasion on which he went to a golf course but clearly didn’t play golf came Sunday, when he made a relatively short visit to Trump National during which, his team says, he held three meetings. Last week, press secretary Sean Spicer said Trump’s visits to golf courses didn’t necessarily mean he was playing golf.

...

As of writing, it’s not clear who was included in Trump’s three meetings at Trump National. A post on Instagram tagged at the club on Sunday appears to show Trump and two other people watching television in the course’s clubhouse.

...

If Trump traveled to Trump National for meetings, it raises another question: Couldn’t those meetings have been held at the White House?

 

There is a Tweet in the article that indicates Agent Orange arrived at his club at 11:04 AM on Saturday (this club is approximately 25 miles from the WH), that he left at 11:37, on his way back to the WH, and there is a picture of him watching the Golf Channel on TV with two people. So, he left the WH, had a large motorcade travel 25 miles, shutting down traffic in a very busy area, to watch TV? Seriously? I guess he just has to be in a "tRump property... The article I linked also has a good chart with a breakdown of each visit he's made to one of his properties.

 

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Donald Trump is giving a lot of mixed messages about whom to blame on health care"

Quote

...

Then, the New York Times Magazine reports Sunday that at one point during the negotiations, Trump told Rep. Charlie Dent (Pa.), co-leader of the moderate GOP Tuesday Group caucus: “I'm going to blame you” if the bill fails. In an interview Sunday on NBC's “Meet the Press,” Dent did not deny the conversation.

But of all of Trump's finger-pointing, the one aimed at the conservative faction of his party feels the most notable.

Trump's admission that the hard-liners didn't come around suggests that he may be forced to recognize the limits of his dealmaking abilities. He spent the past few weeks courting these conservatives, hosting them at the White House several times. At one point, he even bragged that a lot of the “no's” had flipped to “yes's.”

In the end, he didn't turn enough. Neither Trump nor Republican leaders could win over about a dozen of the 35 to 40 House Freedom Caucus members. Many of them wanted a repeal of the Affordable Care Act — something Republican leaders said they couldn't do under budget rules — or nothing at all.

...

As if the tangerine toddler would ever admit he has limits.

 

"Scott Pelley is pulling no punches on the nightly news — and people are taking notice"

Quote

With the words “credibility questioned” prominent on the screen, Scott Pelley once again is doing what network evening-news anchors generally don’t do: abandoning careful neutrality in favor of pointed truth-telling.

He is talking Thursday night about President Trump. And here are some of the words he is using: “his boasting and tendency to believe conspiracy theories.”

It’s nothing new. Pelley, of CBS Evening News, has set himself apart — especially in recent weeks — with a spate of such assessments, night after night.

Perhaps the most notable one, on Feb. 7, went like this:

“It has been a busy day for presidential statements divorced from reality. Mr. Trump said this morning that any polls that show disapproval of his immigration ban are fake. He singled out a federal judge for ridicule after the judge suspended his ban, and Mr. Trump said that the ruling now means that anyone can enter the country. The president’s fictitious claims, whether imaginary or fabricated, are now worrying even his backers, particularly after he insisted that millions of people voted illegally, giving Hillary Clinton her popular-vote victory.”

And then Pelley added a reality-check kicker: “There is not one state election official, Democrat or Republican, who supports that claim.”

There are plenty of other examples: One evening last month, he described Trump aide Kellyanne Conway as “a fearless fabulist.” Another night, he referred to the president as having had “another Twitter tantrum.”

Far more than his competitors — Lester Holt on NBC and David Muir on ABC — Pelley is using words and approaches that pull no punches.

It’s not that the others don’t provide fact-checks or report on criticism; they do. But Pelley, 59, despite his calm delivery, is dogged, night after night — and far blunter.

...

 

[GreyhoundFan]

6 hours ago, send*the*ferrets said:

I've never seen Michelle mention any political aspirations- if anything I've seen her deny it. They are still pretty young, once her kids are older she may change her mind. 

I personally don't think that Biden will run- they are very involved with his grandson since his son passed away, and I don't think he wants to be away from him. After losing his first wife and a child, and then losing another child twenty years later- that has to be really hard.

The WaPo had an article about Biden today: "Joe Biden: ‘Do I regret not being president? Yes.’"

Quote

A year and a half after giving up a 45-year-old dream to become president, Joe Biden told an audience on Friday that he could have beaten Donald Trump, had the death of his child not intervened.

The former vice president began the evening in typical Biden style: speaking for nearly an hour from a stage at Colgate University, seldom looking at his notes as he covered topics including the middle class and the digital revolution.

