Trump 18: Info to Russia, With Love

[laPapessaGiovanna]

19 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Jesus Christ on the cross!

No, that's not meant as profanity. On the contrary.  It's whom this rightwing nutjob is comparing the presidunce to. Yep, you read that right. Therefore, I present to you as our WUT of the day...

Wayne Allyn Root: Like Jesus Christ, The ‘Forces Of Evil’ Are Trying To Crucify Trump

The irony of that underlined part is beyond words...

 

A proproos of this, a different albeit cynical pov, the guy has some good arguments 

Spoiler

outrage aside, we must keep one thing in mind: how progressives and Democrats approach impeachment could shape our democracy and the domestic political landscape for a generation. We must focus on what is best for the American people, not on what is worst for our so-called president. I believe it would be a major strategic blunder for the Democratic Party to fall for what I call the Impeachment Trap—the powerful temptation to lead the charge for impeachment without considering the strategic implications.

Since neither impeachment in the House of Representatives nor conviction in the Senate are possible without Republican votes, it is a waste of time and energy for Democrats to promote impeachment in the absence of any Republican support. I am most concerned about the scenario where one or more leading Republicans come on board and entice Democrats to lead a successful impeachment.

The simple majority necessary to impeach in the House of Representatives, as well as the two-thirds majority that is required to convict in the Senate, can be achieved with the support of most or all Democrats and a minority of Republicans. Unfortunately, this scenario would offer enormous political benefits to the Republicans.

If Trump were impeached and convicted, Vice President Mike Pence, a right-wing, evangelical ideologue, would be a much more reliable and competent rubber stamp for the conservative policy agenda. Trump, for all his failings, cannot be counted on to support conservative Republican orthodoxy. While his cabinet picks and early policy proposals have largely catered to right-wing ideology, his policy flip-flops and incompetence make him a very unreliable partner for congressional Republicans. In particular, his positions on Russia, trade, entitlements, and deficits are antithetical to Republican dogma, and recently Trump even applauded Australia’s single payer health care system. And thus far, most of his attacks on immigrants and Muslim refugees have been turned aside by a wall of public outrage and judicial rulings, although we will need to remain extraordinarily vigilant about an emboldened ICE. Pence, on the other hand, who was given a 99 percent rating from the American Conservative Union, would be much more likely to cut Social Security, push National Right to Work, and try to restrict gay marriage, and would probably treat immigrants and refugees just as badly, in order to court the Trump base. 

restore the damaged Republican brand. Trump lost the popular vote by the largest margin of any incoming president in history. His administration is mired in incompetence, chaos, and suspicion, and has already sparked a massive public resistance. His public approval rating hovers around 40 percent, by far a record low for a new president. If these trends continue, his presidency will be a massive albatross around the GOP’s neck in future elections.

By contrast, the robot-like Pence—despite his extreme right-wing views—would be packaged as a comforting return to normalcy. The relief at no longer having an egotistical lunatic at the helm could provide Pence with a long and generous public opinion honeymoon. Republicans could claim that Trump was “never one of theirs,” and approach the 2020 campaign with the benefit of incumbency and without Trump’s liabilities.

Democratic ownership of impeachment would also cement the loyalty of working-class Trump voters to the Republican Party. Republican incumbents in swing districts could spin impeachment as a partisan witch hunt. Trump would become a martyr, and his voters would blame Democrats. This is a terrible outcome for progressives who want to move the Democratic Party back to its economic justice roots.

Most important to progressives, Democratic ownership of impeachment would sacrifice the historic opportunity to integrate the massive anti-Trump resistance into a revitalized progressive movement and Democratic Party. A short-term focus on impeachment would divert the focus of many activists away from less glamorous, but more important, grassroots organizing, coalition building, and policy advocacy, and decrease the likelihood of mass grassroots mobilizations on critical issues such as health care, immigration, Planned Parenthood, electoral reform, climate change, and so many others.

For these reasons, I believe a successful impeachment led by Democrats would be a colossal mistake.

Of course, Republicans may well decide that impeachment is in their best interests and lead the charge. This is a slightly better scenario for Democrats.

While Republican ownership of impeachment still achieves the first three political benefits discussed above—a more reliable and competent right-wing presidential rubber stamp, protection of the Republican brand, and a stronger incumbent for 2020—the last two outcomes would now favor Democrats. With Republicans owning impeachment, Trump supporters would be livid with the Republican Party, some withdrawing from politics altogether or splintering off to support minor parties, others perhaps willing to reconsider a Democratic Party refocused on economic justice. The combination of Republicans losing core Trump supporters and ongoing demographic trends would put Democrats in a very favorable position for 2018 and 2020 and beyond. Most importantly, the energy and enthusiasm of the anti-Trump resistance would not be diverted to impeachment.

Moreover, this scenario gives Democrats leverage, as Republicans would need Democratic votes to get the two-thirds Senate majority necessary for conviction. Ultimately, Democrats will have to back impeachment, as it would be political suicide not to. But Democrats can publicly demand key concessions in exchange for their support: First, that Republican leaders clearly own impeachment by drafting the charges and whipping a significant number of GOP votes, and second, that Republicans refrain from pushing radical right-wing legislation until after the 2020 election.

Can Democrats publicly defend a strategy of supporting impeachment only if the Republicans own and lead it, as well as demanding concessions from Republicans? Absolutely. Simply put, Republicans “birthed,” enabled and elected Trump. Republicans have staffed his Cabinet, sacrificed their principles to cut deals with him, and made countless excuses for his outlandish behavior. The public will understand that, if impeachment is warranted, the Republicans have the responsibility to lead the charge.

Paradoxical as it may seem, however, the best scenario for Democrats is one in which they resist the impeachment trap, the Republicans stand by their president, and Trump, odious as he may be, remains in office. Admittedly, this would extract a major toll on the national psyche and require an active resistance to thwart Trump’s attacks on marginalized groups, but the country would (probably!) survive. From a policy perspective, a paralyzed Trump administration would be far better than a more competent and reliably right-wing Pence presidency. Politically, Trump would become a black eye for the GOP, and the Democratic opposition would remain energized, all of which would favor the Democrats in both 2018 and 2020. An especially delicious scenario is one in which an unpopular Trump insists upon running in 2020, and the Republican Party is torn apart by a war between Trump supporters and the Wall Street, evangelical and libertarian factions that each want to reclaim “their” party.

