Trump 18: Info to Russia, With Love

[GreyhoundFan]

8 minutes ago, Scribber said:

 

Is it bad that my first thought is that obnoxious Tomi? She'd make a great Mrs Trump.

 

I was thinking Tomi or Kayleigh.

 

This is a good one: "I study the psychology of adolescent bullies. Trump makes perfect sense to me."

Spoiler

President Trump has been described as a socially immature toddler and dishonest bully, yet he continues to be supported by a large segment of America. How can this contradiction be reconciled? Developmental science offers some insights into this apparent paradox.

As a psychologist studying bullying among youth, I find many parallels between Trump’s behaviors and our research findings. While a presidential candidate, Trump openly engaged in some typical bullying behaviors found among children and youth: name-calling and belittling of others. He targeted his Republican competitors (“little Marco”) as well as Democrats who criticized him (“crooked Hillary”). Although surveys indicate that people of all ages disapprove of bullying, his actions appeared to boost his popularity.

In a sense, this fits. Although bullies are never liked, they are popular in certain situations. Our research shows that bullies initially become “cool” during their first year in middle school. We think that this link between bullying and popularity is strengthened by the collective uncertainty associated with the transition to middle school. As youth are trying to acclimate to the new setting, many worry about their own social standing and ask: Where do I fit in? Who should I hang out with? When the future is uncertain, it is vital to know not only where one fits, but also who is in charge. Dominance hierarchies help group members find their places and form alliances, and bullying is among the most primitive ways to establish dominance.

At the time of the presidential election, insecurity about jobs and future finances were concerns of many Americans living in small towns and rural areas with few job opportunities. These were the places where Trump did well enough to win the election. One can speculate that by capitalizing on their social and economic uncertainties, Trump won the popularity contest despite often coming off as unlikable.

Our research on middle-schoolers also shows that the popularity of bullies wears off after the transition period. That is, after the first year in middle school, bullies’ popularity gradually decreases. According to the latest polls, Trump is still supported by most who voted for him — although some are changing their minds. The question is whether his popularity will hold when and whether voters begin to feel that their circumstances are more stable and less transitional.

Assuming that Trump knew how to capitalize on the uncertainties facing Americans to get elected, does that make him a strategic genius? His other behaviors cast doubt on such a conclusion — but they do fit the data on immature and aggressive children.

Trump is known for his tendency to deny his role in controversial events. He has denied, for example, asking FBI Director James B. Comey to drop the investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn; he has also denied ever having had dealings with Russian agents, and has angrily described probes into these matters as “a witch hunt.” While the nation is waiting to learn the truth about what Trump has or has not said and done, his stubborn denial reveals a lack of social reasoning typical of aggressive children.

Public accounts or explanations of negative events provide us with important insights about social-cognitive maturity. When a young child is questioned whether he ate the last cookie (even when there are crumbs on his lips), the immature response is: “I didn’t do it.” Children deny the act before they learn that it is socially beneficial to admit the wrongdoing but deny any negative intent. Teens tend to become even more skillful and elaborate on various mitigating circumstances, such as not turning in their homework due to illness or because they were helping an ailing grandmother. These accounts reduce the likelihood of punishment and facilitate forgiveness.

Not only does Trump flatly deny almost every accusation leveled against him, but he also claims no personal responsibility for problems. Instead he blames others, most recently the media and the White House staff. Refusal to accept personal responsibility and a tendency to blame others are indeed trademarks of aggressive children. In fact, our research shows that aggressive children are much quicker to infer hostile intent in ambiguous situations and lash out in revenge. Blaming others is a self-enhancing defense mechanism: It protects positive self-views.

In addition to protecting his ego, Trump also tries to enhance his self-worth. What makes him look childlike are his unsubstantiated claims about his popularity. Despite the verifiable evidence, he repeatedly refers to his unprecedented electoral college victory and the unmatched size of crowds at his inauguration.

Trump’s use of self-enhancement tactics also helps explain why he feels he has been treated worse and more unfairly than any other president in history. Despite their (short-lived) popularity, most bullies are hypersensitive to negative feedback — and ironically feel mistreated.

Revealingly, in his interview with his biographer Michael D’Antonio, Trump says he is the same person as he was in first grade. He may well also be very similar to the person he was in middle school: Indeed, there are many parallels between Trump’s behavior and the facts and findings of developmental science on social reasoning and behavior. But if the pattern holds, he won’t remain popular for very long.

He does seem to be a cross between a toddler and a middle-school bully.

[AuntK]

6 hours ago, Mela99 said:

"Evil losers." That's his heartfelt reaction to Manchester. Honest to god.... 

 

Calling someone a "loser" when you are over the age of 16 is the epitome of a "loser."

[GreyhoundFan]

Wow: "President Trump’s ‘balanced’ budget relies on $2,062,000,000,000 in mystery money"

Spoiler

White House officials are boasting that President Trump's budget would balance federal finances in 10 years. Yet despite extreme reductions in spending on health care for the poor, food stamps, education, science and other basic government programs, Trump's staff could only balance the budget by claiming vague savings and unspecified sources of new revenue — in other words, with trillions of dollars in mystery money.

It is not just that Trump is counting on a rapid acceleration in economic growth that economists believe is unlikely, which the budget projects will yield $2.1 trillion in new revenue ($2,062,000,000,000, to be more exact). Besides that bonus from growth, the budget also assumes that Trump's tax cuts — which he has said will be the largest in history —  would not affect the government's bottom line at all.

And even with optimistic assumptions about the tax code specifically and the overall economy more broadly, the White House still needed to claim over $1 trillion in unidentified cuts to miscellaneous programs to balance the budget.

Presidents often include optimistic assumptions in their budgets, but not to this degree, said Marc Goldwein, policy director at the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB). “I do think this is on a whole new level, based on what we’ve seen before,” he said.

“This is on the outer limits,” said Bill Hoagland, a veteran GOP congressional aide. “It is pushing the envelope.”

Let's take a closer look at how the White House says it would balance the budget.

“Twopenny plan”: $1.4 trillion

Trump has pledged not to reduce spending on Medicare or Social Security and to increase the budget for the Pentagon. Collectively, those categories account for over half of total federal outlays. The goal of balancing the budget in 10 years implies severe reductions in all of the rest of public spending.

In particular, Trump proposes reducing all nondefense, discretionary spending — a miscellaneous category that includes a variety of basic government services, including education, scientific research, highways, the State Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation — by about 2 percent annually.

That might not seem like very much, but the reductions add up quickly, especially because inflation and the fact that the population is growing mean that these programs' costs typically increase each year under ordinary circumstances. Over 10 years, Trump's so-called “twopenny plan” adds up to a 27 percent reduction across the board.