Then he sat down with the university's president, Brian W. Casey, unbuttoned his suit jacket, folded his hands and became quiet.

“Did you ever think, what if?” Casey asked. “Any regrets that you didn't run?”

Biden breathed deeply and looked down before he answered the question.

He had openly desired the presidency since winning a U.S. Senate seat in 1972, The Washington Post reported. He had twice attempted to win the Democratic nomination before the 2016 race, which — he looked back up at Casey before answering the question — “I think I could have won.”

He said he thought himself more qualified than any other candidate.

“I had a lot of data,” Biden said. “I was fairly confident that if I was the Democratic Party nominee, I had a better-than-even chance of being president.”

“But, um.”

Biden looked at his hand, flexing it back and forth.

“I lost part of my soul, my, uh.” He cleared his throat. “Excuse me.”

He then recounted how the sudden illness and death of his son Beau Biden in the run-up to the Democratic primaries weighed on his decision to contest in the 2016 race.

“The press began to think I was playing a game, but I couldn't tell them about my boy,” Biden said. “He wanted me to run. … My son Hunter, my daughter Ashley, my wife, all thought I should.”

“I didn't,” he said. “At the end of the day, I just couldn't do it.”

...

At Colgate, Biden told the students, “No man or woman should announce for president of the United States unless they can look the public in the eye and say, 'I promise you I am giving 100 percent of my attention and dedication to this effort.' ”

He could not, he said.

“Do I regret not being president?” he said. “Yes. Do I regret not running for president, in light of everything that was going on in my life at the time? No.”

...

 

[RoseWilder]

Good fucking grief. This man is such a moron: 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

10 minutes ago, RoseWilder said:

Good fucking grief. This man is such a moron: 

 

Dana Milbank, one of my favorite WaPo writers, included Agent Orange's dumb observation in this article. I think I may have posted it, but I'm not sure. It's one of my favorites of all time. "Lincoln was a Republican, slavery is bad — and more discoveries by President Obvious"

 

 

I liked this opinion piece: "The lessons Trump and Ryan failed to learn from history"

Quote

If President Trump and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) had paid attention to Mitt Romney, they could have avoided the fiasco of their now dead and unmourned health-care bill. They would not now face a situation in which both of them are being blamed because they both deserve to be. And the Republican Party would not be engulfed in a festival of recriminations.

I speak here of the Romney who, in 2006 as governor of Massachusetts, saw government’s job as coming up with business-friendly solutions to problems the market couldn’t solve on its own. Believe it or not, Republicans once upon a time believed in more than tax cuts and deregulation.

And so Romney worked with Democrats to pass the Massachusetts health-care plan which, he explained, was entirely within his party’s philosophical wheelhouse: “The Republican approach is to say, ‘You know what? Everybody should have insurance. They should pay what they can afford to pay. If they need help, we will be there to help them, but no more free ride.’ ”

Yes, requiring everyone to buy health insurance on the private market and providing adequate subsidies so lower-income citizens could afford it really was a conservative idea. It was an alternative to liberal calls for a government-run single-payer system.

The mandate was seen not as oppressive, but as an endorsement of personal responsibility. If you can be required to buy car insurance (because everybody is at risk of getting into an accident), why not require people to buy health insurance (because everybody is at risk of getting sick)? But because health coverage is financially out of reach for so many, the fair thing is to ask them to pay what they can and have government fill in the rest.

The debacle that was Trumpcare, a.k.a. Ryancare, is a reminder that conservatism has gone haywire. It has abandoned trying to solve social problems, except for offering free-market bromides as if they were solutions.

There are many reasons the Republicans’ health proposal failed (beyond the fact that it was an awful mess of a bill). They include Trump’s breathtaking contempt for policymaking, to the point where, as Tim Alberta recounted in Politico, the president used a barnyard epithet to deride the serious and thoughtful policy questions put to him by a group of House Republicans.

Trump once again revealed himself to be a fraud who really doesn’t give a damn about the lives of those who voted for him. As recently as January, he said in an interview with The Post: “We’re going to have insurance for everybody. There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” But then Trump fought for a bill that would have done just what he said he wouldn’t by throwing 24 million Americans off health insurance.

This is Ryan’s mess, too. He was equally unconcerned about the suffering his bill might create. He thought he could slap together old ideas pulled off the GOP policy shelf and not face any pushback from his colleagues.

And there was the inspiring citizen mobilization that forced Republican legislators to confront the reality that millions of Americans have benefited from a law that Ryan, Trump and company, with a stunning indifference to fact, falsely insist is a failure. Trump’s opponents learned that they can win. This will only energize them more.