If the Trump presidency continues to unravel and a constitutional case for impeachment can be made, Democrats can force Republicans into a perilous Catch-22 over whether to own it. If Republicans refuse, they will likely fail to achieve much of their policy agenda, risk permanent damage to their party brand, and weaken their future electoral chances. If they do own impeachment, they blow up the tenuous Republican-Trump coalition. Either way, Democrats can focus their energies on mass resistance and rebuilding an electoral majority.

Republicans are in a political straitjacket—unless Democrats commit political suicide by falling for the impeachment trap.

Let me emphasize that I am not arguing against pursuing the truth about possible Russian collusion through a special prosecutor, nor against holding Trump responsible for financial conflicts of interest. And I agree that Democrats must ultimately vote for a Republican-led impeachment.

But I am arguing that it would be a major strategic mistake for us to focus on impeachment as a top strategic goal, thereby siphoning energy from the progressive movement. As deplorable as Trump is, we must focus our efforts in the next four years on blocking bad public policy and mobilizing for the future, and those goals are better served with Trump than with Pence.  If the Republicans figure this out, let them be the ones to expend their energy getting rid of Trump.

For future political implications a Trump presidency offers much more possibilities to democrats than a Clinton presidency would have ever given. As the GBWB disaster ultimately led to the first black president and to ACA. But the Republicans must be held accountable for their making of Trump.

[sawasdee]

@laPapessaGiovannaEXCELLENT article - what I have been trying to sort out in my head for weeks! Please Rufus let enough Democrats read and absorb....

ETA We can't gamble on Pence being sullied along with tRump, even if he is as guilty as sin. It has to be a general tarring of the Repugs, including Pence, Ryan and McConnell, or a waiting game, where they do/do not impeach. Either way, they lose in 2020.

[sawasdee]

The Independent is claiming that the 'person of interest' is Kushner.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/jared-kushner-russia-investigation-trump-song-in-law-probe-person-interest-a7745916.html

[Dandruff]

8 hours ago, fraurosena said:

I agree with you. When his base finds out the emperor has no clothes, well, they will drop him like a hot potato, make mash of him and eat him up for dinner. 

I know a few people, some religious, some not, who voted for him. The common rationales seemed to be (1) he's not Hillary, and (2) they want change and think he'll bring change. Not overly thought out. The religious folks also seemed to believe that Hillary is anti-Israel and/or pro-abortion (one of the voters is an observant Catholic). One was sure that Hillary would allow Sharia law to take hold in the U.S.

IMO, the reality of what's going on needs to break through some long standing anti-Hillary rhetoric and wishful thinking. He's still not Hillary. And as long as they think Hillary's the devil - so to speak - they're going to cut him some slack, until and unless he's widely viewed as betraying them. The recent incident of giving sensitive information to the Russians, supposedly from Israel (potentially putting Israel at risk), wasn't helpful. Admitting that he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation is iffy - the admission came directly from him vs. being part of the so-called "witch hunt". The middle of the night tweeting is coming across as a bad habit.

Ultimately, I believe that if the Russia investigation exposes enough, putting him visibly off-balance and viewed as essentially weak and indebted, then a bunch of his supporters will jump ship.  They won't wish they had voted for Hillary, but will be looking toward having a different Republican - if he can be called that - to advocate for their interests. They'll focus their energy and resources elsewhere...leaving the emperor with no clothes. IMO.

[sawasdee]

Commenter on WaPo about tRump's Middle East tour:

Quote

Well, let's be positive.  
 
Maybe after that the Sunni, Shia, Jews and Christians in the Middle East could look each other in the eye and say : 
"You know, you are an infidel and heretic and grandson of a camel; Your religion if false and we hate your guts . But at least you are not Donald J. Trump. "

ETA @DandruffFrom your mouth to Rufus' ear.

[47of74]

Two years ago the Orange Fornicate Stick was whining because Michelle Obama had the nerve to not wear a head covering on a trip to Saudi Arabia.

newsweek.com/donald-trump-slammed-michelle-obama-no-head-scarf-melania-did-saudi-arabia-612958

Quote

Two years ago Donald Trump, then just a reality TV star with political ambitions, decided to tweet about the First Lady Michelle Obama's decision to not wear a head scarf during a trip to Saudi Arabia. 

"Many people are saying it was wonderful that Mrs. Obama refused to wear a scarf in Saudi Arabia, but they were insulted. We have enuf enemies," he posted.

Saturday, now-president Trump visited Saudi Arabia, and his wife, First Lady Melania Trump, opted to not wear a head scarf. 

Some in Saudi Arabia were reportedly angered by Obama's decision to forego a head scarf, but she drew praise from across the political spectrum in the U.S. (outside of Republican Trump). 

I bet cash money he didn't have anything to say about it this time around.

What a fornicating hypocrite.

[fraurosena]

3 hours ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

A proproos of this, a different albeit cynical pov, the guy has some good arguments 

  Reveal hidden contents

outrage aside, we must keep one thing in mind: how progressives and Democrats approach impeachment could shape our democracy and the domestic political landscape for a generation. We must focus on what is best for the American people, not on what is worst for our so-called president. I believe it would be a major strategic blunder for the Democratic Party to fall for what I call the Impeachment Trap—the powerful temptation to lead the charge for impeachment without considering the strategic implications.

Since neither impeachment in the House of Representatives nor conviction in the Senate are possible without Republican votes, it is a waste of time and energy for Democrats to promote impeachment in the absence of any Republican support. I am most concerned about the scenario where one or more leading Republicans come on board and entice Democrats to lead a successful impeachment.

The simple majority necessary to impeach in the House of Representatives, as well as the two-thirds majority that is required to convict in the Senate, can be achieved with the support of most or all Democrats and a minority of Republicans. Unfortunately, this scenario would offer enormous political benefits to the Republicans.

