Trump 19: Please Cry for Us Montenegro (and We Are so Sorry!)

[fraurosena]

Has anyone ever heard of this book?

The Guardian had an article about it.

The 1935 novel that predicted the rise of Donald Trump

Quote

Sinclair Lewis’s It Can’t Happen Here features an antihero who whips up support among angry voters on the back of firebrand rhetoric, fearmongering populism and anti-Mexican sentiment. Sound familiar?

If the US presidential campaign conveys a flavour of unreality, that may be because it is rooted in fiction. In 1935, Sinclair Lewis sat down to write a novel about political radicalisation and social upheaval in the depression-ravaged US. What emerged after four months of feverish work was It Can’t Happen Here, a runaway bestseller that quickly sold more than 300,000 copies.

[...]

Lewis’s antihero is the ignorant demagogue Berzelius “Buzz” Windrip, who wins the 1936 election with the support of millions of impoverished and angry voters. They marched carrying placards that read: “We are on relief. We want to become human beings again. We want Buzz!”

[...]

Windrip unveils his 15-point manifesto, which includes “prison or the death penalty” for anyone advocating communism and the recognition of Jews as “fully Americanised”, so long as they continue to support “our ideals”. Substitute “Muslim” for “communist” and “Hispanic” for “Jew” and there emerges an uncomfortable picture of what is taking place in the US today.

Windrip wins the election. He orders the invasion of Mexico, after which his victorious militia returns singing When Johnny Comes Marching Home. Political opponents are herded into concentration camps, while a flood of refugees flee across the border to Canada.

[...]

 

[onekidanddone]

40 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Trump was unmoved. "For me," the president reportedly said, "it's easier to stay in than step out," adding that green regulations were killing American jobs.

I can't explain his obsession with coal.  Either he is stuck on coal for his own financial gain, or he is just so stupid he does not understand new things. 

I understand coal country is suffering, but times and technology changes. I wonder if those jobs could be shifted to solar.

If he cared about jobs, real jobs he would look for innovative alternative sources of energy. Yet he is not. He is all bluster and bullshit. 

Solar’s rise lifted these blue-collar workers. Now they’re worried about Trump

Quote

CHARLOTTE — Mike Catanzaro, a solar panel installer with a high school diploma, likes to work with his hands under the clear Carolina sky. That’s why he supported President Trump, a defender of blue-collar workers. But the 25-year-old sees Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement as a threat to his job.

“I’m a little nervous about it. The solar business is blowing up and that’s great for a lot of people around here,” Catanzaro said, just after switching on an 86-panel array atop a brick apartment building.

“I was in favor of Trump, which I might regret now,” he said. “I just don’t want solar to go down the wrong path.”

While some employed in particular industries have celebrated the U.S. exit from the Paris agreement, the responses of workers such as Catanzaro add a considerable wrinkle to Trump’s promises that scrapping the accords could save millions of people “trapped in poverty and joblessness.”

The more complicated truth, experts say, is that while there could well be some winners — such as workers in the coal industry — their numbers will pale in comparison to the demand for workers in industries preparing the U.S. and other countries for a clean energy future.

About 370,000 people work for solar companies in the United States, with the majority of them employed in installations, according to the Department of Energy. More than 9,500 solar jobs have cropped up in North Carolina alone, the study found. That’s more than natural gas (2,181), coal (2,115) and oil generation (480) combined.

The growth followed federal government tax credits and other supports, under President Barack Obama.

The country today has roughly 51,000 coal mining jobs, a sharp fall from 89,400 in 2011, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The latest jobs report, out Friday, showed mining added 400 jobs in May.

Not everyone in the renewable industry will be affected by the departure from the Paris accord. Major players in the power industry, such as Duke Energy, a utility based in Charlotte that has heavily relied on coal in the past, say they remain committed to moving away from the older, more polluting sources of energy.

But Trump’s move could be devastating for small-scale operators like Catanzaro’s, some of whom benefited directly from Obama-era incentives.

Catanzaro, 25, quit college after his first semester and has been working mostly in the solar industry ever since. He found his current job at Accelerate Solar five months ago on Craigslist.

“It’s the energy of the future,” Catanzaro said. “I mean, really: It’s electricity from the sun. It’s self-sustaining.”

Solar is a rare expanding blue-collar opportunity in North Carolina, said Jason Jolley, an economics professor at Ohio University who grew up in the state.

The state’s traditional blue-collar sources of employment — tobacco, textile and furniture manufacturing — have all declined since the nineties, in part because of cheaper labor abroad.
Catanzaro’s job pays about $20 an hour, but offers no benefits.

His $40,000 a year annual wages are in the same range as the older blue-collar jobs. Workers in North Carolina’s furniture factories earn an average salary of about $39,300. Those in tobacco make about $45,000, while the typical wages for furniture makers top out at $40,000.

North Carolina generally doesn’t employ coal miners, but if Catanzaro found work as a coal miner in West Virginia he could expect to earn $55,000.

The solar installer said he is earning enough to rent a four-bedroom house for his wife and three children, and is hoping to save up enough to pursue his electrician’s license. That will open up a more lucrative path in the solar field, he said.

Summer, meanwhile, is overtime season — “the top of the solar coaster,” as he says — and Catanzaro said he hopes to work at least 50 hours per week until fall.

Chris Verner, co-founder of Accelerate Solar and Catanzaro’s employer, got his start as a college student in Vermont, setting up a business after graduation that took advantage of green energy rebates under an Obama-era stimulus package.

He moved to North Carolina five years ago to launch Accelerate Solar with $3,000. The company’s sales last year hit $5.2 million, Verner said.

He said he is hoping to double his 20-person installation team this year.

Verner’s experience reflects the growth of the solar industry across the United States, fueled by Obama-era policies adopted in support of the administration’s emissions reductions goals under the Paris climate agreement.

 

On 6/4/2017 at 1:47 PM, Destiny said:

Fuck you and your twitter account Cheeto. Fuck you.

I can't even with the don't be alarmed tweet.

He misquoted again today. There is no bottom to the depth of my contempt for this man, his family and all the sick people who either adore him or have sold their souls to be his lackeys 

[Gobsmacked]

I rarely swear in real life and never on Facebook/ FJ etc but........Fuck you Trump. Do not,ever, try to take the piss out our Mayors, police forces, first responders etc EVER again. Do all of us on our little island a favour. Fuck off, don't come back. Sell your golf courses. ASAP. 

Do Not tweet anything about the Mayor of London ever again.  He is doing a fantastic job. You sad loser. Even your wife doesn't want to be near you. 

We DONT want or need you. 

Just FUCK off to which ever level of hell spawned you. Your poor parents must be turning in their graves. 

Rant over. Wine bottle opened.

[onekidanddone]

1 hour ago, Gobsmacked said:

<snip>

Just FUCK off to which ever level of hell spawned you. Your poor parents must be turning in their graves. 

</snip>

TT's parents at least his father was no better he was a slumlord and Klan member.

