Trump 23: The Death Eaters Have Taken the Fucking Country

[fraurosena]

4 hours ago, Flossie said:

Isn't there  picture of Chump as a toddler?  Preferably looking grumpy or throwing a fit.  Photoshop his phone in one hand and make sure that his skin tone is orange-ish.

Well, my avatar is one, and then there is this...

 

3 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

From the WaPo: "Trump could be removed for political incompetence — using the 25th Amendment"

  Hide contents

Eric Posner is a professor at the University of Chicago Law School.

President Trump’s tenure has exposed a defect in our constitutional system: A president can be impeached and removed from office if convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors. He can be removed, under the conventional understanding of the 25th Amendment, if he is incapacitated by mental or physical illness. But there is no obvious solution for a president who has not committed a crime or been disabled by illness, but has lost the confidence of the public because of a failure of temperament, ideology or ability.

The current understanding of the 25th Amendment should be enlarged so as to provide authority to address this problem, through creation of a Presidential Oversight Council empowered to recommend removal of the president on political rather than medical grounds. When both the president’s party and the opposing party lose confidence in the president’s ability to govern, the council would stand ready to evaluate him and make a recommendation to Congress. Congress would be required to vote on its recommendation.

Certainly, the authors of the 25th Amendment had in mind presidents who suffered from illness while in office, such as Woodrow Wilson after his stroke. But they deliberately used broad language that goes beyond psychological or physical disability. The amendment refers to a president who is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” This language does not specifically refer to mental or physical factors as the source of the inability, and thus allows removal of a president whose incompetence results from other reasons — including a failure of temperament, ideology or ability.

The amendment explicitly authorizes Congress to create a “body” that, together with the vice president, is responsible for informing Congress that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. There is no requirement that medical professionals serve in that body. It may consist of whomever Congress chooses.

Congress should create such a council and staff it not with medical professionals (as proposed in a bill this spring by some Democrats in Congress), but with senior elected officials of both parties — the top Republican and Democratic elected officials in Congress, plus a few governors as well. The body would be required to meet periodically and verify that the president is able to discharge his powers and duties. Of course, it would be permitted to consult with medical and mental health experts, but they would not have any power to make decisions.

The council would consist of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, and it would be able to declare the president’s unfitness based on a two-thirds majority vote. Such an arrangement means that the president would remain in office unless he lost significant support from his own party, including his own vice president. This would never happen — unless the president was truly incompetent.

But I mean incompetent in a political sense, not a mental sense. By politically incompetent, I mean incompetent to exercise the powers of the presidency in a way that meets the approval of the president’s party as well as the opposing party. This could be because the president’s values fall outside the mainstream (either they have changed while in office or he concealed them while running for office); he lacks the interest or attention span to inform himself about issues; or he lacks management abilities and is unable to govern effectively.

What would be the advantages of this council over impeachment? The problem we currently face is that Trump may be incompetent to hold office even if he has not committed crimes of sufficient weight to justify impeachment. Impeachments are oriented toward specific acts, akin to criminal trials, while the problem we currently face — and may face in the future — concerns the president’s character.

The Presidential Oversight Council, in contrast, would be able to evaluate the president’s overall ability based on all of his behavior in office. Because the council would be a standing body, oversight of the president would be normalized and wouldn’t require the sort of crisis that motivates impeachment proceedings.

Creating such a council would also produce some immediate practical effects. It would allow Republicans to demonstrate the gravity of their concerns about Trump’s behavior without forcing them to take a stand on impeachment, which would surely fail. It would be ready to spring into action if Trump, or any future president, showed signs of incapacity to govern. It would reinforce the notion that the president does not govern alone but must maintain the support of Congress and other institutions in the much-maligned but essential “political establishment.” And it would give notice to Trump and his aides that outrageous behavior will no longer be tolerated and is not shielded by the Constitution.

Sadly, the Repugs who are in control will never agree to this.

Plus, they would need the help of Penceywise. Not gonna happen. Unless he sees his way clear to his own presiduncey.

[onekidanddone]

41 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Plus, they would need the help of Penceywise. Not gonna happen. Unless he sees his way clear to his own presiduncey.

I'm sure Pounds, Shillings and Pence wants the job, he just has to make it look as it wasn't him who removed Trump.

[fraurosena]

9 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

I'm sure Pounds, Shillings and Pence wants the job, he just has to make it look as it wasn't him to removed Trump.