If Trump were impeached and convicted, Vice President Mike Pence, a right-wing, evangelical ideologue, would be a much more reliable and competent rubber stamp for the conservative policy agenda. Trump, for all his failings, cannot be counted on to support conservative Republican orthodoxy. While his cabinet picks and early policy proposals have largely catered to right-wing ideology, his policy flip-flops and incompetence make him a very unreliable partner for congressional Republicans. In particular, his positions on Russia, trade, entitlements, and deficits are antithetical to Republican dogma, and recently Trump even applauded Australia’s single payer health care system. And thus far, most of his attacks on immigrants and Muslim refugees have been turned aside by a wall of public outrage and judicial rulings, although we will need to remain extraordinarily vigilant about an emboldened ICE. Pence, on the other hand, who was given a 99 percent rating from the American Conservative Union, would be much more likely to cut Social Security, push National Right to Work, and try to restrict gay marriage, and would probably treat immigrants and refugees just as badly, in order to court the Trump base. 

restore the damaged Republican brand. Trump lost the popular vote by the largest margin of any incoming president in history. His administration is mired in incompetence, chaos, and suspicion, and has already sparked a massive public resistance. His public approval rating hovers around 40 percent, by far a record low for a new president. If these trends continue, his presidency will be a massive albatross around the GOP’s neck in future elections.

By contrast, the robot-like Pence—despite his extreme right-wing views—would be packaged as a comforting return to normalcy. The relief at no longer having an egotistical lunatic at the helm could provide Pence with a long and generous public opinion honeymoon. Republicans could claim that Trump was “never one of theirs,” and approach the 2020 campaign with the benefit of incumbency and without Trump’s liabilities.

Democratic ownership of impeachment would also cement the loyalty of working-class Trump voters to the Republican Party. Republican incumbents in swing districts could spin impeachment as a partisan witch hunt. Trump would become a martyr, and his voters would blame Democrats. This is a terrible outcome for progressives who want to move the Democratic Party back to its economic justice roots.

Most important to progressives, Democratic ownership of impeachment would sacrifice the historic opportunity to integrate the massive anti-Trump resistance into a revitalized progressive movement and Democratic Party. A short-term focus on impeachment would divert the focus of many activists away from less glamorous, but more important, grassroots organizing, coalition building, and policy advocacy, and decrease the likelihood of mass grassroots mobilizations on critical issues such as health care, immigration, Planned Parenthood, electoral reform, climate change, and so many others.

For these reasons, I believe a successful impeachment led by Democrats would be a colossal mistake.

Of course, Republicans may well decide that impeachment is in their best interests and lead the charge. This is a slightly better scenario for Democrats.

While Republican ownership of impeachment still achieves the first three political benefits discussed above—a more reliable and competent right-wing presidential rubber stamp, protection of the Republican brand, and a stronger incumbent for 2020—the last two outcomes would now favor Democrats. With Republicans owning impeachment, Trump supporters would be livid with the Republican Party, some withdrawing from politics altogether or splintering off to support minor parties, others perhaps willing to reconsider a Democratic Party refocused on economic justice. The combination of Republicans losing core Trump supporters and ongoing demographic trends would put Democrats in a very favorable position for 2018 and 2020 and beyond. Most importantly, the energy and enthusiasm of the anti-Trump resistance would not be diverted to impeachment.

Moreover, this scenario gives Democrats leverage, as Republicans would need Democratic votes to get the two-thirds Senate majority necessary for conviction. Ultimately, Democrats will have to back impeachment, as it would be political suicide not to. But Democrats can publicly demand key concessions in exchange for their support: First, that Republican leaders clearly own impeachment by drafting the charges and whipping a significant number of GOP votes, and second, that Republicans refrain from pushing radical right-wing legislation until after the 2020 election.

Can Democrats publicly defend a strategy of supporting impeachment only if the Republicans own and lead it, as well as demanding concessions from Republicans? Absolutely. Simply put, Republicans “birthed,” enabled and elected Trump. Republicans have staffed his Cabinet, sacrificed their principles to cut deals with him, and made countless excuses for his outlandish behavior. The public will understand that, if impeachment is warranted, the Republicans have the responsibility to lead the charge.

Paradoxical as it may seem, however, the best scenario for Democrats is one in which they resist the impeachment trap, the Republicans stand by their president, and Trump, odious as he may be, remains in office. Admittedly, this would extract a major toll on the national psyche and require an active resistance to thwart Trump’s attacks on marginalized groups, but the country would (probably!) survive. From a policy perspective, a paralyzed Trump administration would be far better than a more competent and reliably right-wing Pence presidency. Politically, Trump would become a black eye for the GOP, and the Democratic opposition would remain energized, all of which would favor the Democrats in both 2018 and 2020. An especially delicious scenario is one in which an unpopular Trump insists upon running in 2020, and the Republican Party is torn apart by a war between Trump supporters and the Wall Street, evangelical and libertarian factions that each want to reclaim “their” party.

If the Trump presidency continues to unravel and a constitutional case for impeachment can be made, Democrats can force Republicans into a perilous Catch-22 over whether to own it. If Republicans refuse, they will likely fail to achieve much of their policy agenda, risk permanent damage to their party brand, and weaken their future electoral chances. If they do own impeachment, they blow up the tenuous Republican-Trump coalition. Either way, Democrats can focus their energies on mass resistance and rebuilding an electoral majority.

Republicans are in a political straitjacket—unless Democrats commit political suicide by falling for the impeachment trap.

Let me emphasize that I am not arguing against pursuing the truth about possible Russian collusion through a special prosecutor, nor against holding Trump responsible for financial conflicts of interest. And I agree that Democrats must ultimately vote for a Republican-led impeachment.

But I am arguing that it would be a major strategic mistake for us to focus on impeachment as a top strategic goal, thereby siphoning energy from the progressive movement. As deplorable as Trump is, we must focus our efforts in the next four years on blocking bad public policy and mobilizing for the future, and those goals are better served with Trump than with Pence.  If the Republicans figure this out, let them be the ones to expend their energy getting rid of Trump.

For future political implications a Trump presidency offers much more possibilities to democrats than a Clinton presidency would have ever given. As the GBWB disaster ultimately led to the first black president and to ACA. But the Republicans must be held accountable for their making of Trump.

I agree with @sawasdee, it's a really good article.

I do think that he fails to emphasize one thing though. I believe that the Dems really need to make a better image for themselves, other than being "the resistance". The Democrats have a unique opportunity right now to put it out there WHAT exactly it is they stand for. And that shouldn't merely be "we're not the Tangerine Toddler, we're not the evil Repubs". It should be "This is what we can do for you, the American people. We hear your grievances about society right now, about government right now, about all the shortcomings, all the things wrong at every level, and this  is what we plan to do about it."

The Democrats have to focus on cultivating their own base, not based on anti-trumpism or anti-republicanism, or we are liberals, or progressives, but based on concrete ideas, achievable goals and realistic alternatives. The message should also be one of unification and inclusiveness. It doesn't matter where you're from, urban or rural, if your an intellectual or technical, blue or white collar, religious or not, young or old. Everyone is part of the family and is welcome and belongs. "We can do this together!" 