But the bill’s collapse was, finally, testimony to the emptiness of conservative ideology. Romney himself, remember, had to play down his greatest achievement because President Barack Obama had the nerve to learn from the Massachusetts experience: The Affordable Care Act is rooted in the principles and policies of Romneycare. To win the 2012 presidential nomination, Romney could not afford to be seen as the progenitor of Obamacare because conservatism now has to oppose even the affirmative uses of government it once endorsed.

Democrats can celebrate, but they cannot be complacent. They will have to expose and fight any efforts by the Trump administration to sabotage the Affordable Care Act through regulation. They should propose a package of improvements to make the ACA work better and dare Trump — and the dozen or so non-right-wing Republicans who helped block the Trump-Ryan bill — to join them.

But above all, the GOP needs an appointment with its conscience. In every other wealthy democracy , conservative parties think it’s heartless to leave any of their citizens without health insurance. Do Republicans really want to be the meanest conservatives in the world?

...

Considering that neither the tangerine toddler nor the Irish undertaker seem capable of learning, I don't think we'll have to worry about them learning any lessons.

 

 

 

Oh my God, this seems like a disaster waiting to happen: "Trump taps Kushner to lead a SWAT team to fix government with business ideas"

Quote

President Trump plans to unveil a new White House office on Monday with sweeping authority to overhaul the federal bureaucracy and fulfill key campaign promises — such as reforming care for veterans and fighting opioid addiction — by harvesting ideas from the business world and, potentially, privatizing some government functions.

The White House Office of American Innovation, to be led by Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, will operate as its own nimble power center within the West Wing and will report directly to Trump. Viewed internally as a SWAT team of strategic consultants, the office will be staffed by former business executives and is designed to infuse fresh thinking into Washington, float above the daily political grind and create a lasting legacy for a president still searching for signature achievements.

“All Americans, regardless of their political views, can recognize that government stagnation has hindered our ability to properly function, often creating widespread congestion and leading to cost overruns and delays,” Trump said in a statement to The Washington Post. “I promised the American people I would produce results, and apply my ‘ahead of schedule, under budget’ mentality to the government.”

In a White House riven at times by disorder and competing factions, the innovation office represents an expansion of Kushner’s already far-reaching influence. The 36-year-old former real estate and media executive will continue to wear many hats, driving foreign and domestic policy as well as decisions on presidential personnel. He also is a shadow diplomat, serving as Trump’s lead adviser on relations with China, Mexico, Canada and the Middle East.

...

 

[JMarie]

On ‎3‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 11:49 PM, GreyhoundFan said:

2 hours ago, RoseWilder said:

Good fucking grief. This man is such a moron: 

 

Such an adult..."Trump tweets: 'Do not worry' on health care; urges followers to watch Fox News host trash Ryan"

 

Kinda makes you wonder if this was one of the commercials John Oliver made, the ones he was going to have aired during early morning cable news channels, and Trump's all excited because he actually learned something.

Like Schoolhouse Rock.  Raise your hand if you can sing even one Schoolhouse Rock ditty.

[47of74]

Apparently Fuck Face handed the Bundeskanzerlein a bill during their DC meeting...

politico.eu/article/donald-trump-handed-angela-merkel-outrageous-nato-bill-report/

Quote

U.S. President Donald Trump handed German Chancellor Angela Merkel a bill for money supposedly owed to NATO when they met last weekend in Washington DC, the Sunday Times reported.

The gesture was “outrageous,” the paper quoted an unnamed German minister as saying. “The concept behind putting out such demands is to intimidate the other side, but the chancellor took it calmly and will not respond to such provocations,” the minister is further cited as saying.

According to the Times, the bill handed to Merkel was thought to be for more than $300 billion. It was reportedly calculated by adding the amounts by which Germany have fallen short on annual payments to NATO since 2002 — and adding interest.

The White House is denying this has happened.  But knowing Fuck Face I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this had actually happened.

Merkel is a far better person than I would ever be, because in her shoes I would have pushed it back into his tiny little hands complete with suggestions on where to stick the bill.

 

[fraurosena]

The NYT has a (very lengthy!) article on the Parasitic Presidunce's relationship with Congress. It's quite thourough, going into all the internal relationships between backhanded Bannon, the Irish Undertaker, Rancid Penis and all the other cronies and members of Congress. It's quite a read, but very informative and well worth the time. I won't quote any details, as it's way to complicated and I would have to quote more than half the article to make any sense.

However, some things jumped out at me, that I simply have to point out. It's the when the Tangerine Toddler is quoted in the article. 

Quote

According to Bannon’s vision, economic nationalism would reorient priorities to the working class’s benefit. Trade deals, jobs programs, tax incentives, immigration restrictions, environmental deregulation and even foreign policy would ultimately serve to restore the primacy of those Trump called “the forgotten Americans.”