Fat chance, that! 

There are so many things implicating him in the Russian connection (knowing about Flynn, being part of the Comey firing)  that when the presidunce falls, so will he.

[onekidanddone]

2 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Fat chance, that! 

There are so many things implicating him in the Russian connection (knowing about Flynn, being part of the Comey firing)  that when the presidunce falls, so will he.

Ah yes, good point. Though maybe Pence is waiting for the right time to turn on him and get all chatty with Muller. A girl can dream.

[fraurosena]

1 minute ago, onekidanddone said:

Ah yes, good point. Though maybe Pence is waiting for the right time to turn on him and get all chatty with Muller. A girl can dream.

Ha, I'll dream right along with you. I can picture him now, a big blubbering mess, confessing everything,

"Snivel, sniff, whahaaaaaa.... Don't lock me up! I'll tell you everything, just please, don't put me with those ho-mo-sek-suals in jail, anything but that! Motherrrrrrrr....."

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump is privately raging about Robert Mueller. But all of this is his own fault."

Spoiler

Is President Trump even capable of grasping the basic outlines of the story line that led to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III and his intensifying investigation, which is now targeting Trump himself? This is not intended as idle speculation about our president’s frazzled mental condition. The question is a consequential one: If the answer is “no,” it’s more likely that things will get a good deal more turbulent from here on out.

Axios has a remarkable report this morning that purports to get inside Trump’s thinking as he eyes Mueller’s probe closing in:

Behind the scenes in the West Wing, President Trump continues to rant and brood about former FBI Director Jim Comey and the Russia investigation that got him fired.

Trump tells aides and visitors that the probe now being run by special counsel Bob Mueller is a witch hunt, and that Comey was a leaker. …

The Mueller investigation is hitting ever closer to home for Trump … The president’s friends are most worried about Mueller digging into past business deals, which is why his team keeps raising concerns in public and private about the “scope” of the investigation.

Though this is based on murky sourcing, there are two reasons to take it seriously. The first is that it mirrors a New York Times report in June that said Trump privately raged over Mueller and seriously considered trying to remove him but was talked out of it. That report said this: “People close to Mr. Trump say he is so volatile they cannot be sure that he will not change his mind about Mr. Mueller if he finds out anything to lead him to believe the investigation has been compromised.” Thus, Trump could easily be concluding right now that the investigation is compromised and is privately raging about it.

The second reason to take the Axios report seriously is that Trump’s thinking was reflected publicly by White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders at yesterday’s briefing. Asked about former Trump strategist Stephen K. Bannon’s contention that firing Comey was a catastrophic mistake, Sanders said firing Comey was “100 percent right,” and justified it this way:

“I think there is no secret Comey, by his own self-admission, leaked privileged government information. … His actions were improper and likely could have been illegal. Comey leaked memos to the New York Times, your own outlet. He politicized an investigation by signaling he would exonerate Hillary Clinton before he ever interviewed her or other key witnesses.”

But this response inadvertently reveals the degree to which the White House’s rationale for the firing of Comey has shifted and changed over time. Sanders claims that Comey’s improper behavior was to be too soft on Clinton. Sarah Posner has already explained why this whole narrative is deeply ridiculous. But the other important point is that it cuts against the reasons that Trump and the White House have already given for the firing.

When Trump fired Comey, he claimed he had done so on the recommendation of Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein. He had authored a memo asserting Comey’s transgression was that he had inappropriately handled the Clinton email investigation by criticizing her behavior at a presser despite recommending no charges against her. That is a diametrically different rationale than the latest one offered by Sanders.

Now, obviously, Trump could conceivably have had more than one reason for firing Comey. But let’s not forget that after Trump’s claim that he had fired Comey on Rosenstein’s recommendation fell apart under scrutiny, Trump admitted on national television that he had fired Comey over the Russia probe. Since then, we have learned that Mueller is in possession of an earlier draft of a letter explaining the firing — which was not released after alarmed staffers intervened — and it, too, blamed Comey’s handling of the Russia investigation, raging that Comey would not publicly exonerate him.

Trump himself precipitated the events leading to Mueller’s appointment. After demanding Comey’s loyalty and demanding that Comey drop the probe into former national security adviser Michael Flynn — and getting neither — Trump gave Comey the ax. (Trump also revealed publicly that he was furious with Attorney General Jeff Sessions for not protecting him from the investigation, apparently unaware of how inappropriate this was.) Trump’s claim that he had fired Comey on Rosenstein’s recommendation — followed by Trump’s public admission that he had in fact done so because of the Russia probe — left little doubt that he had tried to implicate Rosenstein in creating a cover story for the firing. These flagrant abuses of process and power are what led directly to Rosenstein’s appointment of Mueller.