 

And I'll be stepping down from my soapbox now... 

[RoseWilder]

I'm loving this tweet from Rep. Ted Lieu:

It's important to note that if impeachment proceedings are brought against Trump, they would begin with the House Judiciary Committee. 

[formergothardite]

17 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

The message should also be one of unification and inclusiveness. It doesn't matter where you're from, urban or rural, if your an intellectual or technical, blue or white collar, religious or not, young or old. Everyone is part of the family and is welcome and belongs. "We can do this together!" 

I worry that if they don't do this then the GOP will continue winning no matter what awful things they are found to be doing. 

[fraurosena]

Putin's Perra did a cute curtsy to the moose-lamb prince!

 

[GreyhoundFan]

4 hours ago, sawasdee said:

The Independent is claiming that the 'person of interest' is Kushner.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/jared-kushner-russia-investigation-trump-song-in-law-probe-person-interest-a7745916.html

I would love, love, love to see Jared escorted away in handcuffs.

 

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

Putin's Perra did a cute curtsy to the moose-lamb prince!

 

To go along with this, the WaPo published the following: "Trump mocked Obama for bowing to a Saudi king. And then he …"

Spoiler

After two weeks of what one Washington Post writer calls “nearly unrelenting disaster of bad decisions and bad news,” Trump embarked on his first overseas trip as president to visit Saudi Arabia on Saturday. Some supporters and conservative websites exulted as soon as he stepped off the plane — quick to contrast it with a similar meeting at the start of Obama's presidency.

... <a dumbass tweet from the drudge report>

He did not bow to the king. Not right away, at least.

Obama's bent-waist handshake with King Abdullah caused one of the great furors of his first year as president.

Republicans ran a political ad about the bow in 2009; the White House press secretary unconvincingly denied it happened; and Trump was one of many who cited it years later as a symbol of Obama's weakness — “he begs and pleads and bows.”

...<Tweet from twitler>

Understandable, then, that Trump's firm, vertical handshake when he greeted the Saudi king's successor was seen by many as “a lesson in American exceptionalism.”

But then, later that day: was that a …?

...

A bow? Surely not, some insisted, after watching Trump bend his knees, slump forward and bob his head to let King Salman place the honorary collar of Saudi Arabia's founder around his neck.

He's just “bending over,” one supported suggested.

“He's receiving an award.”

“More of a squat than a bow.”

The White House did not immediately respond when asked if Trump had softened his position on bowing, after criticizing Obama about it on more than one occasion.

Whatever he was doing with the king, Trump appears to have left his Washington troubles only to walk into the same quagmire of diplomatic body language as so many presidents past.

... <lots of interpretation>

It's not clear why, exactly, Obama's gesture to the king — “It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller,” an anonymous aide insisted to Politico in 2009. — caused him so much trouble.

President George H.W. Bush had done the same thing to a dead Japanese emperor, as the New York Times noted. And the second President Bush diplomatically kissed and held hands with Saudi royalty.

But Obama's alleged bow, less than three months into his presidency, constituted a “shocking display of fealty to a foreign potentate” to some as the Washington Times put it.

When it was followed by a deep bow to the Japanese emperor, Obama endured years of mockery in which his every head tilt risked being called prostration, with sneering headlines catalogued by the Atlantic: Obama bows to the mayor of Tampa; Obama bows to a robot.

“American presidents do not bow before foreign dignitaries, whether they are princes, kings, or emperors,” the Weekly Standard chided.

Trump sure wouldn't, at least, as he made clear on Twitter several times before his presidential campaign.

...

Many observers could not resist a superficial comparison to the past when he began his foreign tour.

“Trump shakes hands with Saudi leader, doesn't bow as Obama appeared to do,” as Fox News put it.

“How Trump just greeted Saudi Arabia’s king is remarkably different than how Obama did in 2009,” the Blaze remarked, noting that Trump shook the king's hand (though Obama has done that too) and his wife did not wear a hijab (neither did Michelle Obama.)

But on the homepage of the Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, and the snarky feeds of many Trump critics, focused on a different picture.

...

And while some insisted Trump's little dip could not compare to his predecessor's manifold acts of humility, one of the president's top political backers made no excuses:

...

In fact, Trump bowed no more or less than other presidents who have worn the collar of Abdulaziz al-Saud, which the kingdom bestows as an honor on foreign dignitaries.

Trump did it. Obama did it. Bush did it.

...

And — at the risk of recalling that other great controversy — Russian President Vladmir Putin did it too.

There was no sign any of this was clouding Trump's trip. On the same morning of his upright handshake and maybe-bow, he took part in another long tradition of American officials on trips abroad:

Stilted dancing.

...

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

From this article: "Trump once said Saudis ‘push gays … off buildings.’ They just gave him a warm welcome." -- this tweet is just too much:

[GreyhoundFan]

"As Trump prepared for Riyadh visit, Saudis blocked U.S. on terrorist sanctions"

Spoiler

Saudi Arabia, the oil-rich kingdom touted by President Trump as a key ally in the fight against the Islamic State, has helped block a Trump administration proposal to impose sanctions against a Saudi branch of the terrorist group, documents show.

The plan to add the Islamic State’s Saudi affiliate to a U.N. list of terrorist groups was quietly killed two weeks ago in a bureaucratic maneuver at the U.N. Security Council, records show. U.S. officials familiar with the move said the Saudis objected to the public acknowledgment of the existence of a separate Saudi offshoot of the terrorist group inside the kingdom.

“They don’t want to admit they have an issue in their back yard,” said a U.S official familiar with the events, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomacy.

The news of the maneuver comes as Saudi Arabia hosts Trump in Riyadh in his first visit to a foreign capital since becoming president. U.S. and Saudi officials are expected to use the visit to underscore close cooperation between the two countries in battling Islamist extremist groups. Riyadh has contributed money, arms and fighter jets to the international coalition fighting the Islamic State in Syria.

The terrorist group in 2014 declared the existence of a separate Saudi province, or wilayat, with its own cadre of Saudi operatives seeking to overthrow the monarchy. The group has since claimed responsibility for several attacks inside the country, including a suicide bombing at a mosque in 2015 that killed 15 people.