In March, when I spoke to Trump by phone, I asked him what the term “economic nationalism” meant to him. Compared with Bannon’s revolutionary fervor, his reply was surprisingly cautious. “Well, ‘nationalism’ — I define it as people who love the country and want it to do good,” he said. “I don’t see ‘nationalism’ as a bad word. I see it as a very positive word. It doesn’t mean we won’t trade with other countries.”

Quote

Trump himself seemed prone to distraction as he spoke to me from the Oval Office. Though I was asking about his policy aims, his musings swerved off to other vexations. More than once he denounced as “fake news” reports about his administration’s supposed disharmony. He brought up his speech before the joint session of Congress in February, “which I hope you liked, but I certainly have gotten great reviews — even the people who hate me gave me the highest review.” During the call, I could hear Priebus nearby, occasionally murmuring encouragement.

Quote

Trump sounded more clipped and less jaunty on the call than he did during the discursive chats I had with him last year on the campaign trail. The business of governing had little to do with any trade he had previously practiced. In Congress, he was grappling with an arcane and famously inefficient ecosystem over which he had little if any control — and people he incessantly derided on the campaign trail as being “all talk and no action.” I asked him if he still felt that way. “It’s like any other industry,” he replied, somewhat morosely. “I’ve met some great politicians and some, to be honest, who aren’t so hot.”

Quote

Trump wanted to make sure that he was given adequate credit for his achievements, even in his administration’s infancy. “We’ve only been here for a tiny speck of time,” he said, “and what I’ve done with regulations, moving jobs back into the country, what I’ve done with airplane pricing and buying is amazing. We’ve done a lot. I think we’ve done more than anybody for this short period of time.” Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson would take exception to this claim. 

Quote

When we spoke on the morning of March 7, Trump assured me that he would not bully the Obamacare-replacement bill’s loudest Republican critics, like the Freedom Caucus chairman, Representative Mark Meadows, on Twitter: “No, I don’t think I’ll have to,” he said. “Mark Meadows is a great guy and a friend of mine. I don’t think he’d ever disappoint me, or the party. I think he’s great. No, I would never call him out on Twitter. Some of the others, too. I don’t think we’ll need to. Now, they’re fighting for their turf, but I don’t think they’re going to be obstructionists. I spoke to Mark. He’s got some ideas. I think they’re very positive.”

But on March 21, in a meeting with the Freedom Caucus about the bill, Trump called out Meadows by name, saying, “I’m going to come after you, but I know I won’t have to, because I know you’ll vote ‘yes.’ ” Meadows remained a “no” on the bill, and among conservatives, he was far from alone.

Reading these statements by the presidunce, it really heightens the fact that he's a blithering idiot, who requires prompting and encouragement from those around him to even coherently speak. This to me, even more than the other facts mentioned in the article, underlines my conviction that he's a patsy. For backhanded Bannon, for Chappass, and others in the GOP who want to push their own private agenda's. 

[Childless]

8 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Donald Trump is giving a lot of mixed messages about whom to blame on health care"

As if the tangerine toddler would ever admit he has limits.

 

"Scott Pelley is pulling no punches on the nightly news — and people are taking notice"

 

He has blamed everyone (Ryan, Democrats, the hardliners, the moderates, etc.), but himself.  And he does deserve some of the blame in this.  He is the leader.  It's his job to lead and yet he didn't bother to read the bill.  He didn't know what was in it.  He was completely hands off until the very end.  He tried to ram through a bill that affected 1/6th of the U.S. economy in 17 days.  He never took the bill to his party (let alone the opposition) and worked with everyone to come up with something tangible that could at least pass a vote (it would have been even better if it actually helped solve the issues in healthcare).  While Ryan was desperately trying to save the bill, Trump was playing truck driver for the cameras.  Why wasn't he on the hill working?  This is something he promised his voters and he put zero effort into making it a reality.  He is to blame as much as anyone else in the GOP.

[fraurosena]

It seems that next to the "religious right" there is also a "religious left".

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-religion-idUSKBN16Y114?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social

Quote

"The election of Trump has been a clarion call to progressives in the Protestant and Catholic churches in America to move out of a place of primarily professing progressive policies to really taking action," she said.

Although not as powerful as the religious right, which has been credited with helping elect Republican presidents and boasts well-known leaders such as Christian Broadcasting Network founder Pat Robertson, the "religious left" is now slowly coming together as a force in U.S. politics.