I'll have to find the articles on Fred Trump's run in with the law over rental proprieties in the District 

The Trumps from Fred to the Presidunt to Don Jr., Eric, Ivanka and her slime ball husband where hate is a family value.

Trump Family History: Donald, Fred, And The Ku Klux Klan

Quote

Most of the national media studiously avoided printing that simple declarative sentence since Donald Trump decided to run for president. Most of the country’s politicians have remained strangely silent on the topic.

Public commentators did not connect the dots even as President-elect Trump attacked the civil rights hero, John Lewis, when having a Klan sympathizer for a father would seem to be highly pertinent in explaining his behavior.

Yet the factual evidence seems strong. Trump’s father Fred was arrested in New York City in 1927, when a group of Klansmen got into a brawl with police officers during a Memorial Day parade in Queens. There is a document trail, and the names, dates, and addresses match up. The New York Times published a story about the riot and the seven men who were arrested; Fred Trump is mentioned by name. His address is given at 175-24 Devonshire Road, Jamaica, New York City, and the federal census of 1930 shows that Fred Trump resided at that address. The newspaper does not identify him as a Klan member, or clarify whether he was wearing a Klan robe—as were many of the demonstrators―but he did get arrested, and all seven men were represented by the same attorneys. Two days after the brawl, Fred Trump was discharged from custody, with no explanation that can be discovered from public records. The Times further reported that a police commissioner planned to investigate the Klan riot.

After the website Boing Boing reported the story in 2015, Donald Trump denied it, and he has not publicly discussed it since then.

The New York Daily News, the Washington Post, the New York Times and a few other news outlets mentioned the connection briefly in 2016, and then they dropped it. Throughout the campaign, most of the media maintained a deafening silence, as did most of the nation’s politicians in both parties. If Fred Trump was a full-fledged Klansman, no one seemed interested in pursuing the story. A diligent researcher might have at least tried to find the commissioner report in the city archives. Journalists and politicians displayed the most determined zeal in investigating every aspect of Hillary Clinton’s email in 2016, and 20 years ago they showed the same zeal in investigating the Clintons’ investment in Whitewater.

Yet the family history of the Republican Party’s nominee merited nothing close to that scrutiny. And this is the immediate family, the man’s own father, not some distant ancestor from another century, a father with the power to shape the boy’s most profound assumptions about the world. Moreover, Donald Trump has often expressed his admiration for his father. Thoughtful adults can hear the echoes of one hundred years ago in the president’s encouragement of violence at campaign rallies, his prejudices against minorities, and his use of violent language.

Historians know that the Ku Klux Klan, founded in Tennessee in 1866 by ex-Confederate officers, was created to intimidate black Southerners, especially those who wanted to vote, as well as the region’s ethnic and religious minorities. Since the 1860s, the Klan has spread all over the United States, with chapters in every region, and its targets have expanded to include immigrants, gays, and women who work outside the home. In the 1920s, the Klan grew dramatically in the cities of the North, often in response to the arrival of Catholics from Eastern and Central Europe. Accordingly, the Klansmen in Queens protested their presence in 1927 in New York City.

But in the public mind, the organization is still associated largely with the South. Perhaps that is one explanation for the silence on Fred Trump, Donald’s origins in the urban North. Maybe it is still too hard to face up to bigotry and prejudice anywhere outside the South.

We can easily imagine what would have happened if there had been the faintest rumor that Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, or Al Gore had a Klan sympathizer in the family—page one stories and protracted coverage in the media, politicians holding forth, bristling with the assumption that the allegation was probably true. Carter, Clinton, and Gore would have been judged unfit for public service, and their careers would have ended long before they reached national office.

Maybe there are other explanations for the silence about Fred Trump, beginning with shame, a deep embarrassment that the Klan has lasted so long and spread throughout the country, including New York. Perhaps it was the hope that the son would turn away from the spectre of a man who had been arrested at a Klan riot. Maybe it was the well-meaning but naïve belief that Donald Trump could not win the election.

Now he inhabits the White House. Let us hope that the country’s media and political leadership recover their usual probing interest in the President’s background, his motives, and his veracity. The future of the Republic may depend on it.

Oh, and I don't think a day goes by where I don't utter cuss words loud and proud. I will admit that most of the time I'm alone in the house reading or watching the news when this happens

[GreyhoundFan]

Amen: "Mr. Trump: Stop Tweeting and Go Back to Bed"

Spoiler

It’s no secret that President Trump prefers tweeting over talking to the public — particularly when nearly everyone else in the country is fast asleep. Monday mornings are bad enough for everyone; pity the administration lawyers and aides who woke up today to find that their boss had undone months of their efforts to get his executive order barring travel to the United States from a number of Muslim-majority countries through the Supreme Court.

Both his press secretary and Homeland Security secretary have insisted the revised order is “not a travel ban.” Early this morning, the president begged to differ.

...

He went on to slam the “watered down, politically correct” version of the order that his lawyers are hoping the court will accept, tweeting:

...

There’s a pattern here. A quick look at Mr. Trump’s Twitter archive shows that some of his angriest and most flamboyant accusations are issued early in the morning. For example, on May 16, he offered a questionable defense against charges that he’d shared with the Russians sensitive information from an ally about the Islamic State, insisting that he had the “absolute right” to do so:

...

A few days later, he whined about the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel for the F.B.I. investigation into ties between members of the Trump team and Russia:

...

Not that he would listen, but someone on his staff should tell him that the early morning is not his friend.

Like most aspects of human biology, cognitive function has peaks and valleys that follow the day-night cycle. Studies show that alertness, cognitive speed, memory and abstract reasoning are worst around when a person typically wakes up, and best a few hours before he habitually falls asleep.

So for most people, the middle of the night and the very early morning are not great times to make decisions, to say nothing of making policy pronouncements or political commentary. At those times, you are likely to be close to so-called REM or dream sleep, which we all know brings about intense and often distorted emotions and thoughts, often about the events in our everyday lives. These are times for reflection, not for social media.

Not surprisingly, the president makes his sleeping habits, like so much else, a point of pride, bragging about his allegedly Spartan need for slumber. “You know, I’m not a big sleeper, I like three hours, four hours, I toss, I turn, I beep-de-beep, I want to find out what’s going on,” he told the Chicago Tribune.

Whether the president actually gets as little sleep as he claims is open to question. But if true, it certainly isn’t helping with his famously irascible behavior and impulsive decision-making style.

Might we have a sleep-deprived occupant in the White House? Quite possibly — and that’s something that should worry us, because it could contribute to the political chaos that Mr. Trump generates.

Sleep deprivation can impair attention, memory, thinking speed and reasoning. This is something that all physicians know firsthand from their days of residency training, when they spent many sleepless nights on-call.

For example, studies show that medical residents who slept less than five hours a night were much more likely to make medical errors and report serious accidents. They were also more prone to get into arguments with colleagues and to drink alcohol. Indeed, last year researchers estimated that medical errors may cause more than 250,000 deaths a year. Some of these surely originate with sleep-deprived doctors.