Hoagland, who is now a senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center, is troubled not only by the size of these cuts, but also by the fact that Trump and his aides did not explain where the savings would come from in that broad category. On some nondefense, discretionary priorities — such as infrastructure and border security — Trump has said he will increase spending, so it is unclear how the president would achieve that annual goal of 2 percent reductions.

“Economic feedback”: $2.1 trillion

The budget also forecasts $2.1 trillion in additional money attributable to a more robust economy. If economic activity picks up, Americans will earn more, buy more and invest more — and that means they'll pay more in taxes as well.

This forecast is based on the assumption in the budget that Trump's policies will accelerate the pace of economic growth to about 3 percent a year, which many economists view as optimistic relative to independent projections.

For instance, President Barack Obama's most optimistic budget, CRFB's Goldwein said, forecast economic growth at about 0.3 percentage points above the projection by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Trump's first budget puts growth at least a full percentage point above that forecast.

“The growth numbers in this budget are laughable,” said Jason Furman, who served as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Obama. “It's flabbergasting.”

The administration hopes to achieve that goal in part through deregulating industry and through imposing stricter requirements on recipients of public assistance to force them to find employment.

Even conservative experts who spoke with The Washington Post suggested that some of Trump's policies might work against achieving that goal. Hoagland pointed out that extreme reductions in funding for science and education would restrain economic growth over the long term. Technological progress and more skilled labor are crucial for improving standards of living, he said — and the responsibility for making those investments up front has typically fallen to the government.

Others pointed out that Trump's budget reduces spending on the Earned Income Tax Credit and similar programs, which Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), the speaker of the House, and other conservative policymakers have argued are valuable for encouraging Americans who are not working to look for a job. At the same time, economists in both parties argue that Trump's broader opposition toward immigration and free trade could slow down economic activity as well.

What is more, this $2.1 trillion apparently does not include any gains from changes to the tax system, which economists say could be one of the more effective ways for the administration to improve the economy.

“Tax reform”: Unknown

For Trump, generous tax relief was a crucial aspect of his campaign — but details on tax reform are completely omitted from the budget released Tuesday. Instead, the administration simply assumes no fundamental change in taxes.

Mick Mulvaney, Trump's budget director, said that the White House was still planning on reforming the tax system, but that because those plans are preliminary, the administration decided not to assume any overall change in the amount of money collected.

“We don't want to make too many assumptions,” Mulvaney told reporters at the White House Tuesday morning. “We thought that the assumption that the tax reform would be deficit-neutral was the most reasonable.”

It is difficult to know what to make of this statement, because the budget in fact does project a change in the deficit resulting from revenues — an increase of $2.1 trillion over 10 years. Presumably, Mulvaney means that bonus from economic growth is not a result of changes to the tax system, but instead would be a result of the administration's other polices designed to grow the economy.

In other words, above and beyond that $2.1 trillion, the administration is also assuming a further bonus from its tax policy that will cancel out reduced rates. The size of that additional assumption is unknown.

Yet if experts are dubious of the administration's ability to achieve its economic goals apart from taxes, they are even more witheringly skeptical about the idea that Trump's reductions in taxes could somehow pay for themselves. One recent survey of 37 prominent economists found none who believed that a tax cut would not add to the national debt.

Another interpretation is that the Trump administration has given up on the idea of a tax cut and is planning reforms to the tax system that will not change the overall burden of taxes, but could make the system fairer and more efficient. Experts on both sides of the aisle would welcome that approach, but it would be an abrupt departure from recent statements in favor of a cut by White House officials — including Trump himself.

“They’re trying to have it both ways,” Goldwein said.

Gosh, where did I leave that spare two-trillion dollars?

[Mela99]

18 minutes ago, AuntK said:

Calling someone a "loser" when you are over the age of 16 is the epitome of a "loser."

You think he held up an L on his forehead while he did? 

[GreyhoundFan]

One more before bed: "Get ready for the ‘impeachment election’"

Spoiler

President Richard Nixon was heading for a big reelection victory in November that would confound his critics. He had just returned from a pathbreaking visit to China and had big, transformative ideas for foreign policy. Yet he felt hounded by his enemies and a media elite that opposed him at every turn.

And there was that pesky FBI investigation into a “third-rate burglary” at the Watergate office building, about which the media were asking meddlesome questions. Nixon wrote in his diary after a later, revelatory Post scoop about Watergate that this was “the last burp of the Eastern Establishment,” recalls Evan Thomas in a recent book. Nixon was trying to do the people’s business, but he felt angry, isolated and embattled.

Then Nixon did something very stupid. On June 23, 1972, he instructed his chief of staff to contact the CIA and have its deputy director, Vernon Walters, tell the FBI to back off on its investigation: “They should call the FBI in and say that we wish for the country, don’t go any further into this case, period.” The tape recording of this conversation became known as “the smoking gun.”

President Trump, it’s said, doesn’t read presidential biographies. That’s a shame. For he appears to be making the same mistakes that destroyed Nixon’s presidency. That’s the thrust of The Post’s big story Monday night reporting that Trump asked U.S. intelligence chiefs to challenge the FBI’s investigation of possible links between his campaign and Russia.

“History does not repeat, but it does instruct,” writes Timothy Snyder in his new book, “On Tyranny.” Some people, apparently including Trump, just don’t learn.

The world is probably baffled by Washington’s obsession with the Russia scandal. Trump seems popular abroad, as Nixon was. That’s especially true in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and China where leaders are tired of being lectured by the United States and the public is fascinated by the cartoon-like “big man” character that Trump projects.

Give Trump credit for the unlikely foreign policy success he’s had: His trip to Saudi Arabia embraced a Muslim monarchy that is trying to break with its intolerant past. He persuaded the Saudis and other Persian Gulf states to ban financing of terrorists, even by private citizens. That’s a win for good policy. Earlier, he cajoled China into playing a stronger role in dealing with North Korea. Yes, these are “flip-flops” — reversing his earlier, inflammatory anti-Muslim and anti-Beijing rhetoric — but so what? They’re smart moves.

Yet no foreign or domestic success will stop the slow unfolding of the investigation that is now underway. That’s the importance of last week’s appointment of the impeccable Robert S. Mueller III as special counsel to investigate the Russia matter. The process can’t be derailed now. If the president or his associates are guilty of wrongdoing, Mueller will find out. If they’re innocent, he’ll discover that, too. From what we know about the former FBI director, he won’t tolerate leaks about his investigation.

For all Mueller’s probity, this investigation has an inescapable political destination. Mueller must refer any evidence of wrongdoing by Trump himself to the House of Representatives as evidence of possible “high crimes and misdemeanors” that might warrant impeachment. Would this GOP-dominated House begin impeachment proceedings, even on strong evidence of obstruction? Right now, you’d have to guess no.