The Trump administration’s proposal to add the “Islamic State in Saudi Arabia” to a list of U.N.-sanctioned terrorist groups was formally blocked on May 5 by Senegal and Egypt, two members of the U.N. Security Council. Egyptian diplomats explained to their U.S. counterparts that they acted at the behest of Saudi Arabia, according to U.S. officials and internal emails describing the exchange. It was the second time in a year that Saudi officials intervened to prevent the local affiliate from being added to the U.N. terrorist list.

A senior Saudi official, speaking by telephone from Riyadh, acknowledged his government’s opposition to the Trump administration’s plan. He said formal recognition of a separate Saudi branch of the Islamic State would have been both unfair to Saudi Arabia and an exaggeration of the local cell’s significance.

“You can’t equate ISIS in the kingdom with ISIS in Syria and Iraq,” said the Saudi official, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss U.N. deliberations. “There is no ‘Islamic State in Saudi Arabia’ just as there is no ‘Islamic State in Britain’ or ‘Islamic State in France.’ In those countries there are terrorist cells, but they don’t control infrastructure.”

Acceding to the U.S. proposal could have resulted in “reputational risks” for the kingdom, possibly including losses in tourist revenue and higher insurance premiums, the official said.

Saudi Arabia is one of several countries that have opposed U.S. efforts to add local branches of the Islamic State to the U.N. terrorist list. Russian diplomats earlier this month quashed a U.S. proposal to sanction Islamic State chapters in Libya, Afghanistan and Yemen.

 

But he gives Saudi Arabia the "honor" of his first visit, instead of the traditional Canada or Mexico...

[47of74]

Anderson Cooper had enough of Jeffrey Lord and his continual defense of the tapeworm;

latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-entertainment-news-updates-may-anderson-cooper-tells-jeffrey-lord-if-1495254401-htmlstory.html

Quote

"You can't really defend it, in all fairness," Cooper said. "You can't defend what the president of the United States just said."

"I don't care what he says to the Russian prime – to the Russians," Lord replied. "I mean, he's the president of the United States. If he wants to say that, if Barack Obama wants to say whatever, if George Bush says 'I looked in his eyes and' – "

Cooper interrupted him: "If he took a dump on his desk, you would defend it."

He continued: "I don't know what he would do that you would not defend."

Cooper later apologized.  Still he's right though.  Agent Orange could take a giant orange shit (yeah, I apologize for that mental image) on a Branch Trumpvidian's desk, bed, etc and they'd still defend him.

[GreyhoundFan]

A good one from Dana Milbank: "Trump attacked the free press, and he got exactly what he deserved"

Spoiler

The president has the greatest self-pity. The best!

“No politician in history, and I say this with great surety, has been treated worse or more unfairly,” Donald Trump said this week as he heard the special prosecutor’s footsteps.

Thus did our assured head of state, equal parts narcissistic and uninformed, rank his treatment worse than that of Benito Mussolini (executed corpse beaten and hung upside down in public square), Oliver Cromwell (body disinterred, drawn and quartered, hanged and head hung on spike), Leon Trotsky (exiled and killed with icepick to the skull), William Wallace (dragged naked by horses, eviscerated, emasculated, hanged and quartered) and the headless Louis XVI, Mary Queen of Scots and Charles I.

Trump hasn’t been treated badly. He has been treated exactly as he deserved, a reaction commensurate with the action. He took on the institution of a free press — and it fought back. Trump came to office after intimidating publishers, barring journalists from covering him and threatening to rewrite press laws, and he has sought to discredit the “fake news” media at every chance. Instead, he wound up inspiring a new golden age in American journalism.

Trump provoked the extraordinary work of reporters on the intelligence, justice and national security beats, who blew wide open the Russia election scandal, the contacts between Russia and top Trump officials, and interference by Trump in the FBI investigation. This week’s appointment of a special prosecutor — a crucial check on a president who lacks self-restraint — is a direct result of their work.

I suspect they won’t be getting Presidential Medals of Freedom anytime soon, so let’s celebrate some of them here. At The Post: Adam Entous, Greg Miller, Ellen Nakashima, Matt Zapotosky, Devlin Barrett, Sari Horwitz, Greg Jaffe and Julie Tate, along with columnist David Ignatius. At the New York Times: Michael Schmidt, Matthew Rosenberg, Adam Goldman, Matt Apuzzo and Scott Shane. The two rivals, combined, have produced one breathtaking scoop after another, including:

The Post’s Feb. 9 report that national security adviser Michael Flynn, contrary to the Trump administration’s claims, talked with the Russian ambassador about U.S. sanctions before Trump took office. Flynn was out soon thereafter.

The Post’s March 1 report that Jeff Sessions also spoke with the Russian ambassador but did not disclose the contacts when asked about possible contacts during his confirmation as attorney general. He was forced to recuse himself from the Russia investigation.

The Post’s March 28 report that the Trump administration tried to block former acting attorney general Sally Yates from testifying on the Trump campaign’s possible Russia ties. She later testified about the White House’s failure to act on warnings about Flynn.

The Times’s March 30 report that two White House officials helped provide Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, with intelligence that Nunes made public. Nunes was forced to recuse himself from the committee’s probe.

The Post’s report this week that Trump shared highly classified intelligence with Russian officials, jeopardizing the cooperation of allies.

And the final blow: the Times’s report this week that Trump asked FBI Director James B. Comey to shut down the FBI’s Flynn investigation, according to a contemporaneous memo Comey wrote before Trump fired him.

There were many more, and other outlets have flourished, too. On one day this week, the United States awoke to a report from Reuters that the Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians; a McClatchy report that Flynn, who had been paid as a Turkish representative, stopped a military plan that Turkey opposed; a Times report that the Trump team knew Flynn was under investigation before he started work at the White House; and a Post report that the House majority leader told colleagues last year that he thought Russian President Vladimir Putin was paying Trump.

This journalistic triumph, made possible by nameless government officials who risked their jobs and their freedom to get the truth out, is all the more satisfying because it came as a corrective after one of the sorriest episodes in modern journalism: the uncritical, unfiltered and unending coverage of Trump — particularly by cable news — that propelled him to the Republican nomination and onward to the presidency.

It’s a great relief to have special prosecutor Robert S. Mueller III now keeping his eyes on the executive — a regent, if you will, to protect against future abuses. This doesn’t mean Trump won’t nuke Denmark tomorrow. But those racked by anxiety for the past four months can exhale: Grown-ups within the government have restored some order.