Does Trump grasp this chain of events and his own role in setting them in motion? It’s really not clear that he does. And this could have severe consequences. Former senior Bush legal adviser Jack Goldsmith has a must-read essay in the Atlantic that catalogs Trump’s serial norm-shredding and lawlessness, which concludes that our system is showing signs that it will survive Trump. But that rests on the “assumption … that the country is fundamentally stable,” which is not guaranteed:

What if Mueller finds evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians — and Trump fires not just Mueller but also scores of others in the Justice Department, and pardons himself and everyone else involved? These are not crazy possibilities. The Constitution has held thus far and might continue to do so under more-extreme circumstances. But it also might not.

If Trump is not able to grasp that he is to blame for Mueller’s probe, it becomes more likely that Trump could take steps such as these in the grip of delirium over imagined persecution. What happens then is anybody’s guess.

...

Interesting stuff, there are multiple articles linked in the spoiler.

[47of74]

Alex Jones thinks Donald J. Putinfluffer is being drugged

Quote

Alex Jones admitted President Donald Trump seems mentally impaired in the evening, but he floated a wild conspiracy theory to explain it away.

The Trump-backing broadcaster claimed Monday on his “InfoWars” radio program that “high-level sources” had confirmed a plot to control the president through sedative drugs — although Jones never explained who was doing that, reported Media Matters.

“They drug presidents because the power structure wants a puppet,” Jones claimed. “The president needs his blood tested by an outside physician he trusts.”

The 71-year-old Trump has a family history of Alzheimer’s disease, and analyses have found he showed some symptoms of age-related cognitive impairment — including observations that he shows symptoms of late-day confusion known as “sundowning.”

Palm, this is Face.

[onekidanddone]

26 minutes ago, 47of74 said:

The Trump-backing broadcaster claimed Monday on his “InfoWars” radio program that “high-level sources” had confirmed a plot to control the president through sedative drugs — although Jones never explained who was doing that, reported Media Matters.

Me thinks Alex might be the one on drugs.

[47of74]

47 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

Me thinks Alex might be the one on drugs.

Yeah, and not the drugs that make people say to themselves fornicate it, I'm too tired to do anything, I'm just gonna lay down for a while. 

[GrumpyGran]

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

“I think there is no secret Comey, by his own self-admission, leaked privileged government information. … His actions were improper and likely could have been illegal.

Ooooohh, privileged information. What exactly is that? Not classified or confidential. And you, Sarah, get to decide what's improper? Likely could have been illegal? Whoops, you're slipping now. You're better off keeping your mouth shut.

And what is she referring to when she says Comey signaled he would exonerate Hillary before interviewing her?

I do worry that if Mueller signals he has some real meat, Dumpy will just start firing and pardoning, left and right. Could be a real mess.

[onekidanddone]

1 minute ago, GrumpyGran said:

Ooooohh, privileged information. What exactly is that? Not classified or confidential. And you, Sarah, get to decide what's improper? Likely could have been illegal? Whoops, you're slipping now. You're better off keeping your mouth shut.

My bet is her boss told her to drop these 'hints'. Kind of like 'wire taps' and 'tapes' tweets.

[onekidanddone]

Oh for fucks sake! Now TT want's a ESPN reporter fired because she called him names (spoke the truth). That orange slime trashed Obama for years, and now his fragile little ego is so delicate. Waaaa.. I'm not a white supremist! I'm not I'm not I'M NOT. 

[GreyhoundFan]

3 hours ago, onekidanddone said:

I'm not a white supremist! I'm not I'm not I'M NOT

"I know you are, but what am I?" said in maximum whine.

[JMarie]

8 hours ago, 47of74 said:

Alex Jones admitted President Donald Trump seems mentally impaired in the evening, but he floated a wild conspiracy theory to explain it away.

The Trump-backing broadcaster claimed Monday on his “InfoWars” radio program that “high-level sources” had confirmed a plot to control the president through sedative drugs — although Jones never explained who was doing that, reported Media Matters.