The real collision point ahead is the 2018 midterm election. This will be the “impeachment election,” and it may be as bitterly contested as any in decades. Trump seems unlikely to take Nixon’s course of resigning before the House votes on impeachment. He’ll fight all the way — a combative president trying to save his mandate from what he has described as a “witch hunt.” This appeal would resonate with a populist base that already feels disenfranchised by jurists and journalists.

As Mueller proceeds with his investigation, the world of Washington needs to be level-headed. The politics of polarization is only beginning. Trump’s war on the media and its sources will get nastier. How do citizens hold Trump accountable without the process seeming like vengeful payback from media and political elites? Graham Allison, director of Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, notes that elite opinion may already regard Trump as “unfit for office,” but he cautions: “When I contrast this with what many fellow citizens believe about elites, yikes.”

Under our Constitution, the House and Senate are prosecutor and jury, respectively, for serious presidential misconduct. But this legal process probably won’t be triggered without a poisonously divisive election. If recent history teaches anything, it’s unfortunately this harsh fact: In the battle for America’s soul, Trump could win.

Sobering, but true. We can't lose focus on the 2018 mid-terms. The Dems MUST make gains.

[GreyhoundFan]

Well, Agent Orange didn't explode into flames: "Pope welcomes Trump at the Vatican despite past disagreements"

Spoiler

VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis welcomed President Trump to the cradle of Roman Catholicism on Wednesday, delivering a message of peace even as the pontiff emphasized his standing as the world’s moral counterpoint to the president’s nationalist agenda.

The two men met in the pope’s private study for nearly half an hour, joined only by an interpreter. The pontiff, in white papal dress and a pectoral cross on a chain around his neck, sat behind a small desk while Trump, in a dark suit and navy striped tie, took the single chair across from him as if interviewing for a job.

After some initial awkwardness — Trump looked somewhat uneasy as he was kept waiting for a few seconds in the Saint Ambrose room before shaking hands with Francis, who was stone-faced at first — the atmosphere soon warmed.

The pair seemed to set aside their differences from last year’s campaign, with Trump appearing both presidential and deferential, while the pope, smiling slightly, seemed to be visually appraising him.

A brief Vatican communique later called the meeting “cordial,” and expressed hope for collaboration with the administration on “health care, education and assistance to immigrants.”

It said Trump and Francis had exchanged views on “international affairs and the promotion of peace in the world through political negotiation and interreligious dialogue, with particular reference to the situation in the Middle East and the protection of Christian communities.”

Trump later called the meeting “great” and “fantastic.”

“He is something,” Trump said of Francis. “We’re liking Italy very, very much and it was an honor to be with the pope.”

Once Francis rang a bell signaling that the one-on-one discussion had concluded, the pair exchanged official gifts, with the pope presenting Trump a medallion by a Roman artist in the shape of an olive tree, the symbol of peace.

“We can use peace,” Trump said.

Francis also offered copies of his writings on the topics of family, the joy of the gospel and “care of our common home, the environment.”

“Well, I’ll be reading them,” the president said.

Trump’s visit to the Vatican capped his quest this week to promote “tolerance” among followers of three of the world’s religions and cooperation against extremism. On his maiden foreign trip as president, Trump has addressed a summit of Muslim leaders in Saudi Arabia and met with Israeli and Palestinian leaders in Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

Arguably the West’s most influential leaders, Trump and Francis hold divergent worldviews on everything from migrant rights to climate change.

Underscoring the differences between them, Trump’s administration on Tuesday unveiled a budget that deeply cuts assistance to the poor. Francis, meanwhile, spent Tuesday commemorating the Rev. Oscar Romero, a Salvadoran archbishop gunned down by right wing death squads and who championed social justice and the rights of the poor.

Following their private meeting, Trump expressed gratitude for the audience.

“Thank you,” the president said, shaking hands with the pontiff. “Thank you. I won’t forget what you said.”

First lady Melania Trump, in a black dress with a black veil, was also greeted by the pope and engaged in a brief conversation. She appeared more animated than she has during the earlier parts of the trip, when she gazed into the distance without expression while her husband was the center of attention.

The first lady chatted with Francis, who said something to her in English that made her laugh.

“What do you give him to eat, potizza?” Francis asked, referring to the president and a Slovenian dessert.

The first lady, who was born in Slovenia, smiled and repeated “potizza.”

One of the pope’s attendants, gave Melania Trump a small object that appeared to be a rosary, as she was walking away. She turned back and asked the pope to bless it, which he did.

Before departing the Vatican, the Trumps were given a private tour of the Sistine Chapel and St. Peter’s Basilica, and the president held a 50 minute meeting with Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican Secretary of State, and Archbishop Paul Gallagher, who effectively serves as the Vatican’s foreign minister.

The president later met with Italian President Sergio Mattarella at the Quirinal Palace in Rome, and with Prime Minister Pablo Gentiloni at Villa Taverna.

Among the gifts Francis presented to the president was a copy of the pontiff’s 2015 encyclical on the environment and its relationship to social justice. Although it predates Trump’s presidency, the document seemed a message to an administration that has questioned climate change and whose economic policies are centered on profit and growth.

In it, Francis chastised the world’s leading nations for lacking the will to address man-made climate change. “The warming caused by huge consumption on the part of some rich countries has repercussions on the poorest areas of the world, especially Africa, where a rise in temperature, together with drought, has proved devastating for farming,” he wrote.

Trump is in the process of deciding whether to uphold the Paris climate change agreement, amid heated debate among his advisers. The agreement is expected to be the subject of discussion between Trump and newly-elected French President Emmanuel Macron and other European leaders when they meet in Brussels later this week.

The pope also gave Trump a copy of his January 2017 World Day of Peace message, saying “I signed it personally for you.”

“Ooh,” Trump commented. “That’s so beautiful.”

The message noted that while the last century was marked by two world wars, “today, sadly, we find ourselves engaged in a horrifying world war fought piecemeal,” including “the abuses suffered by migrants and victims of human trafficking; and the devastation of the environment.” Echoing Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., he called for increased engagement in “active and creative nonviolence.”

Trump gifted Francis a first-edition set of King’s five books, which were custom-bound and accented with gold hand-tooling. Francis cited King’s march from Selma to Montgomery, Ala., in his 2015 address to a joint session of Congress.

“These are books from Martin Luther King,” Trump said. “I think you will enjoy them.”

The president also presented a handmade bronze sculpture created by Florida artist Geoffrey Smith, titled “Rising Above,” and designed to evoke the values of unity and resilience.

Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, who also wore a black dress and veil, and her husband, Jared Kushner, a senior White House adviser, also met the pope.