This, in large part, is the reason that we strictly limit the number of consecutive hours that trainees can work: to protect both patients and doctors from tragic errors.

The president is under no comparable restriction, but perhaps he should be. After all, the stakes in the White House are considerably higher than in a medical office. One patient death from medical error is bad enough, but imagine the incalculable harm a sleep-deprived, irritable and impulsive president with access to the nuclear codes could wreak.

So I have a bit of unsolicited medical advice for President Trump: For the sake of the nation, stop tweeting and go back to bed.

I still think one of his minders should steal his phone.

[Gobsmacked]

Wow. Just wow. Thankyou onekidanddone for posting the info. I had a hunt for Trump parent info last night. Found the story of his mothers immigration. The remaining cousins don't appear to be enthusiastic about Donald John. They are very private people according to the story about his last, flying visit to his Mothers village. 

I wish there was a magic wand somewhere that could be waved. He would just disappear in a puff of red smoke, never to be seen again, 

8 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Amen: "Mr. Trump: Stop Tweeting and Go Back to Bed"

  Reveal hidden contents

It’s no secret that President Trump prefers tweeting over talking to the public — particularly when nearly everyone else in the country is fast asleep. Monday mornings are bad enough for everyone; pity the administration lawyers and aides who woke up today to find that their boss had undone months of their efforts to get his executive order barring travel to the United States from a number of Muslim-majority countries through the Supreme Court.

Both his press secretary and Homeland Security secretary have insisted the revised order is “not a travel ban.” Early this morning, the president begged to differ.

...

He went on to slam the “watered down, politically correct” version of the order that his lawyers are hoping the court will accept, tweeting:

...

There’s a pattern here. A quick look at Mr. Trump’s Twitter archive shows that some of his angriest and most flamboyant accusations are issued early in the morning. For example, on May 16, he offered a questionable defense against charges that he’d shared with the Russians sensitive information from an ally about the Islamic State, insisting that he had the “absolute right” to do so:

...

A few days later, he whined about the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel for the F.B.I. investigation into ties between members of the Trump team and Russia:

...

Not that he would listen, but someone on his staff should tell him that the early morning is not his friend.

Like most aspects of human biology, cognitive function has peaks and valleys that follow the day-night cycle. Studies show that alertness, cognitive speed, memory and abstract reasoning are worst around when a person typically wakes up, and best a few hours before he habitually falls asleep.

So for most people, the middle of the night and the very early morning are not great times to make decisions, to say nothing of making policy pronouncements or political commentary. At those times, you are likely to be close to so-called REM or dream sleep, which we all know brings about intense and often distorted emotions and thoughts, often about the events in our everyday lives. These are times for reflection, not for social media.

Not surprisingly, the president makes his sleeping habits, like so much else, a point of pride, bragging about his allegedly Spartan need for slumber. “You know, I’m not a big sleeper, I like three hours, four hours, I toss, I turn, I beep-de-beep, I want to find out what’s going on,” he told the Chicago Tribune.

Whether the president actually gets as little sleep as he claims is open to question. But if true, it certainly isn’t helping with his famously irascible behavior and impulsive decision-making style.

Might we have a sleep-deprived occupant in the White House? Quite possibly — and that’s something that should worry us, because it could contribute to the political chaos that Mr. Trump generates.

Sleep deprivation can impair attention, memory, thinking speed and reasoning. This is something that all physicians know firsthand from their days of residency training, when they spent many sleepless nights on-call.

For example, studies show that medical residents who slept less than five hours a night were much more likely to make medical errors and report serious accidents. They were also more prone to get into arguments with colleagues and to drink alcohol. Indeed, last year researchers estimated that medical errors may cause more than 250,000 deaths a year. Some of these surely originate with sleep-deprived doctors.

This, in large part, is the reason that we strictly limit the number of consecutive hours that trainees can work: to protect both patients and doctors from tragic errors.

The president is under no comparable restriction, but perhaps he should be. After all, the stakes in the White House are considerably higher than in a medical office. One patient death from medical error is bad enough, but imagine the incalculable harm a sleep-deprived, irritable and impulsive president with access to the nuclear codes could wreak.

So I have a bit of unsolicited medical advice for President Trump: For the sake of the nation, stop tweeting and go back to bed.

I still think one of his minders should steal his phone.

He has probably got spares stuffed in his Teddybear.

[onekidanddone]

20 minutes ago, Gobsmacked said:

He has probably got spares stuffed in his Teddybear.

I was thinking one of these  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incubus

[apple1]

53 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Amen: "Mr. Trump: Stop Tweeting and Go Back to Bed"

  Hide contents

 

I still think one of his minders should steal his phone.

As I used to hear in church a lot: A big hearty AMEN to the bolded.

[Howl]

2 hours ago, onekidanddone said:

Either he is stuck on coal for his own financial gain, or he is just so stupid or he does not understand new things. 

If he cared about jobs, real jobs he would look for innovative alternative sources of energy. Yet he is not. He is all bluster and bullshit. 

Solar’s rise lifted these blue-collar workers. Now they’re worried about Trump

The bolded.  A pathetic man who is pig-ignorant and mean is the leader of our country.  He's not intellectually curious and has no idea of cause and effect in our economy. The solar article aptly demonstrates this.  In my city, you can't swing a (metaphorical) cat without hitting a solar company and this industry has grown immensely because of Obama-era subsidies.  Although Texas is the leading producer of lignite coal, and these coal fields are quite close to Austin,  our city has invested heavily in wind and solar, because they know that's where it's at for the future.  

Really, he is the bull in the china shop, crashing around breaking things.  

He has damaged trade relations with Mexico and has seriously hurt American beef ranchers and corn and soybean farmers, based on nothing more than his gas-bag pronouncements, especially concerning NAFTA.  If other countries can't rely on us, the'll find someone else who be a better trading partner. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump is out of control"

Spoiler

The statements President Trump issued on Twitter in recent days lead to a chilling conclusion: The man is out of control.

I know that is a radical thing to say about the elected leader of the United States, the most powerful individual in the world. And I know his unorthodox use of social media is thought by some, including the president himself, to be brilliant. But I don’t see political genius in the invective coming from Trump these days. I see an angry man lashing out at enemies real and imagined — a man dangerously overwhelmed.

On Monday, he started at 6:25 a.m. to comprehensively undermine his own legal team in its quest to win Supreme Court approval for a travel ban targeting Muslims. I can call it that, without legalistic hemming and hawing, because the president did so. Emphatically.

“People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN,” Trump wrote.

Maybe he thinks that tweets, somehow, don’t count. But of course they do. These are written statements typed by the president himself, and as such should carry more weight than a processed release from the White House press office, not less. Trump’s lawyers — arguing in support of the blocked measure, which would bar visitors from six majority-Muslim countries — contend it is not a “travel ban” as such. Attorneys on the other side will surely use Trump’s own words against him.