Sedated?  Alex Jones thinks Trump is sedated?  I'm an RN.  I know sedated.  This ain't it.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump’s Folly"

Spoiler

America faces two serious national security threats today that look wildly different but have one core feature in common — they both have a low probability of happening, but, if they did happen, they could have devastating consequences for our whole country and the world.

One of these threats is called North Korea. If the reckless leader of North Korea is able to launch an arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles that strike the U.S. mainland, the impact on America will be incalculable.

And even though the odds of that happening are low — it would be an act of suicide by the North Korean dynasty — President Trump is ready to spend billions on antimissile systems, warships, cyberdefenses, air power and war games to defuse and deter this North Korean threat.

And if we prepare for a North Korean nuclear attack and it never happens, we will be left with some improved weaponry that we might be able to use in other theaters, like fighter jets, ships and missiles — but nothing particularly productive for our economy or job creation.

The other low-probability, high-impact threat is climate change fueled by increased human-caused carbon emissions. The truth is, if you simply trace the steady increase in costly extreme weather events — wildfires, floods, droughts and climate-related human migrations — the odds of human-driven global warming having a devastating impact on our planet are not low probability but high probability.

But let’s assume for a minute that because climate change is a complex process — which we do not fully understand — climate change is a low-probability, high-impact event just like a North Korean nuclear strike. What is the Trump team doing when confronted with this similar threat?

It’s taking a spike and poking out its own eyes. In possibly the most intellectually corrupt declaration of the Trump era — a high bar — Scott Pruitt, a longtime shill for oil and gas companies now masquerading as the head of the E.P.A., actually declared that even discussing possible links between human-driven climate disruptions and the recent monster storms was “insensitive.” He said that after our country got hit by two Atlantic Category 4 hurricanes in the same year for the first time since records have been kept — storms made more destructive by rising ocean levels and warmer ocean waters.

Makes me wonder … if Pruitt were afflicted with cancer, would he not want scientists discussing with him, let alone researching, the possible causes and solutions? Wouldn’t want to upset him.

Frauds like Pruitt like to say that the climate has been changing since long before any human drove a car, so how could humans be causing climate change? Of course they aren’t solely responsible. The climate has always changed by itself through its own natural variability. But that doesn’t mean that humans can’t exacerbate or disrupt this natural variability by warming the planet even more and, by doing so, making the hots hotter, the wets wetter, the storms harsher, the colds colder and the droughts drier.

That is why I prefer the term “global weirding” over “global warming.” The weather does get warmer in some places, but it gets weird in others. Look at the past few months: Not only were several big U.S. cities slammed by monster hurricanes, but San Francisco set a heat record — 106 degrees on Sept. 1, a day when the average high there is 70 degrees; the West was choked by record-breaking forest fires exacerbated by drought; and South Asia was slammed by extraordinarily harsh monsoons, killing some 1,400 people.

But what if we prepare for disruptive climate change and it doesn’t get as bad as feared? Where will we be? Well, we will have cleaner air to breathe, less childhood asthma, more innovative building materials and designs, and cleaner, more efficient power generation and transportation systems — all of which will be huge export industries and create tens of thousands of good, repeat jobs. Because with world population steadily rising, we all will need greener cars and power if we just want to breathe clean air, no matter what happens with the climate. We will also be less dependent on petro-dictators.

Indeed, it is safe to say, that if we overprepare for climate change and nothing much happens, it will be exactly like training for the Olympic marathon and the Olympics get canceled. You’re left with a body that is stronger, fitter and healthier.

Trump has recently fired various knuckle-headed aides whose behavior was causing him short-term embarrassment. The person he needs to fire is Scott Pruitt. Pruitt is going to cause Trump long-term embarrassment. But instead, together they are authoring a new national security doctrine — one that says when faced with a low-probability, high-impact event like North Korea, the U.S. should spend any amount of money, and if the threat doesn’t materialize, well, we’ll have a lot of Army surplus and scrap metal.

But when faced with an actually high-probability, high-impact threat called climate change, we should do nothing and poke both our eyes out, even though if the impact is less severe — and we prepare for it anyway — we will be left healthier, stronger, more productive, more resilient and more respected around the world.

That is the Pruitt-Trump Doctrine — soon to be known as “Trump’s Folly.”

I wholeheartedly agree that Pruitt should go. NOW.