In a separate room in the Apostolic Palace, Trump introduced members of his family to Francis, and they shook the pontiff’s hand. The Americans included Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, national security adviser H.R. McMaster, State Department officials Margaret Peterlin and Brian Hook, as well as three longtime aides who are close to the president: Hope Hicks, his communications adviser; Dan Scavino, who manages his Twitter account; and Keith Schiller, his former bodyguard who now directs Oval Office operations.

In a high profile exchange last year, Trump and Francis traded barbs. The pope called Trump’s proposal to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, a rallying cry for his campaign, “not Christian.” Trump replied by calling any religious leader who would say such thing “disgraceful.”

Nevertheless, Vatican officials — while seeking to play down a meeting that many speculated could be either be very diplomatic or easily run off script — have described Wednesday’s encounter as an opportunity for the U.S. president and the head of the Roman Catholic Church to find common ground.

“It’s in nobody’s interest to try to win arguments,” said a senior Vatican official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to preview the meeting. “The Holy See and the U.S. government will have their differences — as they always do — but there’s a whole range of issues they can work together on, and this kind of meeting can serve to get them off to a good start.”

Trump was “honored to go and meet the pope,” adding that he “has a lot of respect” for Francis, a senior administration official told reporters Tuesday aboard Air Force One, as the president flew to Rome from Israel.

In St. Peter’s Square outside the basilica, crowds of tourists and the faithful were gathering for the pope’s appearance at his regular General Audience on Wednesdays.

“This is a beautiful meeting,” said Carlos Castillo, 18, from Vancouver, Canada, said of Trump’s visit. “They have been criticizing each other from afar and now they are face to face.”

Herel Hughes, 24, a university student from Chicago, said, “I hope the pope will be able to talk some sense into Trump.”

On Tuesday night, a small number of Italians and Americans living in Rome organized an anti-Trump demonstration in Rome’s Piazza Bologna.

“I am not a Catholic, but this pope has stood up for migrant rights, for the poor, for everything Trump doesn’t,” said Michele Renda, 39, who held a sign reading “Rome Resists.” I think it’s outrageous that Trump is coming for the photo with the pope, to try to prove he is something he is not.”

“We in Italy, in Europe, looked up to the United States for its democracy,” Renda said. “But not with Trump. Not with what he stands for.”

On Wednesday, police here took a zero tolerance approach toward protesters. A group of Americans living in Rome, reported in a Facebook post that their fliers, with the message “Build Bridges Not Walls,” were confiscated. After being briefly detained, according to their statement, they were told by authorities that “any material that is even directly protesting Trump is prohibited in the center of Rome until he leaves the city.”

Yeah, like the TT is going to read anything.

[apple1]

Even if he gets impeached, the harm Trump has done to this country is already immeasurable.

One could argue that all of this was there already, but I'm not convinced of some of that. His polarization has pulled people in who were IMO uninvolved and who previously didn't care (not the best, I admit, but better than where we are now).

The Trump-ites with the racism, xenophobia, homophobia, hate-the-"liberals", it's OK to say any hateful thing you like anywhere instead of being careful with your words, least common denominator, etc, etc are still going to be here and will become like wounded animals with their "god" deposed.

I really fear for where we are as a nation.

[GreyhoundFan]

Sigh: "Trump advisers call for privatizing some public assets to build new infrastructure"

Spoiler

The Trump administration, determined to overhaul and modernize the nation’s infrastructure, is drafting plans to privatize some public assets such as airports, bridges, highway rest stops and other facilities, according to top officials and advisers.

In his proposed budget released Tuesday, President Trump called for spending $200 billion over 10 years to “incentivize” private, state and local spending on infrastructure.

Trump advisers said that to entice state and local governments to sell some of their assets, the administration is considering paying them a bonus. The proceeds of the sales would then go to other infrastructure projects. Australia has pursued a similar policy, which it calls “asset recycling,” prompting the 99-year lease of a state-owned electrical grid to pay for improvements to the Sydney Metro, among other projects.

In the United States, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) explored privatizing Midway International Airport several years ago but dropped the idea in 2013, after a key bidder backed away. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao says such projects should be encouraged.

“You take the proceeds from the airport, from the sale of a government asset, and put it into financing infrastructure,” Chao said. St. Louis is working with federal officials to try to privatize Lambert International Airport, she said.

Officials are crafting Trump’s initiative, and he has yet to decide which ideas will make the final cut. But two driving themes are clear: Government practices are stalling the nation’s progress; and private companies should fund, build and run more of the basic infrastructure of American life.

A far-reaching proposal from the Trump administration earlier this year to take the nation’s air-traffic control system out of government hands was fueled, in part, by frustration at sluggish efforts to modernize technology.

To speed up infrastructure projects, officials are preparing to overhaul the federal environmental review and permitting system, which they blame for costly delays. Trump asked advisers whether they could collapse that process, which he said takes at least 10 years, down to four months. “But we’ll be satisfied with a year,” Trump said. “It won’t be more than a year.”

In a bid for broader support, Trump and some of his advisers have also signaled an openness to raising the gas tax to pay for needed projects. The 18.4-cent-per-gallon levy is the federal government’s main source of highway funds and was last raised in 1993.

The infrastructure initiative is being shaped by White House officials and a task force representing 16 federal departments and agencies. In addition, there is a committee of outside advisers co-chaired by billionaire developer Richard LeFrak, a Trump friend.

LeFrak said the administration’s effort, which is being led by Gary Cohn, director of the National Economic Council, Chao and others, is a sweeping attempt to rethink how infrastructure gets built. LeFrak said the issues are intensely personal for Trump, who spent his career in real estate and sees this as an area where he can make a lasting impact.

“He does think he’s the president to rebuild America. He’s a builder. It’s just logical,” LeFrak said. “He’s highly enthusiastic about this idea and getting it done.”

Critics said Trump and his advisers are putting ideology ahead of the national interest and oversimplifying how the process works.

Public stewards should not be “trying to figure out how to extract maximum value” by selling off government assets or “making huge, multibillion-dollar wagers” that span decades, said Kevin DeGood, director of infrastructure policy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal advocacy group. “Building infrastructure faster and without adequate study or time for community input may be good for developers, but it’s lousy for everyone else.”

Still, there are bipartisan concerns that important projects have been stymied by politics and bureaucracy, and that Washington has been unwilling to allocate the money for needed improvements. A civil-engineering group in March tallied a “$2 trillion, 10-year investment gap” in the nation’s roads, transit systems, bridges, water systems, power grids, parks, ports and schools.