Trump may feel as if he’s been drawn and quartered, but what he’s experienced is the power of a free press in a free country. That is entirely fair, and fitting.

I couldn't agree more. I've seen some of the best reporting and writing being published thanks to this dumpster fire of an administration.

[GreyhoundFan]

Amen: "4-Year-Olds Don’t Act Like Trump"

Spoiler

The analogy is pervasive among his critics: Donald Trump is like a child. Making him the president was like making a 4-year-old the leader of the free world.

But the analogy is profoundly wrong, and it’s unfair to children. The scientific developmental research of the past 30 years shows that Mr. Trump is utterly unlike a 4-year-old.

Four-year-olds care deeply about the truth. They constantly try to seek out information and to figure out how the world works. Of course, 4-year-olds, as well as adults, occasionally lie. But Mr. Trump doesn’t just lie; he seems not even to care whether his statements are true.

Four-year-olds are insatiably curious. One study found that the average preschooler asks hundreds of questions per day. Just watch a toddler “getting into everything” — endangering his own safety to investigate interesting new objects like knives and toasters. Mr. Trump refuses to read and is bored by anything that doesn’t involve him personally.

Four-year-olds can pay attention. They do have difficulty changing the focus of their attention in response to arbitrary commands. But recent studies show that even babies systematically direct their focus to the events and objects that will teach them the most. They pay special attention to events that contradict what they already believe. Mr. Trump refuses to pay attention to anything that clashes with his preconceptions.

Four-year-olds understand the difference between fantasy and reality. They certainly enjoy pretend play, imagining that the world is full of villains and that they are all-powerful heroes. But studies show that they know they are pretending and understand that their imaginary companions are just that: imaginary. Mr. Trump seems to have no sense of the boundary between his self-aggrandizing fantasies and reality.

Four-year-olds have a “theory of mind,” an understanding of their own minds and those of others. In my lab we have found that 4-year-olds recognize that their own past beliefs might have been wrong. Mr. Trump contradicts himself without hesitation and doesn’t seem to recognize any conflict between his past and present beliefs.

Four-year-olds, contrary to popular belief, are not egocentric or self-centered. They understand and care about how other people feel and think, and recognize that other people can feel and think differently from them. In my lab, which studies the cognitive development of children, we have found that even 1½-year-olds can understand that someone else might want something different from what they want. They understand that someone else might like broccoli, even though they themselves prefer crackers, and they will help that person get what he wants.

In fact, children as young as 1½ demonstrate both empathy and altruism: They will rush to comfort someone who is hurt, and they will spontaneously go out of their way to help someone. In one study, if 1-year-olds saw a stranger drop a pen and strain to reach for it, they would crawl over obstacles to find the pen and give it to him. Mr. Trump displays neither empathy nor altruism, and his egocentrism is staggering.

Four-year-olds have a strong moral sense. Children as young as 2½ say that hurting another child is always wrong, even if an authority figure were to say otherwise. Babies will avoid a puppet that has been mean to another puppet. Mr. Trump admires authoritarian leaders who have no compunctions about harming their own people.

Four-year-olds are sensitive to social norms and think that they and other people should obey them. In one recent study, seeing a puppet play a game involving particular rules led children to follow the rules themselves and to expect other people to do so. Even 2- and 3-year-olds protested when they saw someone break the rules. Mr. Trump has time and again shown his contempt for norms of behavior in every community he has belonged to.

Now, all this is not to say that a 4-year-old would make a good chief executive. Being president is certainly a grown-up job. Still, most adults, even most presidents, and certainly the best presidents, manage to retain some of their childlike traits — curiosity, openness to experience, intuitive sensitivity to others.

We’d all be better off if Mr. Trump were more like that.

This is true, he doesn't have the maturity of a toddler.

[47of74]

 

 

Fornicate Head forgot the internetz are forever:

rawstory.com/2017/05/whos-a-pretty-princess-now-btches-internet-ridicules-trump-for-curtsy-before-saudi-king/

Quote

President Donald Trump first trip overseas has — so far –gone seamlessly if one disregards the chaos he left at home with multiple bombshells dropped by the Washington Post and the New York Times regarding White House doings.

However, as the world awaits Trump’s speech on Islam, he was the recipient of a great deal of mockery on Twitter for a half-curtsy he bestowed upon the king of Saudi Arabia.

Quipsters with long memories recalled conservative outrage that was showered upon former President Barack Obama when he bowed to foreign leaders — including the Saudi king — during what conservatives still call his “apology tours.”

 

The internetz are heaping some well deserved scorn on cheeto for being a hypocrite again...

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Sigh: "Sick of being shocked by the news? Don’t worry, it will get worse."

Spoiler

Gaw, how long has it been? One hundred years? How long have we been alive for this administration and how many more times may we fling ourselves upon fainting couches, shocked — shocked — by the fact that, say, a White House official has been identified as a person of interest in the Russia probe?

(Refreshes Twitter screen.)

The person of interest is that guy? Shocked.

We are stricken with nostalgia for the things we used to be concerned about before there were new things to be concerned about.

We wasted our outrage. Wasted it all on frivolous things like Kellyanne Conway hawking Ivanka Trump’s brand — “Go buy Ivanka’s stuff!” — which people got upset about because they saw it an unprecedented conflict of interest.

“That seems like a much simpler time,” agrees Amanda Terkel. (It was three months ago.)

Terkel is the managing editor for politics at HuffPost. She quickly runs through the other bubbles of outrage that have occupied the nation since the inauguration, most of which, frankly, we had already forgotten.

“There were the reports of power struggles between Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus,” Terkel remembers.

There was something to do with Blackwater and Betsy deVos’s brother, we remind her. The Seychelles? That time we were going to deport green-card holders?

“I wrote a piece over last weekend talking about health care,” Terkel says. “Because I really thought we might be focusing on that again.”

Oh no no no. Silly, no.

There is no going back to normal, pet. This is normal now.

(Refreshes Twitter again.)

“Remember when we were all just boycotting Trump’s ties and Ivanka’s shoes?” tweets one person wistfully.

“Remember three days ago when the Kushner family was selling visas in China?” writes another. “Things were simpler then.”

“I remember the olden days, when the firing of Comey was the big scandal,” writes a third. “Now all this newfangled treason stuff.”

A meme circulates online: the elderly lady from the movie “Titanic,” in the scene where her mind drifts back to the ship sinking in her youth. “Remember when Trump fired Comey?” the caption reads. “It’s been 84 years.”