And he had plenty more to say:

“The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C. [Supreme Court]”

“The Justice Dept. should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down Travel Ban before the Supreme Court — & seek much tougher version!”

“In any event we are EXTREME VETTING people coming into the U.S. in order to help keep our country safe. The courts are slow and political!”

Let that last one settle in for a moment. Has a president ever publicly dismissed the entire judicial branch of our government as “slow and political,” even in a moment of pique? Does Trump grasp the concept of separation of powers? Has he even read the Constitution he swore to preserve, protect and defend?

Whether Trump’s statements during the campaign — calling for a surely unconstitutional blanket ban on Muslim visitors from anywhere — should be taken into account by courts considering the current “watered down” version is debatable. His written statements as president, however, are clearly germane. Opponents of the ban might want to send him flowers.

Trump first let the cat out of the bag Saturday night, following the terrorist attack in London, when he wrote, “We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!”

He went on to express compassion and support for “London and the U.K.” But by Sunday he was off the rails: “At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is ‘no reason to be alarmed!’ ”

What rational head of state attacks the mayor of a city that has just been hit by terrorists? Why would Trump do such a thing, in the process taking Mayor Sadiq Khan’s words out of context in a way that totally changed their meaning? Because last year Khan, perhaps the highest-profile Muslim public official in a non-Muslim country, criticized then-candidate Trump, saying that his “ignorant view of Islam could make both our countries less safe.”

What Khan actually said Sunday was that the public had “no reason to be alarmed” about an increased police presence on the streets — not, as Trump suggests, that they should be nonchalant about terrorism. Khan’s stoic and defiant response is in the tradition of Churchill’s during the Blitz of 1940 and 1941, and Thatcher’s during the Irish Republican Army’s terrorism campaign. Londoners have rallied around him. Trump, by contrast, sounds like a ridiculous Chicken Little squawking about the coop.

Words have consequences. Trump’s may hurt British Prime Minister Theresa May in Thursday’s election. Assuming she survives, she will have learned a lesson about getting too close to a volcanic president who might at any minute erupt.

We already knew that Trump had a narrow mind and a small heart. Now we must wonder about his emotional stability, his grasp of reality, or both.

The last sentence is true, except I don't wonder about this emotional stability or grasp of reality -- they are both nil.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Our president is simply unpresidented"

Spoiler

The president has gone rogue.

Not one-eighth of the way through his term, Donald Trump has each day become more isolated: from his own appointees and staff (whom he routinely contradicts and undermines); from world leaders (whom he regularly offends); from the courts (whose integrity he has repeatedly assaulted); from his current director of the National Security Agency and his past director of the FBI (who are both expected to give damaging testimony this week on the Russia scandal); and even from his most ardent supporters (whose enthusiasm has softened markedly in polls).

In the space of a few hours on Monday, Trump managed to attack not just Democrats (“OBSTRUCTIONISTS!”) and the mayor of London (“pathetic”) but also the judicial system (“slow and political!”) and even his own Justice Department (for submitting a “watered down, politically correct” measure to the Supreme Court). He undermined his own administration officials and lawyers, who for legal reasons had painstakingly argued that Trump’s ban on travel from several Muslim-majority countries was not a “travel ban.” Tweeted Trump: “I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!”

On top of all this Twitter madness, Politico’s Susan Glasser reported that Trump blindsided his secretary of state, defense secretary and national security adviser, who had made sure that his speech to NATO reaffirmed the alliance’s collective-defense clause. Trump removed the language — the cornerstone of the military alliance — at the last minute without even telling the advisers.

Trump reacted Monday to all the chaos he created by hunkering down further, canceling without notice a scheduled “pool spray” with reporters at which he was expected to answer questions.

It has become cliche to observe that Trump’s behavior is both unprecedented and unpresidential. Perhaps we should combine the two and simply accept that Trump, to borrow one of his Twitter misspellings, is “unpresidented.”

So isolated is Trump that he accidentally hits send on a tweet with gibberish and there’s nobody who can get him to delete the errant missive for hours. CNN’s Gloria Borger last week quoted a Trump confidant describing a lost man: “He now lives within himself, which is a dangerous place for Donald Trump to be. I see him emotionally withdrawing. He’s gained weight. He doesn’t have anybody whom he trusts.”

This is indeed dangerous. Though Trump’s ineffectiveness comes as a relief, his isolation is no cause for celebration. Whenever his back is to the wall, he becomes even more aggressive. The further he falls, and the more alienated he grows, the greater the danger that he will do something desperate — and there is much that a desperate commander in chief can do.

There’s no telling when that might happen. Perhaps if the Supreme Court strikes down his travel ban, as lower courts have done? Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s appointee to the high court, said Friday night that he is confident “government can lose in its own courts and accept the judgment of those courts without an army to back it up.” I hope he’s right. But, as if by way of reply, Trump attacked the courts again Monday with the sort of language Gorsuch had in the past called disheartening.

Trump even seems to be alienating some of his base, that 35 to 40 percent of the country that seems to back him no matter what he does. Numbers cruncher Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight observed recently that while Trump’s overall floor of support remains about the same — 36 percent approve of the job he’s doing in the latest Gallup poll — the number of Americans who strongly approve of Trump has declined sharply, from 30 percent in February to 21 or 22 percent now — a falloff of nearly a third.

Is there nobody outside of Trump’s family who is in sync with Trump? Actually, there is.

“I haven’t seen, even once, any direct proof of Russian interference in the presidential election in the United States,” Vladimir Putin told Megyn Kelly for her NBC debut Sunday night.

The Russian president said hackers can make it appear “as if your 3-year-old daughter carried out the attack.” He went on to say “there were no meetings” between the Russian ambassador and officials affiliated with the Trump campaign, and, invoking the Kennedy assassination, floated a conspiracy theory that U.S. intelligence was trying to frame Russia.

These were curiously similar to Trump’s responses — casting doubt on Russia’s involvement, suggesting the hacking could have been done by a 400-pound man in his bed, decrying facts as “fake news” and planting conspiracy theories.

At least somebody is on the same page as Trump. Unfortunately, the words are in Cyrillic.

The TT is acting like a wounded animal. This is not a good thing.

[JMarie]

Donald Jr. and Eric are going to be on Good Morning America tomorrow, with a "big reveal".

My prediction:  they're getting some sort of Cabinet position, "unpaid" like their sister, and they'll be getting their own offices in the White House.  They're not going to be all Duggarish and announce a new pregnancy on GMA.  Eric's wife is already pregnant and it didn't cause much of a ripple.

[onekidanddone]

4 minutes ago, JMarie said:

Donald Jr. and Eric are going to be on Good Morning America tomorrow, with a "big reveal".

My prediction:  they're getting some sort of Cabinet position, "unpaid" like their sister, and they'll be getting their own offices in the White House.  They're not going to be all Duggarish and announce a new pregnancy on GMA.  Eric's wife is already pregnant and it didn't cause much of a ripple.