In February, Trump told Congress that he would seek legislation “that produces a $1 trillion investment” in infrastructure and creates “millions of new jobs.” Officials have since said that the plan will probably include $200 billion in direct federal funds, which would be used to “leverage” the larger figure over a decade. LeFrak sees the chance for a deal, noting that Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) also “wants a trillion-dollar program.”

“So you’ve already got two important people — one very, very important person and one very important person — both from different sides of the aisle, who come in favor of this,” LeFrak said.

But on Tuesday, when Trump’s budget proposal was released, Schumer condemned the president’s “180-degree turn away from his repeated promise of a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan,” saying the budget contains deep cuts in spending on roads, transit projects, public housing and more.

“The fuzzy math and sleight of hand can’t hide the fact that the President’s $200 billion plan is more than wiped out by other cuts to key infrastructure programs,” Schumer said in a statement.

Trump administration officials disputed Schumer’s calculations, saying they included budget items that should not be considered cuts. They cited a projected “drop-off” in federal highway funds that could be eliminated as part of the broader infrastructure agreement.

The budget places a heavy emphasis on market solutions, such as making it easier for states to toll interstates, saying that the federal government has become “a complicated, costly middleman.” The budget also talks about leasing vacant space in Veterans Affairs facilities and selling off major power facilities as ways of “disposing underused capital assets.”

At a recent White House event, Trump stood alongside one of his top infrastructure aides, DJ Gribbin, who held up a seven-foot-long flow chart illustrating the highway permitting process. The colorful boxes and baffling array of crisscrossing lines were meant to drive home a point about regulatory overreach.

The chart also could have been a graphic representation of the difficulty of crafting a $1 trillion package capable of making it through Congress at a time beset with political division.

Democrats, including Schumer, and some Republicans favor a heavy reliance on federal spending, while others in the GOP want to cut that spending and push more responsibility onto states. Agreeing on ways to better manage arcane state and federal regulations would be tough in even the most forgiving of climates.

Add in the priorities of numerous government agencies, and the puzzle becomes even more complex.

“This is a democracy,” Chao said. “They’re not easy questions.”

So Chao and others crafting the president’s plan have cut the problem into smaller, more digestible pieces: regulation and permitting; government procurement, which Trump officials say is too clunky and doesn’t make enough use of private options; government revenue and private capital; and lessons from abroad.

They also are trying to account for dizzying technological advances. How do you plan for a 10-year broadband expansion, for example, when the technology could easily shift in five years? Chao asked.

LeFrak, who co-chairs the advisory committee with another Trump friend, Vornado Realty Trust Chairman Steven Roth, said they have also been wrestling with another challenge,the controversy over high-speed rail, “which is one of the things people dream about.”

But he has seen studies showing a much lower per-mile cost for using driverless cars instead. So should the government invest in rail, which takes passengers station to station, or in “some kind of road network which is going to allow these cars to travel at relatively high speeds” and take a passenger door to door? he asked.

The administration’s focus on shortening the environmental-review process has concerned environmental groups that point to Trump’s moves to reverse efforts to fight climate change.

Trump’s advisers say it’s possible to speed up projects that have clear support and a good business case — while also doing more to protect the environment. But Trump’s push for strict new deadlines would require major changes to environmental laws, which would face fierce opposition.

“There’s no reason why the U.S. cannot function as efficiently as other Western-style democracies in getting worthy projects through the system and permitted,” LeFrak said. “The math speaks for itself. What we’re doing in six years, seven years, eight years, 10 years, these other countries get done in a year or two.”

DeGood said Trump’s team is relying on exaggerated figures and playing down recent reforms to speed approvals. Administration officials cited a report saying it took the Federal Highway Administration more than six years to approve major environmental reviews for projects that need them. While that was true in 2011, DeGood said, that figure has since dropped to 3.6 years.

Chao said that things still move too slowly and that many permitting processes can be done simultaneously rather than sequentially. Officials will cut “duplicative or wasteful steps,” she said.

“If we can make these construction projects come online faster without compromising the environmental concerns, it’s good for the quality of life of a community. . . . It helps people. It creates more jobs. It creates less congestion,” Chao said. And faster approvals create less-risky, more-attractive opportunities to invest in America. “What I heard from the private sector is there’s lots of money available, but there are not enough projects.”

Partnership pros and cons

The administration plans to push states to use public-private partnerships — P3s in industry jargon.

In such arrangements, a private firm might bring together investors and low-cost federal loans to expand a highway, for example, then collect tolls from motorists to recoup costs and earn a profit. Companies can more nimbly tap technology and other innovations in building and maintaining such projects, advocates say. Critics say relying on tolls will not work in rural or distressed communities.

Some of those partnerships have worked as intended, such as the Washington region’s Interstate 495 Express Lanes — 14 miles of toll and carpool lanes that opened in 2012. Although the tolls are unpopular, the partnership gave drivers more options for faster travel. Maryland’s proposed Purple Line light-rail system also would be built with a public-private partnership.

Other such arrangements have failed, with ill-prepared governments saddling themselves with bad deals. Chicago’s inspector general cited the 75-year lease of city parking meters to a private firm for $1.16 billion in 2008. Under the same terms, the city would have earned at least $974 million more by keeping the meters, the IG said.

‘Asset recycling’ in Australia

Australia, which has long advocated privatization, launched its “asset recycling initiative” in 2014. Cohn, a former president of Goldman Sachs, said officials are looking at importing the idea.

“Instead of people in cities and states and municipalities coming to us and saying, ‘Please give us money to build a project,’ and not knowing if it will get maintained, and not knowing if it will get built, we say, ‘Hey, take a project you have right now, sell it off, privatize it, we know it will get maintained, and we’ll reward you for privatizing it,’ ” Cohn told executives at the White House. “The bigger the thing you privatize, the more money we’ll give you.”

So far, one Australian state and two territories have chosen public resources to sell off. The central government kicks in 15 percent of the value of what’s sold.

The Australian treasury said the central government has reached agreements to pay out $1.7 billion in “incentive payments” that will “unlock” $12.6 billion in spending, including for a light-rail line in Canberra. For that project, the Australian Capital Territory sold public housing projects, a tourism information center and a public gambling operation, according to government documents.

Some critics called the moves shortsighted.

“You can’t perform that deal again,” said John Quiggin, a professor of economics at the University of Queensland.

The program has at times been a lightning rod, as when the Northern Territory government leased the Port of Darwin to a Chinese-owned firm for 99 years, sparking a debate over national security.

That still leaves the question: How do you get to $1 trillion?

“Everything’s on the table,” Chao said.

Administration officials are putting together a menu of options to hit that total, including big-ticket possibilities such as “repatriating” funds parked overseas by U.S. firms, and smaller ideas such as privatizing highway service plazas, Chao said.