[GreyhoundFan]

I truly hope Chuck and Nancy aren't stupid enough to think he'll stick with them. "Trump, top Democrats agree to work on deal to save ‘dreamers’ from deportation"

Spoiler

President Trump and top Democratic leaders agreed late Wednesday to pursue a legislative deal that would protect hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants from deportation and enact border security measures that don’t include building a physical wall, according to people familiar with the meeting.

The president discussed options during a dinner at the White House with Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that also included talks on tax reform, infrastructure and trade. Trump has showed signs of shifting strategy to cross the aisle and work with Democrats in the wake of the high-profile failures by Republicans to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

A possible alliance between Trump and the Democrats on immigration would represent a major political gamble for a president who made promises of tougher border control policies the centerpiece of his campaign. Under mounting pressure from the right, Trump moved two weeks ago to begin dismantling Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, an Obama-era program that has allowed 690,000 younger immigrants who have lived in the country illegally since they were children, known as “dreamers,” to work and go to school without fear of deportation.

But Trump had equivocated for months on the decision and made clear that he expected Congress to pursue a plan to protect the DACA recipients, offering a six-month delay until their two-year work permits begin to expire in March.

In a statement, the White House described the meeting as “constructive” and said the administration “looks forward to continuing these conversations with leadership on both sides of the aisle.”

Congressional aides familiar with the exchange said that Trump and the party leaders agreed to move quickly on legislation to protect dreamers and provide them permanent legal status in the United States. It was not clear whether they agreed that the goal should be for dreamers to eventually have a path to citizenship.

...

In a statement, Schumer and Pelosi said they had “a very productive meeting at the White House with the President. The discussion focused on DACA. We agreed to enshrine the protections of DACA into law quickly, and to work out a package of border security, excluding the wall, that’s acceptable to both sides.”

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders confirmed that DACA and border security were discussed but she said excluding border wall funding from a package deal was “certainly not agree to.”

...

The Democratic leaders said the dinner, which featured Chinese food and chocolate pie, also focused on ensuring that the administration works to shore up the Affordable Care Act in the coming weeks.

Earlier Wednesday, Trump had told a bipartisan group of House lawmakers during a White House meeting that he wants to resolve the DACA issue “real soon,” according to Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Tex.), who attended.

Cuellar said that he told Trump the Dream Act has sufficient bipartisan support to pass and that the White House should be pushing for a vote.

Trump, Cuellar said, told the group: “Oh, it will be on the floor.”

Even if the president and Democratic leaders claim to cut a deal, it will need the support of GOP leaders, who are already wary of the spending agreement Trump brokered with them last week.

Pelosi and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) met earlier Wednesday to begin discussing the broad parameters of the forthcoming immigration debate. Ryan’s team signaled that despite the administration’s eagerness to quickly seal the deal, it will take awhile.

AshLee Strong, Ryan’s spokeswoman, said that regarding the plight of the dreamers, the speaker “reiterated that any solution needs to address border security and enforcement, which are the root causes of the problem. Discussions among the Republican conference will continue in the coming weeks.”

Okay, I can't help myself. When I saw that the dinner included chocolate pie, I was hoping Minny baked it and that it had a "special" ingredient.

[onekidanddone]

8 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Makes me wonder … if Pruitt were afflicted with cancer, would he not want scientists discussing with him, let alone researching, the possible causes and solutions? Wouldn’t want to upset him.

He would allow scientist to discuss his cancer, just not anybody else's

[47of74]

10 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I truly hope Chuck and Nancy aren't stupid enough to think he'll stick with them. "Trump, top Democrats agree to work on deal to save ‘dreamers’ from deportation"

  Reveal hidden contents

President Trump and top Democratic leaders agreed late Wednesday to pursue a legislative deal that would protect hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants from deportation and enact border security measures that don’t include building a physical wall, according to people familiar with the meeting.

The president discussed options during a dinner at the White House with Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that also included talks on tax reform, infrastructure and trade. Trump has showed signs of shifting strategy to cross the aisle and work with Democrats in the wake of the high-profile failures by Republicans to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

A possible alliance between Trump and the Democrats on immigration would represent a major political gamble for a president who made promises of tougher border control policies the centerpiece of his campaign. Under mounting pressure from the right, Trump moved two weeks ago to begin dismantling Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, an Obama-era program that has allowed 690,000 younger immigrants who have lived in the country illegally since they were children, known as “dreamers,” to work and go to school without fear of deportation.

But Trump had equivocated for months on the decision and made clear that he expected Congress to pursue a plan to protect the DACA recipients, offering a six-month delay until their two-year work permits begin to expire in March.