Maybe the infrastructure BS. I think he is not going to invest in anything really needed like fixing bridges, damns, or highways.  He won't do anything unless he can get his brand on it and using his slimy sons to shill for him.

Everything that family does feels like really bad tacky reality show, maybe because it is a  really bad tacky reality show.

[GreyhoundFan]

They should be uneasy -- the rest of us are: "As Trump lashes out, Republicans grow uneasy"

Spoiler

President Trump, after days of lashing out angrily at the London mayor and federal courts in the wake of the London Bridge terrorist attack, faces a convergence of challenges this week that threatens to exacerbate the fury that has gripped him — and that could further hobble a Republican agenda that has slowed to a crawl on Capitol Hill.

Instead of hunkering down and delicately navigating the legal and political thicket — as some White House aides have suggested — Trump spent much of Monday launching volleys on Twitter, unable to resist continuing, in effect, as his own lawyer, spokesman, cheerleader and media watchdog.

Trump escalated his criticism of London Mayor Sadiq Khan, incorrectly stating that Khan had told Londoners to not be “alarmed” about terrorism. He vented about the Justice Department, which he said pushed a “politically correct” version of his policy to block immigration from six predominantly Muslim countries, which Trump signed before it was halted in court. He also complained that Senate Democrats are “taking forever to approve” his appointees and ambassadors.

Inside the White House, top officials have in various ways gently suggested to Trump over the past week that he should leave the feuding to surrogates, according to two people who were not authorized to speak publicly. But Trump has repeatedly shrugged off that advice, these people said.

“Not that I’m aware of,” White House principal deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Monday at a news conference when asked if the president’s tweets were being vetted by lawyers or aides.

“Social media for the president is extremely important,” Sanders said. “It gives him the ability to speak directly to the people without the bias of the media filtering those types of communication.”

Trump’s refusal to disengage from the daily storm of news — coming ahead of former FBI director James B. Comey’s highly anticipated public testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday — is both unsurprising and unsettling to many Republicans, who are already skittish about the questions they may confront in the aftermath of the hearing. In particular, they foresee Democratic accusations that Trump’s exchanges with Comey about the FBI probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign were an effort to obstruct justice.

Some Republicans fear that Trump’s reactions will only worsen the potential damage.

“It’s a distraction, and he needs to focus,” said former Trump campaign adviser Barry Bennett. “Every day and moment he spends on anything other than a rising economy is a waste that disrupts everything.”

Rick Tyler, a veteran Republican consultant, said Trump’s refusal to stop using Twitter poses a serious obstacle for the White House.

“I can’t imagine internally they’re happy with his performance,” Tyler said. “The president is undermining his presidency whenever his staff says one thing and then he does another. They’ll say something you’d expect, and then he’ll go off and bring in the gun debate to a terror attack.”

Some Trump supporters also fear that his extemporaneous rebukes are upending the priorities he is trying to implement.

George Conway, a well-known GOP lawyer who recently took himself out of the running to lead the Justice Department’s civil division and is the husband of Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway, wrote on Twitter on Monday that Trump’s fulminations on the travel ban could damage its chances.

“These tweets may make some ppl feel better, but they certainly won’t help OSG get 5 votes in SCOTUS, which is what actually matters. Sad,” he wrote, using abbreviations for the Office of Solicitor General and the Supreme Court.

Trump’s friends say he’s just being himself.

“He’s rightly frustrated, and he isn’t always checking with his lawyers about each tweet. But he’s getting his message out there,” said Christopher Ruddy, a close associate of Trump and president of Newsmax Media, a conservative news organization. “He is relying on himself to be the messenger.”

It is an increasingly lonely endeavor. Trump’s poll numbers have sagged, with Gallup’s daily tracking number showing him at 37 percent approval Monday, nearing the nadir of his presidency so far, while the RealClearPolitics polling average shows his approval rating just under 40 percent.

Yet even among party leadership and senior advisers in the West Wing, many remain supportive of Trump’s combative posture, unable or unwilling to usher him toward a less incendiary approach.

“It’s all infighting and leaks to the point where Trump is diluting his own proposals,” Bennett said. “I don’t get it. Rather than getting him to talk about jobs, they stand by as he goes on about Mayor Khan.”

The few who have spoken up have been careful to not provoke Trump. “Unfortunately, the president has, I think, created problems for himself by his Twitter habit,” Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.), the No. 2 ranking Senate Republican, said with a tight smile during a Sunday interview on Dallas TV station WFAA.

Comey’s testimony is one of a number of items on the White House radar this week that risk stoking Trump’s rage.

A week after Trump declared his trip to the Middle East a success, the region was swept into turmoil Monday after four Arab nations — Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Bahrain — broke diplomatic relations with another U.S. ally, Qatar, which they have accused of supporting terrorism.

Several U.S. allies in Europe also have grown weary with Trump after he decided to withdraw the country last week from the Paris climate accord. One of his closer allies there, British Prime Minister Theresa May, responded uncomfortably Monday to Trump’s outbursts about Khan, who is Muslim, as the United Kingdom was coping with the aftermath of the London Bridge attack, which killed seven.

“I think Sadiq Khan is doing a good job, and it’s wrong to say anything else,” May tersely told reporters.

In Congress, Trump’s ambitions to pass a health-care overhaul and tax changes have been stymied by party infighting and growing nervousness about the potential political cost, especially in the more moderate Senate. The only major legislative accomplishment so far has been the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, which came in April after bypassing a Democratic blockade.

David Winston, a Republican pollster who works closely with congressional GOP leaders, said lawmakers are eager to avoid discussions on issues that do not have to do with their agenda — including Trump’s tweets — and said an extended delay on big-ticket legislation would pose a problem.

“Anytime they’re not talking about the economy or jobs, they know that’s not what the electorate is looking for,” Winston said. “It’s going to be the responsibility of the White House to provide that context” when the news cycle and media has their attention elsewhere, he added.

Ongoing turmoil in the White House only exacerbates the problems. Talk of possible staff changes has fueled a rush of stories that irritate Trump, who disdains news coverage of his advisers and their many rivalries. Former campaign loyalists, such as Corey Lewandowski and David Bossie, have been spotted heading to the Oval Office for meetings.

Meanwhile, the Russia-related questions are ubiquitous. Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel delving into potential ties between Trump’s campaign and Russia, is busy at work, and Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, is a focus of the investigation, according to people familiar with the probe.

Trump allies have for weeks discussed the possible formation of a Russia-focused “war room” either inside or outside the administration, but any such operation has yet to be formally announced. The president has retained an outside legal team, however, while Bossie and Lewandowski have been mentioned as possible leaders of an advocacy group that would defend Trump after Comey’s testimony.

The White House has gamely attempted to ignore the fallout from Trump’s latest tweets, pressing forward Monday with a conventional rollout of parts of a promised infrastructure program.