Chao said congressional leaders — she is married to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — have made clear “the administration has to have a bill with pay-fors before they will accept it. So we understand that.”

LeFrak says that there is money lying around in government assets that can be privatized, and that people can get “socialized” to paying tolls.He said uncollected Internet sales taxes could go to states to help pay the infrastructure bill. He also thinks Washington should borrow large sums at today’s low interest rates.

He also noted that the federal gas tax hasn’t been raised in nearly a quarter-century, and that more than 20 states have raised or indexed their gas taxes since 2013. For federal officials, that presents “a test in political courage,” LeFrak said.

“I’ve come to the conclusion that the wish of everybody is we have divine intervention, that somehow a bridge gets floated down from on high. People say, ‘Wow, we got a free bridge!’ ” he said. “But the answer is, it’s an expensive investment.”

I hate, hate, hate "public-private-partnerships", they always seem to benefit the private company far more than the public. We have had several of them in my area, mostly with building new lanes on roads. To use those lanes is terribly expensive and not worth it.

[sawasdee]

Well, he's shooting his mouth off on classified info again.....

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-submarines-idUSKBN18K15Y?il=0

Spoiler

Quote

U.S. President Donald Trump told his Philippine counterpart that Washington has sent two nuclear submarines to waters off the Korean peninsula, the New York Times said, comments likely to raise questions about his handling of sensitive information.

Trump has said "a major, major conflict" with North Korea is possible because of its nuclear and missile programs and that all options are on the table but that he wants to resolve the crisis diplomatically.

North Korea has vowed to develop a missile mounted with a nuclear warhead that can strike the mainland United States, saying the program is necessary to counter U.S. aggression.

Trump told Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte Washington had "a lot of firepower over there", according to the New York Times, which quoted a transcript of an April 29 call between the two.

"We have two submarines — the best in the world. We have two nuclear submarines, not that we want to use them at all," the newspaper quoted Trump as telling Duterte, based on the transcript.

The report was based on a Philippine transcript of the call that was circulated on Tuesday under a "confidential" cover sheet by the Americas division of the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs.

In a show of force, the United States has sent the nuclear-powered USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier to waters off the Korean peninsula, where it joined the USS Michigan, a nuclear submarine that docked in South Korea in late April.

According to the Times, a senior Trump administration official in Washington, who was not authorized to publicly discuss the call and insisted on anonymity, confirmed the transcript was an accurate representation of the call between the two leaders.

U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, have said Trump discussed intelligence about Islamic State with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak at talks in the Oval Office this month, raising questions about Trump's handling of secrets.

Trump also praised Duterte for doing an "unbelievable job on the drug problem", the New York Times reported, a subject that has drawn much criticism in the West.

Almost 9,000 people, many small-time users and dealers, have been killed in the Philippines since Duterte took office on June 30. Police say about one-third of the victims were shot by officers in self-defense during legitimate operations.

 

Hasn't he heard 'Loose lips sink ships'?

And another 'strongman' that he admires - and this one rumoured to have killed two 'drug dealers' PERSONALLY in his 'drugs crackdown'!

[GreyhoundFan]

@sawasdee -- it figures that the tangerine toddler would cozy up to Duerte. I bet he wishes he could just off people he doesn't like.

 

Another good grief moment: "In Trump budget briefing, ‘climate change musical’ is cited as tax waste. Wait, what?"

Spoiler

Tuesday morning, during a White House conference on President Trump's proposed 2018 federal budget, Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney invoked a musical that, seven years ago, won a government grant worth nearly $700,000.

When asked if the administration considered climate change programs to be taxpayer waste, Mulvaney replied, “The National Science Foundation last year used your taxpayer money to fund a climate change musical. Do you think that’s a waste of your money?”

Mulvaney said that the previous administration funded “crazy stuff” and spent too much money in its climate change efforts. “Does it mean that we are anti-science? Absolutely not,” he said. “We are simply trying to get things back in order.”

When asked during an NSF budget briefing Tuesday afternoon, Director France A. Córdova declined to say whether she felt that Mulvaney's “musical” comment characterized the current White House approach to climate research. “Just as a point of fact, that was actually awarded and proposed in 2010,” Córdova said, rather than last year, as Mulvaney suggested.

The musical in question, “The Great Immensity,” received $697,177 under a continuing grant that was awarded in August 2010 and ended in mid-2014. Brooklyn-based theater company the Civilians produced the musical. “The play uses real places and stories drawn from interviews conducted by the artists to create an experience that is part investigative journalism and part inventive theater,” according to the grant's abstract published at the NSF website. “Attendance at the performances is projected to be about 75,000.”

The narrative follows a woman whose husband, a nature filmmaker, vanished from a tropical island. Along the way, she uncovers a caper to disrupt a “Global Climate Summit” held in Paris. (The New York Times wrote that the “witty but unwieldy” production “sometimes feels as if it were constructed by an impassioned college student with a brain full of facts and a fierce determination not to turn to Big Pharma to control that pesky attention-deficit problem.”)

“The Great Immensity,” which debuted in February 2014 in Missouri, ran for about four weeks off-Broadway in New York. Republican politicians, most vocally Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), condemned the project as wasteful. As Science magazine noted in late 2014, the musical remained a “favorite target” of conservative media outlets. A September 2014 Fox News article reported that just 5 percent of the anticipated audience saw the production before it closed.

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Tex.) questioned whether Smith or his staff may have leaked the attendance figures, which were not public; both Johnson and Smith, as members of House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, had access to those numbers.

Three years later, Republicans continue to hold up the dead show as the standard for taxpayer waste. Except it appears “The Great Immensity” has mutated into musicals, plural (or at least it was longer-lived, per Mulvaney). This month, in the House Science Committee authorization and oversight plan, Smith listed “climate change musicals” as examples of NSF projects that fail to meet national interest.

Under the 2018 proposal, the NSF budget would be leaner by $776 million (enough to fund 1,100 climate change musicals). The $6.7 billion NSF budget would be reset to the level it was circa 2006 or 2007, Córdova said. “We understand and appreciate the apprehension felt within the community,” she said. But Córdova also said that the budget kept the agency's “core values” intact and that it could support some 8,000 grants. The NSF would “continue to fund the very best research,” she said, “because our goal is to be the very best.”

 

 

[47of74]

Francis looks sooooo thrilled to be meeting TT.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump’s budget would cut off food for poor people if they have too many kids"

Spoiler

The Trump administration is seeking to dramatically cut food aid to large American families as part of its wide-ranging budget proposal to shrink the social safety net, Agriculture Department officials said Tuesday.

The measure is a small part of the administration’s radical plan to cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), better known as food stamps, by $193 billion over 10 years. The plan would slash the number of people who rely on the SNAP program, which covers 44 million people.