“Trump years are like dog years,” sighs Peter Sagal. Sagal hosts NPR’s news quiz show, “Wait, Wait . . . Don’t Tell Me,” which airs on the weekends but has the misfortune to tape on Thursdays, which, in the current era, is at least six or seven news cycles behind.

“I have been afraid to get on airplanes because I wonder what’s going to have happened by the time I land. It’s like, with the latest news — ”

Wait, which latest news?

“Comey.”

Which news about Comey? Comey firing? Comey memo? Comey firing and memo leading to the appointment of a special counsel?

“The special counsel.”

Okay, continue.

“Anyway, we could fill the entire hour with just the latest news.”

Sagal says he feels that the American public has adjusted fairly quickly to this new state of outrage churn. We cannot remember a time Before. We are well equipped. We are prepared. We are lean scandal digesters, able to scarf down the next foible that’s flung in front of us.

“You’ve seen the movie ‘Castaway’?” Sagal says. “There’s that amazing transition in the middle of the movie. In the first half, Tom Hanks finds himself in the middle of the island — he doesn’t know how to survive; he’s totally unprepared. And then there’s a cut, and suddenly it’s four years later. He knows how to hunt, he knows how to fish, he knows how to make rope, and he’s talking to Wilson. And that is the American people right now. We know how to fish and we’re talking to a volleyball.”

The American people are alighting on their own coping mechanisms. The American people are using words like “self care” to justify the need to occasionally turn off CNN and just watch “Tiny House Hunters” marathons on HGTV.

“I’ve taken to Gwyneth Paltrow’s statement about divorce,” says Karen Kaub, a retired attorney who lives in the Watergate, a building whose name is freighted with its own storied news history. “I’m in a state of conscious uncoupling with the news.”

It happened gradually, as Kaub realized that trying to keep up with the relentless pace of things was adversely impacting her daily life.

“I can’t go on,” Kaub says. “I’m just an elderly retired person. It’s not healthy to get myself so caught up in it.”

Recently, she decided to cancel her subscription to the New York Times to protect herself from the endless churn of relentless scandal. “They begged me to stay, but I told them I had to do it for my mental health. Then they were so nice about it.”

But Kaub is a news junkie. She couldn’t stay away for long, so she came up with a solution, a temporary one, at least: She has been reading English-language news from China. On a recent day, the Chinese newspaper had stories about the new French president’s cabinet and about a Japanese bill that would authorize an emperor to abdicate.

“At least it turned me on to the fact that other things are still happening around the world,” she said. It was just really good to feel for a minute like the sky wasn’t falling.

I certainly understand...

[Cartmann99]

7 hours ago, fraurosena said:

“They need to kill Trump,” he said, “whether it be character assassination or the real thing, aka murder.”

“Never in all my years in politics have I seen ever anything like the way the gates of hell have been unleashed on Donald Trump,” Root said. “This isn’t just an old-fashioned attack, it isn’t random. This is a coordinated conspiracy to destroy Trump. This is a high-tech lynching. This is a crucifixion!”

Bless your heart Wayne, do your doctors think there's any hope? It's a crying shame when someone's memory ends up looking like a piece of Swiss cheese. I'm sure there's an essential oil you could huff, or maybe try of some of that Plexus stuff?

Spoiler

 

A little refresher, several years ago this African-American fellow named Barrack Obama ran for president, and actually ended up winning. Some Christian conservatives in the United States went just a wee bit apocalyptic over this development, and called him the Antichrist. It was wild! He claimed to be a Christian, and was happily married to the mother of his children, but since he could quote Scripture from memory and actually tried to "turn the other cheek" when he and his family were viciously attacked, it's obvious he was an immoral heathen possessed by demons. 

 You don't remember what you said back in July?

Quote

 

Wayne Allyn Root, the Donald Trump campaign surrogate who predicted in 2014 that we would all die from Ebola if President Obama wasn’t forced out of office, wrote in a column today that Obama’s speech at the Democratic National Convention last night “could have been written by Lucifer himself, to be delivered by the anti-Christ.”

Root blasted Obama as a “psychopath, sociopath and ego-maniac who rules as a tyrant” and claimed that the president sees himself as a god who can exploit “ignorant, naïve and gullible voters.”

“Lucifer himself would be proud,” Root wrote.

 

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/wayne-allyn-root-obamas-dnc-speech-could-have-been-written-by-lucifer-himself-and-delivered-by-the-anti-christ/

Before that, you wrote an article about him where you talked about how you attended Columbia at the same time as President Obama did, claimed that nobody remembers Obama being a student there, and implied that he was a foreign exchange student who didn't deserve to be there with all of the other hardworking  white people students:

Quote

If you could unseal Obama’s Columbia University records I believe you’d find that:

A)   He rarely ever attended class.

B)   His grades were not those typical of what we understand it takes to get into Harvard Law School.

C)   He attended Columbia as a foreign exchange student.

D)   He paid little for either undergraduate college or Harvard Law School because of foreign aid and scholarships given to a poor foreign students like this kid Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/obama’s-college-classmate-the-obama-scandal-is-at-columbia/

Have you asked your doctors if it might be a parasite? It breaks my heart to think of some worm tunneling its way through your brain like that. I could come over and paint some lines on your floor to guide you around your home. You know, a red line that leads to the kitchen, a green one for finding your way to the bathroom, etc...

Sorry, got off track a bit there. Another thing that happened during the Obama presidency, was when some conservatives decided the solution to their problem was to ask God to kill Obama. Some of them got uncomfortable when they realized that Democrats were literate, and tried to say it was a joke, but it was obvious that it was a deadly serious proposition to some conservatives.

Quote

During the last few days, Psalm 109:8, a Bible verse in the

form of a “prayer for Obama,” has topped the Google trends chart:  “May his days be few; may another take
his office.”  Evidently, a bumper
sticker emblazoned with this verse has popped up in various parts of the
country.  It is a sort of right-wing Christian equivalent to the old “01.20.09” stickers looking forward
to the end of the Bush era.

It was, most likely, intended as a joke.  But it isn’t really very funny.  Especially since the next verse reads,

“May his children be orphans, and his wife a widow.”  The passage goes on the same way–asking God to pulverize this poor
fellow–that he lose all his worldly goods, that his orphans be abandoned, that his
father be remembered as a sinner, and finally, that “his memory be cut off from
the earth.”