Standing in a dark suit and red-striped tie at the White House in front of Cabinet officials and Vice President Pence, Trump endorsed a plan to spin off more than 30,000 federal workers, including thousands of air traffic controllers, into a private nonprofit corporation — and he railed against the Obama administration’s previous work to improve the Federal Aviation Administration.

“The current [aviation] system cannot keep up, has not been able to keep up for many years,” Trump said. “We’re still stuck with an ancient, broken, antiquated, horrible system that doesn’t work.”

It was a brief respite from rancor. A few hours later, this time on Facebook, Trump was back at it, posting a video and fervent note to his millions of followers.

“We need the Travel Ban — not the watered down, politically correct version the Justice Department submitted to the Supreme Court, but a MUCH TOUGHER version!” Trump wrote. “We cannot rely on the MSM to get the facts to the people. Spread this message. SHARE NOW.”

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

Maybe the infrastructure BS. I think he is not going to invest in anything really needed like fixing bridges, damns, or highways.  He won't do anything unless he can get his brand on it and using his slimy sons to shill for him.

Everything that family does feels like really bad tacky reality show, maybe because it is a  really bad tacky reality show.

Oh no, you gave me an awful thought -- maybe junior and eric are going to be in charge of air traffic control now. I am scheduled to fly in a few months, I may have to rethink it...

[onekidanddone]

4 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

They should be uneasy -- the rest of us are: "As Trump lashes out, Republicans grow uneasy"

 

He keeps say Travel Ban. But it is not a ban. Keep on digging Donnie.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump wants to privatize air traffic control. Here’s what that means."

Spoiler

Change could soon be coming to the skies above America. At least that’s what the Trump administration is hoping for.

Earlier Monday, President Trump laid out his vision for overhauling the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) — the agency that oversees all aspects of civil aviation. Part of Trump’s vision involves privatizing the agency’s air traffic control (ATC) function. Here’s what you should know about it.

How does air traffic control currently work?

Air traffic services are provided by the FAA. The agency has within its ranks more than 13,000 licensed controllers who are spread across the country at regional control centers. The agency also employs tens of thousands of engineers, technicians and specialists who maintain the technology and infrastructure needed to keep the skies open and safe.

The FAA is largely funded by aviation user fees. Taxes are imposed on such things as passenger tickets, air travel miles and jet fuel, with the revenue being deposited into a trust fund. However, the use of these funds must be authorized by Congress as part of the annual appropriations process.

What exactly has Trump proposed?

The president’s proposal transfers responsibility for providing air traffic services from the FAA to a private, nonprofit organization. The process is expected to unfold over three years, taking 30,000 FAA employees — controllers and technicians included — off the federal payroll, “at no charge.”

White House officials say the new entity will be funded entirely by user fees and overseen by representatives from airlines, unions, general aviation and airports among others.

Trump’s plan is based largely on legislation crafted by Rep. Bill Shuster. The Pennsylvania Republican, who heads the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, pushed for privatization last year but his efforts stalled. Presidential backing gives those efforts new life.

What are the main criticisms of the current system?

There are several. Some argue that because the FAA gets its funds from Congress, the agency ends up obliging political interests rather than the passengers it is set up to serve. According to the FAA, the budget uncertainty created by this model affects its ability to perform its duties.

Another concern is the agency’s organizational structure. In addition to providing air traffic services, the FAA also provides safety oversight for those services. This, some worry, creates an inherent conflict of interest. Advocates of change point to a 2001 International Civil Aviation Organization recommendation that signatory states (including the United States) separate air traffic functions from safety oversight within two years.

Finally, critics say that government bureaucracy makes it hard to adopt new technologies that benefit the flying public. They suggest a nongovernmental organization would be better positioned to do so, more nimbly cutting through the bureaucratic red tape that has long hindered the FAA.

What are the main criticisms of Trump’s proposal?

Many Democrats argue that changing the status quo is unnecessary given that flying in the United States is as safe as it’s ever been. They also point to recent computer glitches at major U.S. airlines, questioning whether these carriers can actually handle more advanced technologies.

Corporate jet pilots also oppose the plan as do their counterparts in general aviation. Both groups worry that user fees levied by a private corporation will drive up the cost of flying. Others argue that privatized governance gives too much control of the nation’s skies to a select few — most notably airline executives — for their own benefit.

Can this actually be done?

The White House certainly hopes so. Privatizing the largest and arguably most complex air traffic system in the world would be a huge political win. But it won’t be easy.

Many Democrats disagree with the idea of turning over taxpayer funded infrastructure — like control towers, navigation antennas and radar displays — to a private corporations for no charge. Some Republicans wonder whether a private entity can legally impose what may be viewed as taxes on the flying public. Perhaps most importantly, many lawmakers from across the aisle are hesitant to cede regulatory authority — akin to political power — to others.

I just think it's a bad, bad idea. Of course, that's par for the course with this administration.

[sawasdee]

Well, the polls are showing some interesting things. Support for impeachment is now higher than support for the TT.

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-impeachment-support-odds-removal-approval-rating-white-house-620913

Spoiler

Quote

Virtually every single poll tracking President Donald Trump's approval rating showed the figure plummeting Monday morning, well below the margin of error compared to the rising level of support for impeachment. The results follow Trump's controversial decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord; the ongoing investigation into his campaign’s possible ties to the Kremlin is also a factor.

The president's approval rating dipped from nearly 42 percent to just 36 percent over the weekend, according to a Gallup daily tracking poll published Monday. Trump's declining popularity is inching closer toward his all-time low of 35 percent as president in March, when Gallup had the president’s approval at just 35 percent. What's more, nearly 43 percent of American voters support the idea of beginning the official impeachment process for Trump, according to a Politico/Morning Consult poll published Wednesday.

There are slight discrepancies between several leading polls as to where the president’s approval officially stands, though each tracking poll published Monday and over the weekend seemed to show a decline in popularity following Trump's decision on the Paris Agreement. Even right-leaning poll sites like Rasmussen Reports are indicating dips in support for the president's job performance, reporting that as of Monday, 54 percent of the nation disapproves of Trump’s tenure as commander in chief.

.......

 

And this is before Comey's testimony this week. Fingers crossed!

[GreyhoundFan]

Here's someone who, unlike the TT, has a conscience: "Senior diplomat in Beijing embassy resigns over Trump’s climate change decision"

Spoiler

The No. 2 diplomat at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing resigned Monday, telling staff his conscience would not permit him to formally notify the Chinese that the United States is withdrawing from the Paris climate accord.

David H. Rank, a career Foreign Service officer of 27 years, had been acting ambassador until former Iowa governor Terry Branstad (R) was confirmed as the new ambassador last month. Rank held a town meeting with embassy employees to explain he had offered his resignation and it had been accepted.

As the head of the embassy until Branstad arrives, it was Rank’s responsibility to deliver a formal notification of the U.S. intention to withdraw from the climate pact.