On Monday, White House budget director Mick Mulvaney signaled that the administration would achieve that goal in part by limiting eligibility to unemployed adult participants. But in the administration's full budget proposal, and in a call with reporters Tuesday afternoon, Deputy Agriculture Secretary Michael Young said the administration is seeking to slash SNAP benefits to another population as well: low-income households of more than six people, the majority of which include young children.

The administration’s plan would cap the maximum monthly benefits for all families at the current threshold for a family of six, Young said. That effectively means that additional family members would be indiscriminately booted from the program.

Although the affected population is not large — slightly fewer than 200,000 SNAP households have more than six people — USDA data suggests that it is highly vulnerable. To qualify for SNAP, a family of eight must have a gross annual income of $53,000 or less. The majority of these large households include children under 12 years old and also tend to include more women than men.

Anti-hunger advocates are deriding the proposed cuts.

“This all derives from that old canard that people have more children to get more welfare benefits,” said Craig Gundersen, an agricultural economist at the University of Illinois who has studied SNAP for 20 years. “The amount of money you get for each additional child is not significant. No one is looking at that and saying, ‘I think I’ll have more kids because of it’ … It’s totally inconsistent with the goals of SNAP as an anti-hunger program.”

Under SNAP’s long-standing rules, benefit amounts are calculated according to an applicant’s income, location and family size. In most of the country, the maximum allotment increases by $120 to $150 per month — about $4 to $5 per day — for every extra person in the house.

But the Trump administration proposal would change that for large households, capping the amount they can receive, regardless of size, at $925 per month. For a family of nine, that would decrease the maximum benefit from $1,315 — about $4.87 per person per day — to approximately $3.43. That is significantly lower than even the most conservative amount the USDA says is needed to feed a family.

In a separate, closely related measure, Trump’s budget also proposes eliminating the minimum SNAP allotment of $16 per month for households with one or two people. The individuals who receive the SNAP minimum are most frequently low-income seniors and people with disabilities who have smaller households and higher incomes relative to others in their cohort. According to the Center for Budget Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank, the change would eliminate almost 2 million of those beneficiaries from the program.

“The unemployed, the elderly, and low-income working families with children would bear the brunt of the cuts,” CBPP’s Stacy Dean wrote in a Tuesday analysis.

Young, the deputy agriculture secretary, did not explain the rationale behind either of the proposed cuts in the SNAP program, and the USDA did not immediately respond to a request for more details. But both were rolled out as part of a larger, comprehensive policy plan.

During Tuesday’s media call, Young said that all the proposed cuts — not only to SNAP, but to USDA programs including farm subsidies, research and rural development — are necessary, if difficult, sacrifices.

“This is all part of our bigger policy goal to get the budget balanced over 10 years,” he said.

Sigh, just sigh. There are millions of seniors and disabled people who are going to be hurt terribly.

[Mela99]

1 hour ago, 47of74 said:

Francis looks sooooo thrilled to be meeting TT.

 

Even His Holiness, commanded to love and respect all, can only offer a "THIS BITCH..." face to DJT...

[RoseWilder]

Congressman Al Green says that articles of impeachment are being drawn up: 

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/articles-of-impeachment-against-trump-are-being-drafted-says-congressman/

Quote

Democratic Representative Al Green has said he is pushing ahead with the process of impeaching President Donald Trump and is currently drawing up articles of impeachment.

The Texas congressman last week appeared on the floor of the House of Representatives to call for his colleagues to begin impeachment proceedings. The appeal came a day after revelations of a memo from former FBI Director James Comey claiming that Trump had asked him to drop an investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

Green did not say when he would file a privileged resolution for impeachment, which would have to be considered in the House within two days, but said he was working with constitutional lawyers. And, he added, he would be prepared to go at it alone if need be.

“At some point, we’ll wait to see what others will do, and if no one else does, the president has committed an impeachable act, and I will take it upon myself to do that,” he said.

 

[sawasdee]

38 minutes ago, RoseWilder said:

Congressman Al Green says that articles of impeachment are being drawn up: 

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/articles-of-impeachment-against-trump-are-being-drafted-says-congressman/

 

I'm not sure I agree with him.

Don't get me wrong, I want rid of tRump as much as anyone, but

1. I think there's a lot more that will come out in the relatively near future, and the more thoroughly he is exposed the better.

2.At the moment, there is very little general or Repug support, so it will certainly fail.

3. A failed attempt will make a second attempt harder, and repeated attempts will make his base cry "Persecution!"

I think we need a bit of patience, to bring him - and as many others as possible - completely and totally down.

[formergothardite]

I think waiting is the best in the long term. I think a whole lot more is getting ready to come out and that info will bring down more people. Wait, watch and be vigilant is the best defense at the moment. 

[RoseWilder]

No, he's not filing the impeachment papers yet. He's just drawing up the papers. I think he's just getting things ready for when it's time to formally file them. 

And I think that's a good idea to have everything ready to go for when the time comes. 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

On 23/5/2017 at 9:03 PM, Howl said:

And what do you know?  CNN has an article today titled "Trump's casino was a money laundering concern shortly after it opened"

  Reveal hidden contents

The Trump Taj Mahal casino broke anti-money laundering rules 106 times in its first year and a half of operation in the early 1990s, according to the IRS in a 1998 settlement agreement.

It's a bit of forgotten history that's buried in federal records held by an investigative unit of the Treasury Department, records that congressional committees investigating Trump's ties to Russia have obtained access to, CNN has learned.

The casino repeatedly failed to properly report gamblers who cashed out $10,000 or more in a single day, the government said.  Trump's casino ended up paying the Treasury Department a $477,000 fine in 1998 without admitting any liability under the Bank Secrecy Act.

full article here

Tee hee!  I bet the investigative committees dredges up incriminating details from the swamp that is Trump's business dealing on a daily basis.  And you have to know that most if not all of these investigators are MOTIVATED, I mean ON FIRE for the truth. 

(Hums a happy little tune to herself while rummaging in the pantry for the popcorn.)

They're way late, the right time to focus on his dishonesty was BEFORE the election, imho. Better late than never.

4 hours ago, 47of74 said:

Francis looks sooooo thrilled to be meeting TT.

 

Why did Melania dress like a nun and Ivanka like a widowed bride? And why are they taking a pic with a teethy and crazy looking orange nutcracker?

ETA pope Francis looked like he badly wanted to be somewhere else or at least to be able to kick that orange ass.

[fraurosena]

22 minutes ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

Why did Melania dress like a nun and Ivanka like a widowed bride? And why are they taking a pic with a teethy and crazy looking orange nutcracker?

ETA pope Francis looked like he badly wanted to be somewhere else or at least to be able to kick that orange ass.