Thus, the “Prayer for Obama,” does more than anticipate that
he leaves office; it entreats God to destroy the president.

http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/progressiverevival/2009/11/psalm-1098-a-prayer-for-obama.html

There's many more things that happened during that time, but that's enough for now.

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Another good one from Jennifer Rubin about associating with the TT probably won't bode well for the Repugs long-term: "Watching the downfall of a generation of Washington Republicans"

Spoiler

President Trump, we have noted, has not only disgraced himself but also besmirched the reputations of everyone from Attorney General Jeff Sessions to son-in-law Jared Kushner for their complicity in a dark comedy of deceit and self-created debacles. A debate now rages over whether Vice President Pence is a liar or a dupe. CNN reported on Pence’s claim that he did not know that Michael T. Flynn was under investigation before taking the national security adviser job and that Flynn had multiple contacts with Russian officials (during the campaign and/or transition):

The question of what Pence knew and when first arose months earlier after reports surfaced that Flynn discussed sanctions with Russia’s ambassador to Washington despite Pence’s public claim to the contrary. It’s also one that was posed after Pence stood before news cameras and claimed that Trump had fired FBI director James Comey because of a memo written by the deputy attorney general — only for Trump to later reveal he planned to fire Comey regardless. …

He was firmly in charge [of the transition], yet it’s not the first time Pence has claimed to have been unaware of crucial information that surfaced during the transition period. Pence claimed in a March interview with Fox News that it was the “first I’d heard of” Flynn earning hundreds of thousands of dollars to lobby for a Turkish businessman, which ultimately prompted Flynn to register as a foreign agent. But Flynn’s pro-Turkey lobbying work had been in the news for months before that March interview. Pence had also received a letter in November from the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee Rep. Elijah Cummings describing Flynn’s foreign work.

Pence might reach the presidency to fill out his boss’s term if Trump is forced out, but it is hard to imagine him ever achieving that office on his own. Many will have concluded that he is either too dim and gullible or too dishonest for the presidency. Moreover, his decision to sign on as Trump’s VP and vouch for his character will be powerful evidence of rotten judgment and a permanent stain on his record.

In that regard, Pence is hardly alone. Either during or at the end of his first term, Trump’s presidency will end, voluntarily or not. (No matter how strong the economy might be, a president waist-deep in scandal and unable to accomplish major legislative initiatives is likely to face primary and/or general-election defeat in a reelection bid or decline to seek re-election.) When the party — or what remains of it — looks for leadership, where will it turn?

Not to the likes of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) or Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), who opportunistically backed Trump after declaring his unfitness. Not to the likes of Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who became Trump’s palace guard, vouching for Cabinet secretaries and refusing to denounce conflicts of interest and possible violations of the Constitution’s emoluments clause. Come to think of it, any Republican who failed in his or her constitutional duty of oversight, continuing to turn a blind eye toward wrongdoing and to rationalize Trump’s conduct, should be disqualified from high office, if not shunned by conservatives. (As for the House members who thought Trump’s chumminess with Russia was humorous, one can only marvel at their gross hypocrisy in get-tough-with-Russia rhetoric.) We can count on one hand the number of lawmakers who have not committed gross political malpractice either by acts of commission or omission since Trump was elected (even if one excuses endorsing an obviously unfit person for president).

If the GOP is to survive at all after Trump, it most likely will need to turn to governors or ex-lawmakers who did not carry Trump’s water or attempt to defend the indefensible. I raise that now because it will reflect on the actions of Republicans on Capitol Hill for the next couple of years. Keep in mind how self-destructive their behavior is as you wince watching Capitol Hill Republicans flack for Trump, explain why ongoing possible violations of the emoluments clause are no big deal, brush off reckless disclosure of top-secret information to the Russians or refuse to chastise the president for cuddling up to dictators. As painful as it is to watch these performances, some satisfaction can be derived from knowing that these Republicans are doing incalculable damage to their ambition for future leadership in the party.

I won't shed a single tear for any of them.

[onekidanddone]

Excuse me while I go projectile vomit. He sucks up to the Saudis, gives the King a curtsy, and oh that huge orange slime mold projected on the hotel? Then his Orange Fuck Face gets a freaking medal.  Shit, we are never going to hear the end of that.  "I got a medal"..... "I'm the only person EVER in the history of the world to get such a nice shiny medal"... Like giving a sticker to a toddler for helping pick up his toys. Only I'd much rather hang out with a toddler. Toddlers are cute and even when they have epic meltdowns, you know things will calm down eventually.

I'm reading a biography of John Adams, and just got to the part where he was drafting the Massachusetts Constitution. He clearly states there should be three separate branches of government. I quote from the book by David McMullough:  Adams said: "the legislative, executive and judicial power shall be placed in separate departments, to t he end that it might be a government of laws, and not of men".  Of course he went on to be one of the people to write what would be the foundation of the country.

No, the founding fathers were not perfect.  While Adams did not, many owned slaves, but they were radical thinkers of their times. Planting the seeds of freedom. When did it all go so wrong? How did we end up with this orange shit weasel?

[laPapessaGiovanna]

5 hours ago, onekidanddone said:

 No, the founding fathers were not perfect.  While Adams did not, many owned slaves, but they were radical thinkers of their times. Planting the seeds of freedom. When did it all go so wrong? How did we end up with this orange shit weasel?

When communication and travel technologies improved immensely and the US got rid of stagecoaches but failed to get rid of the electoral college.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

Ford announced it will reduce its workforce of 10%. Somehow I doubt Trump will rush to take credit for this too.

[sawasdee]

My favourite WaPo comment of the day, on tRump's foreign tour:

Quote

America has nine days to get moved and change its phone number. Let's not waste time.

 

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

When communication and travel technologies improved immensely and the US got rid of stagecoaches but failed to get rid of the electoral college.

That electoral college is the most undemocratic entity in a so-called democratic country right now. It should be one of the first things to go when the whole governmental system in the US gets a much needed overhaul into this century.

The other contributing factor that is underpinning the rot in the system is the fact that in order to get into any kind of elected governmental office, you have to be able to pay for it. You can't get anywhere without money, money and more money. Where's the democracy in that? 

People should be able to be elected into office based on their merits to govern, not on how much money they can raise. In the current system, only the rich have a say. That is NOT democracy.

I don't think this is what the founding fathers had in mind all those centuries ago. They are probably turning in their graves right now at what has become of the republic.