According to a State Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be more candid, Rank was unwilling to deliver the demarche.

He told his staff that as “a parent, a patriot and a Christian,” he could not in good conscience play a role in implementing President Trump’s decision to withdraw, according to a colleague familiar with Rank’s comments.

Rank’s resignation was a display of the diplomatic unease over Trump’s decision to exit the Paris accord. Under the Obama administration, climate change was incorporated into the daily business of diplomacy at every level, and Rank was known for his personal concern about the environment. Career diplomats like Rank have been overseeing embassies around the world because of how slowly the Trump administration has been nominating political appointees as ambassadors.

“Mr. Rank made a personal decision,” said a spokeswoman for the East Asian and Pacific Affairs Bureau. “We appreciate his years of dedicated service to the State Department.”

Rank did not immediately respond to a request for comment. His resignation was first reported by John Pomfret, editor at large at SupChina.

Adding to the awkwardness, over the weekend another career diplomat broke ranks with Trump after he criticized London Mayor Sadiq Khan for suggesting there was “no reason to be alarmed” by armed police patrols in the city. A few hours later, Lewis Lukens, the acting ambassador at the U.S. Embassy in Britain, used the embassy’s Twitter account to say Khan had shown “strong leadership” in responding to the London Bridge terrorist attack.

Foreign Service officers take pride in putting their personal politics aside and representing their country, under both Republican and Democratic presidents, making this type of resignation unusual.

The State Department moved swiftly to replace Rank, informing the Chinese Foreign Ministry that Jonathan Fritz would be the new charge d’affaires, the deputy who heads the mission in the ambassador’s absence. Branstad is undergoing diplomat training, and has not arrived yet.

Rank, who speaks Mandarin Chinese, French, Dari and Greek, was a China hand who was on his fourth tour in China. Before that, he had been a political counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul and director of the State Department’s Office of Afghanistan Affairs.

Dan Feldman, who was the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan when Rank was a senior adviser there, said Rank was the quintessential nonpolitical diplomat.

“I couldn’t tell you what his politics were until now,” he said. “I don’t remember having a political conversation with him in which he espoused issues or concern about anything other than serving the president, and the secretary of state, whomever they may be, and the interests of the American people.”

Although Rank told his staff he had expected to retire by the end of the year, being acting ambassador for a large and important embassy like the one in Beijing would have put him in line to become ambassador in another, smaller country.

 

[nvmbr02]

51 minutes ago, JMarie said:

Donald Jr. and Eric are going to be on Good Morning America tomorrow, with a "big reveal".

My prediction:  they're getting some sort of Cabinet position, "unpaid" like their sister, and they'll be getting their own offices in the White House.  They're not going to be all Duggarish and announce a new pregnancy on GMA.  Eric's wife is already pregnant and it didn't cause much of a ripple.

I would not be surprised at something like this. But this time I suspect their reveal has to do with the new hotel line they are trying to pimp.Trump Organization to Go Budget Friendly With ‘American Idea’ Hotel Chain

 

[47of74]

The Mayor of London has asked the UK government to cancel the state visit of the orange fuck head

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/05/donald-trump-attack-courts-travel-ban-london

Quote

The London mayor, Sadiq Khan, has called on the British government to cancel a planned state visit by Donald Trump after being criticised in two tweets by the US president.

Trump initially criticised Khan for his response to the London Bridge terrorist attack; though, in doing so, he misquoted London’s mayor. Khan’s office pointed out Trump’s error later but the president responded by accusing London’s mayor of making a “pathetic excuse”.

Appearing on Channel 4 News on Monday evening, Khan said Trump was wrong about “many things” and that his state visit should not go ahead.

“I don’t think we should roll out the red carpet to the president of the USA in the circumstances where his policies go against everything we stand for,” he said.

I doubt it would happen.  May is so desperate to be seen as the second coming of Margaret Thatcher that she would probably insist that the visit go forward no matter what Donnie Dumbfuck says or does.

[nvmbr02]

20 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Trump wants to privatize air traffic control. Here’s what that means."

  Reveal hidden contents

Change could soon be coming to the skies above America. At least that’s what the Trump administration is hoping for.

Earlier Monday, President Trump laid out his vision for overhauling the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) — the agency that oversees all aspects of civil aviation. Part of Trump’s vision involves privatizing the agency’s air traffic control (ATC) function. Here’s what you should know about it.

How does air traffic control currently work?

Air traffic services are provided by the FAA. The agency has within its ranks more than 13,000 licensed controllers who are spread across the country at regional control centers. The agency also employs tens of thousands of engineers, technicians and specialists who maintain the technology and infrastructure needed to keep the skies open and safe.

The FAA is largely funded by aviation user fees. Taxes are imposed on such things as passenger tickets, air travel miles and jet fuel, with the revenue being deposited into a trust fund. However, the use of these funds must be authorized by Congress as part of the annual appropriations process.

What exactly has Trump proposed?

The president’s proposal transfers responsibility for providing air traffic services from the FAA to a private, nonprofit organization. The process is expected to unfold over three years, taking 30,000 FAA employees — controllers and technicians included — off the federal payroll, “at no charge.”

White House officials say the new entity will be funded entirely by user fees and overseen by representatives from airlines, unions, general aviation and airports among others.

Trump’s plan is based largely on legislation crafted by Rep. Bill Shuster. The Pennsylvania Republican, who heads the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, pushed for privatization last year but his efforts stalled. Presidential backing gives those efforts new life.

What are the main criticisms of the current system?

There are several. Some argue that because the FAA gets its funds from Congress, the agency ends up obliging political interests rather than the passengers it is set up to serve. According to the FAA, the budget uncertainty created by this model affects its ability to perform its duties.

Another concern is the agency’s organizational structure. In addition to providing air traffic services, the FAA also provides safety oversight for those services. This, some worry, creates an inherent conflict of interest. Advocates of change point to a 2001 International Civil Aviation Organization recommendation that signatory states (including the United States) separate air traffic functions from safety oversight within two years.

Finally, critics say that government bureaucracy makes it hard to adopt new technologies that benefit the flying public. They suggest a nongovernmental organization would be better positioned to do so, more nimbly cutting through the bureaucratic red tape that has long hindered the FAA.

What are the main criticisms of Trump’s proposal?

Many Democrats argue that changing the status quo is unnecessary given that flying in the United States is as safe as it’s ever been. They also point to recent computer glitches at major U.S. airlines, questioning whether these carriers can actually handle more advanced technologies.

Corporate jet pilots also oppose the plan as do their counterparts in general aviation. Both groups worry that user fees levied by a private corporation will drive up the cost of flying. Others argue that privatized governance gives too much control of the nation’s skies to a select few — most notably airline executives — for their own benefit.

Can this actually be done?

The White House certainly hopes so. Privatizing the largest and arguably most complex air traffic system in the world would be a huge political win. But it won’t be easy.