The pope thinks: "Who is this moron?"

TT thinks: "I won the election, bigly!"

Melania thinks: "I wish I was this moron's widow."

Ivanka thinks: "I'm a morondonna!"

Jared thinks: "..."

[sawasdee]

That is one strange photo - one manically grinning idiot,and four 'please let this be over' companions!

Interesting article on how tRump's speech has noticeably declined in recorded interviews over the years, and what it may signify - with the caveat that for true diagnosis, a proper examination would have to be done.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/05/23/donald-trump-speaking-style-interviews/

This paragraph stood out for me

Quote

The reason linguistic and cognitive decline often go hand in hand, studies show, is that fluency reflects the performance of the brain’s prefrontal cortex, the seat of higher-order cognitive functions such as working memory, judgment, understanding, and planning, as well as the temporal lobe, which searches for and retrieves the right words from memory. Neurologists therefore use tests of verbal fluency, and especially how it has changed over time, to assess cognitive status.

 

That could explain a lot.

[onekidanddone]

18 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I was thinking Tomi or Kayleigh.

<gentle snip>

I was thinking Kelly Anne Nut job.

[sawasdee]

Aaaand another broken promise.

In order to comply with the Emoluments clause, tRump promised to donate any profits from overseas Governments using his properties to charity.

Now it's too complicated.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/trumps-company-isnt-tracking-all-the-money-it-gets-from-foreign-governments/527997/

Spoiler

Quote

Days before taking office, Donald Trump said his company would donate all profits from foreign governments to the U.S. Treasury, part of an effort to avoid even the appearance of a conflict with the Constitution’s emoluments clause.

Now, however, the Trump Organization is telling Congress that determining exactly how much of its profits come from foreign governments is simply more trouble than it’s worth.

In response to a document request from the House Oversight Committee, Trump’s company sent a copy of an eight-page pamphlet detailing how it plans to track payments it receives from foreign governments at the firm’s many hotels, golf courses, and restaurants across the globe. But while the Trump Organization said it would set aside all money it collects from customers that identify themselves as representing a foreign government, it would not undertake a more intensive effort to determine if a payment would violate the Constitution’s prohibition on public office holders accepting an “emolument” from a foreign state.

“To fully and completely identify all patronage at our Properties by customer type is impractical in the service industry and putting forth a policy that requires all guests to identify themselves would impede upon personal privacy and diminish the guest experience of our brand,” the Trump Organization wrote in its policy pamphlet, which the company’s chief compliance officer said had been distributed to general managers and senior officials at all of its properties.

The statement drew an angry response from the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, Representative Elijah Cummings of Maryland, who said the policy “raised grave concerns about the president’s refusal to comply with the Constitution.” In a letter replying to the company, Cummings said it would be easy for a government like Russia to funnel money to the Trump Organization through unofficial entities, such as RT, its state-run television station. “Those payments would not be tracked in any way and would be hidden from the American public,” the Democrat wrote.

 

Colour me surprised.

 

 

[onekidanddone]

35 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

The pope thinks: "Who is this moron?"

TT thinks: "I won the election, bigly!"

Melania thinks: "I wish I was this moron's widow."

Ivanka thinks: "I'm a morondonna!"

Jared thinks: "..."

The pope thinks: "Jesus, when you said 'love everybody' did you mean this ass hat?"

TT thinks: "This guy is in a dress. SAD"

Melania thinks: "The guy in white is so nice, maybe he will let me live here"

Ivanka thinks: "I'm so pretty, please buy my crappy trinkets"

Jared thinks: "Me son in law, me smart."

 

I want to know why the women are in black. Are they preparing for the funeral of impeachment? 

[fraurosena]

A prime example of a GOOD man...

Trump’s praise for Duterte’s drug war underscores his contempt for human rights

Quote

THE BIG IDEA: It’s one thing to not “lecture” foreign governments who abuse human rights. It’s something else entirely to praise them for it. And that’s exactly what Donald Trump did last month when he called Rodrigo Duterte.

The Post’s David Nakamura and Barton Gellman yesterday obtained a transcript of his April 29th phone call with the president of the Philippines.

“I just wanted to congratulate you because I am hearing of the unbelievable job (you’re doing) on the drug problem,” Trump told Duterte at the start of their conversation, according to the document. “Many countries have the problem, we have a problem, but what a great job you are doing and I just wanted to call and tell you that.”

“Thank you Mr. President,” replied Duterte. “This is the scourge of my nation now and I have to do something to preserve the Filipino nation.”

Trump, who affectionately referred to Duterte as “Rodrigo” during their chat, then took an unsolicited dig at Barack Obama. “I … fully understand that and I think we had a previous president who did not understand that,” the U.S. president said. “You are a good man … Keep up the good work. … You are doing an amazing job.”

"You are a good man." Because 'good' men shoot people without compunction and call "But drugs!" just because they can.

Quote

-- The context of Trump’s comments matters: Duterte is an authoritarian thug. He has overseen a brutal extrajudicial campaign that has resulted in the killings of thousands of suspected drug dealers. His abuses are well documented, including in reports by the U.S. State Department and Human Rights Watch.

Duterte has publicly compared his campaign to crack down on drugs to the Holocaust, saying he would like to "slaughter" millions of drug addicts just like Adolf Hitler “massacred” millions of Jewish people. " 

Oh yes, Duterte is such a 'good man'...

Quote

One victim of Duterte’s crackdown was a 5-year-old girl, who was shot in the head last summer when armed men came to her house in search of her grandfather.

A little collateral damage doesn't stand in the way of the actions of a  'good man'.

Quote

A witness has testified that before Duterte became president, when he was a mayor of Davao City, he paid a squad of hit men to carry out summary executions that involved feeding a body to a crocodile, chopping up corpses and dumping slashed bodies into the sea.

Duterte has boasted to a group of Manila businessmen, on camera, about killing criminals in cold blood when he was mayor: “In Davao I used to do it personally, just to show the (cops) that if I can do it, why can’t you?”

He joked last year that the victim of a gang rape was “so beautiful” that he wishes he had “been first."

Wow, I just can't get over how good this man is.

Quote

-- Trump caught his own aides off guard during his phone call to Duterte by extending an open invitation for him to come visit the White House at any time, with no preconditions. “I will love to have you in the Oval Office,” Trump said, per the transcript. “Seriously, if you want to come over, just let us know.”

Yes, this is truly someone to look up to!

 

 

 

[nvmbr02]

6 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

 

I want to know why the women are in black. Are they preparing for the funeral of impeachment? 

I read that women are expected to wear black formal clothing and a head covering for a papal audience. I had no idea. 

Why Melania, Ivanka Trump wore veils and all black to meet the pope