This disparate group, traditionally seen as lacking clout, has been propelled into political activism by Trump's policies on immigration, healthcare and social welfare, according to clergy members, activists and academics. A key test will be how well it will be able to translate its mobilization into votes in the 2018 midterm congressional elections. [...]

But some observers were skeptical that the religious left could equal the religious right politically any time soon.

"It really took decades of activism for the religious right to become the force that it is today," said Peter Ubertaccio, chairman of the political science department at Stonehill College, a Catholic school outside Boston.

But the power potential of the "religious left" is not negligible. The "Moral Mondays" movement, launched in 2013 by the North Carolina NAACP's Reverend William Barber, is credited with contributing to last year's election defeat of Republican Governor Pat McCrory by Democrat Roy Cooper.

I firmly believe that religion and politics should never mix. However, seeing the effect the religious right are having on American politics right now, a counter movement could possibly mitigate the harm (that's been) done. Then again, I still categorically believe religion has no business in politics whatsoever.

So, I'm in two minds on this. 

[GreyhoundFan]

Wow, Melania is going to deign to come to DC: "Melania Trump to make a rare Washington appearance this week"

Quote

Get ready for the Beltway equivalent of a rare-bird sighting: Melania Trump is expected this week in Washington, where she’s being billed as the “special guest” at the International Women of Courage awards ceremony at the State Department on Wednesday.

The Manhattan-based first lady will join Secretary of State Rex Tillerson for the event, per the invite.

...

 

Another Branch Trumpvidian got his feelings hurt: "Veteran newsman Ted Koppel tells Sean Hannity he’s bad for America"

Quote

Veteran broadcast journalist Ted Koppel has long railed against news shows that wear their politics on their sleeves. And on Sunday, he pulled no punches with Sean Hannity.

In a tense exchange on CBS Sunday Morning, Koppel told the Fox News host and staunch supporter of President Trump that his brand of opinion-based journalism was harming the country.

The segment focused on the political divide in America and the role partisan news programming played in driving liberals and conservatives further apart. During a sit-down interview, Hannity called on Koppel to “give some credit” to people’s ability to differentiate between a news show and an opinion show.

“You’re cynical,” Hannity said.

“I am cynical,” Koppel responded.

“Do you think we’re bad for America? You think I’m bad for America?” Hannity asked.

Koppel didn’t miss a beat. “Yeah,” he said, and continued over multiple interruptions from Hannity:

...

Of course Hannity blast the interview with a bunch of whiny Tweets, calling CBS "fake news" and saying the interview was edited. Um, of course it was edited, the interview was 45 minutes long and they didn't have 45 minutes for the segment. What a jerk.

[47of74]

2 hours ago, fraurosena said:

It seems that next to the "religious right" there is also a "religious left".

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-religion-idUSKBN16Y114?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social

I firmly believe that religion and politics should never mix. However, seeing the effect the religious right are having on American politics right now, a counter movement could possibly mitigate the harm (that's been) done. Then again, I still categorically believe religion has no business in politics whatsoever.

So, I'm in two minds on this. 

Thing is that for the most part the religious left really believes in the separation of church and state.   It unfortunately led to them ceding public influence to the religious reich, and allowing them to frame the narrative.  I think the left should be more involved and be willing to ask uncomfortable questions of reich wing religious and political leaders.  I think the reason that 10,000 headed religious reich snake got so powerful is that the religious left retreated from the public square and the only way to defeat that snake is to confront it head on.

[fraurosena]

3 minutes ago, 47of74 said:

Thing is that for the most part the religious left really believes in the separation of church and state.   It unfortunately led to them ceding public influence to the religious reich, and allowing them to frame the narrative.  I think the left should be more involved and be willing to ask uncomfortable questions of reich wing religious and political leaders.  I think the reason that 10,000 headed religious reich snake got so powerful is that the religious left retreated from the public square and the only way to defeat that snake is to confront it head on.

It is precisely this that makes me so conflicted about it. I do see the advantages of a "religious" movement on the left side of the spectrum. They can out-bible the thumpers in the political arena, so to speak. And that could be a good thing, as a countermeasure to the reichwingers. But it is also kind of validating the confluence of religion and politics. And I find that part worrying.

Mind you, it's a conundrum I don't have a clear solution for either. 

[47of74]

No, really?

cnn.com/2017/03/26/politics/stelter-credibility-cnntv/index.html

Quote

CNN's Brian Stelter said Sunday that President Trump's White House has a "credibility problem."

"What happens to a country when a leader's words are worthless?" asked Stelter on his show, "Reliable Sources," noting that many of the President's promises so far had been "toothless" or "utterly useless."

Things have gotten so bad, he argued, that "journalists, lawmakers and, most importantly, voters" couldn't take the President at his word.

My response?