Many Democrats disagree with the idea of turning over taxpayer funded infrastructure — like control towers, navigation antennas and radar displays — to a private corporations for no charge. Some Republicans wonder whether a private entity can legally impose what may be viewed as taxes on the flying public. Perhaps most importantly, many lawmakers from across the aisle are hesitant to cede regulatory authority — akin to political power — to others.

I just think it's a bad, bad idea. Of course, that's par for the course with this administration.

I'll just say it. My husband works for the FAA. In some ways privatization would be good. IF we went with a system similar to Canada or most of Europe has. Really, it has been in the works on some level for 40+ years. But the first step was the privatization on the flight service stations that happened several years ago and it was a disaster for everyone involved, especially the employees. Many lost their jobs and other saw a loss of pay and benefits. Everyone lost at least some of their pension. Services to pilots were cut. It was really, really bad. The last bid from the GOP to privatize died in the house last year, but it basically put airlines in charge of regulating themselves. On the surface, controllers kept pay and benefits but lost the guarantee that they would stay long term. And the US. Rep that wrote the bill has a girlfriend (literally) that is a lobbyist for the airlines. It was just ugly. The air traffic controller's union is NATCA. They came out in favor of the last bid, not because they felt it was good but basically the president and a few other people involved in NATCA were offered positions within the new organization. It was never brought to a vote and many controllers were against it (though it impossible to say how many). 

I do think if ATC is privatized it will be the end of the general aviation as we know it. General aviation is popular in the US because it is cheaper here that most everywhere else in the world to fly small private planes. Under the private sector the user fees for the small planes  will rise and it will be unaffordable. This will hurt communities with flight schools. Some speculate that prices will rise across the board making airline ticket prices rise, this may happen too at some point. It is really hard to say.

That being said, NAVCanada does great things. They have much better equipment and they are better paid. They don't have to worry about not getting paid during government shutdowns. But I think they have something like 20% of the air traffic the US has which makes a huge, huge difference. 

[sawasdee]

26 minutes ago, 47of74 said:

The Mayor of London has asked the UK government to cancel the state visit of the orange fuck head

And he is being backed by both Tory and Labour politicians.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/jun/05/london-attack-isis-claims-responsibility-victims-named-live-updates

Spoiler

Quote

Conservative peer Sayeeda Warsi said Trump’s comments were a further reason to postpone his state visit to the UK, due to take place later this year. She told Newsnight:

 

I feel that a state visit is an honour of the highest order … And I just think for a man who, long before he started insulting London’s mayor, was a man who showed disdain for women, he had little respect for minorities, black people, Mexicans, Latinos, little regard for the LGBT community, mocked the disabled and when London came under attack he thought the best way of helping us was to attack the mayor of London … I think we should just keep kicking this visit into the long grass.

Labour’s Chuka Umunna agreed:

 

I hope there is no state visit, I have to say … Frankly, a period of silence from him [Trump] would be very welcome. I think he’s been incredibly insensitive turning this into some kind of row.

But also, if he comes here, given his unpopularity, just think about the huge police resource which is going to have to go into manning that state visit. I mean with a threat level as it is at the moment, I would much rather that our police and security services focussed on some of the challenged we have here, keeping our country safe than frankly being distracted by a president who… is perhaps one of the most divisive politicians in the western world and right now we need to be coming together.

 

I think the point about the cost of security for such a visit a very good one - after all, the TT himself has said the UK needs to do more to stop any such attacks - our police are better employed doing that than keeping him safe.

Though I do have a little daydream of streets lined with people holding signs against him, all with their backs to him, and singing 'God Save The Queen'. (To show the disrespect isn't meant for her!)

Please Rufus enough speak up to make the visit politically untenable.

And for those who say that moderate Muslims are not speaking out, from the same page of the Guardian:

Quote

 

 

;

Quote

More than 130 imams and Muslim religious leaders have said they will refuse to say funeral prayers for the perpetrators of Saturday’s attack in London.

In a highly unusual move, Muslim religious figures from across the country and from different schools of Islam said their pain at the suffering of the victims and their families led them to refuse to perform the traditional Islamic prayer – a ritual normally performed for every Muslim regardless of their actions. They called on others to do the same.

They expressed “shock and utter disgust at these cold-blooded murders”, adding:

We will not perform the traditional Islamic funeral prayer over the perpetrators and we also urge fellow imams and religious authorities to withdraw such a privilege.

This is because such indefensible actions are completely at odds with the lofty teachings of Islam.

I'm really glad to see such an emphatic disowning of these terrorists by Islamic leaders.

Sorry about the double quote box - don't know how it happened, and can't remove it!

ETA More from the leaders of the British Islamic community here.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/05/imams-refuse-funeral-prayers-to-indefensible-london-bridge-attackers

 

[ALM7]

This is getting very interesting...

NSA Director Mike Rogers poised to ‘drop a bomb’ on Trump admin during Wednesday testimony..

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/6/5/1669100/-NSA-Director-Mike-Rogers-poised-to-drop-a-bomb-on-Trump-admin-during-Wednesday-testimony

[fraurosena]

Go California!

California, China defy U.S. climate retreat with new cleantech tie-up

Quote

California said it will cooperate with China on clean technology, emissions trading and other "climate-positive" opportunities as it bids to fill the gap left after President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris climate accord last week.

The government of California and China's Ministry of Science and Technology would work together on developing and commercializing know-how on carbon capture and storage, clean energy, as well as advanced information technology that could help cut greenhouse gas emissions, according to a Tuesday statement.

President Trump announced last week that he would pull the United States out of the 2015 Paris agreement on climate change, a move branded as "insane" by California governor Jerry Brown, who is visiting China this week.

The decision to withdraw was seen to have handed the political and diplomatic initiative to China, which has continued to pledge its unqualified support for the Paris accord.

Brown told reporters on the sidelines of a clean energy forum in Beijing on Tuesday that the failure of leadership from the United States was "only temporary" and said science and the market would be required to get past it.

In an earlier speech, Brown criticized those still "resisting reality".

"The world is not doing enough," he said. "We are on the road to a very negative and disastrous future unless we increase the tempo of change."

Joint pledges by China and the United States ahead of the Paris talks helped create the momentum required to secure a global agreement, and included a promise by China to establish a nationwide emissions trading exchange by this year.

Brown told Reuters last week that he would discuss linking China's carbon trading platforms with California's, the biggest in the United States.

 

[onekidanddone]

8 hours ago, ALM7 said:

This is getting very interesting...

NSA Director Mike Rogers poised to ‘drop a bomb’ on Trump admin during Wednesday testimony..

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/6/5/1669100/-NSA-Director-Mike-Rogers-poised-to-drop-a-bomb-on-Trump-admin-during-Wednesday-testimony

Rufus please keep Mike Rogers and James Comey safe, may the have no fears as they testify, and my Congress listen and take heed. Oh and please let TT tweet as much and as crazy about the testimony as much as he can. Addingmore examples of witness tampering and obstruction of justice would be nice.