In a statement, the White House described the meeting as “constructive” and said the administration “looks forward to continuing these conversations with leadership on both sides of the aisle.”

Congressional aides familiar with the exchange said that Trump and the party leaders agreed to move quickly on legislation to protect dreamers and provide them permanent legal status in the United States. It was not clear whether they agreed that the goal should be for dreamers to eventually have a path to citizenship.

...

In a statement, Schumer and Pelosi said they had “a very productive meeting at the White House with the President. The discussion focused on DACA. We agreed to enshrine the protections of DACA into law quickly, and to work out a package of border security, excluding the wall, that’s acceptable to both sides.”

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders confirmed that DACA and border security were discussed but she said excluding border wall funding from a package deal was “certainly not agree to.”

...

The Democratic leaders said the dinner, which featured Chinese food and chocolate pie, also focused on ensuring that the administration works to shore up the Affordable Care Act in the coming weeks.

Earlier Wednesday, Trump had told a bipartisan group of House lawmakers during a White House meeting that he wants to resolve the DACA issue “real soon,” according to Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Tex.), who attended.

Cuellar said that he told Trump the Dream Act has sufficient bipartisan support to pass and that the White House should be pushing for a vote.

Trump, Cuellar said, told the group: “Oh, it will be on the floor.”

Even if the president and Democratic leaders claim to cut a deal, it will need the support of GOP leaders, who are already wary of the spending agreement Trump brokered with them last week.

Pelosi and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) met earlier Wednesday to begin discussing the broad parameters of the forthcoming immigration debate. Ryan’s team signaled that despite the administration’s eagerness to quickly seal the deal, it will take awhile.

AshLee Strong, Ryan’s spokeswoman, said that regarding the plight of the dreamers, the speaker “reiterated that any solution needs to address border security and enforcement, which are the root causes of the problem. Discussions among the Republican conference will continue in the coming weeks.”

Okay, I can't help myself. When I saw that the dinner included chocolate pie, I was hoping Minny baked it and that it had a "special" ingredient.

I see the orange ferret face is now denying that he made any sort of deal with the Democrats;

Quote

President Donald Trump is denying assertions by the two top congressional Democrats that they have an agreement with him that will preserve protections for young immigrants in the U.S. illegally while adding border security without the wall he has coveted.

Trump sent out a series of tweets before daybreak Thursday taking issue with characterizations by Sen. Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of talks the group at a White House dinner Wednesday evening.

Schumer and Pelosi said they'd reached an agreement to restore the so-called DACA program in exchange for some additional security enhancements to ward off illegal immigration. But Trump said in a tweet: "No deal was made last night on DACA."

Way to fuck yourself ferret face.  You think now people are going to want to make deals with you if all you do is turn around the next day and knife them in the back? 

[onekidanddone]

30 minutes ago, 47of74 said:

Way to fuck yourself ferret face.  You think now people are going to want to make deals with you if all you do is turn around the next day and knife them in the back? 

Actually yes. The Repugs are such sycophants they would keep making deals with him no matter how much stabs them in the back and no matter how much trash talk he hurls. 

[47of74]

Actually yes. The Repugs are such sycophants they would keep making deals with him no matter how much stabs them in the back and no matter how much trash talk he hurls. 

Of course many Republicans would say please sir may I have seen me more no matter what fuck face said to them. But if he thinks others will put up with his bullshit he might be in for an unpleasant surprise.

[Cartmann99]

1 hour ago, 47of74 said:

Schumer and Pelosi said they'd reached an agreement to restore the so-called DACA program in exchange for some additional security enhancements to ward off illegal immigration. But Trump said in a tweet: "No deal was made last night on DACA."

I saw some screencaps from Breitbart last night, and their front page was all stories about them losing their everlovin' minds over Trump's deal with the democrats on DACA.  I'm guessing that Trump's tweet is to try and get Bannon to calm down?

Anyhoo, I just looked again and now the newest story is about Sarah Palin's plans to go to Alabama and screech campaign for Judge Roy "Ten commandments" Moore, in his senate race. So heads up on that, Alabamians.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump’s die-hard supporters are fuming after an apparent about-face on ‘dreamers’"

Spoiler

Staunch conservative allies of President Trump have erupted in anger and incredulity after Democrats late Wednesday announced that the president had agreed to pursue a legislative deal that would protect thousands of young undocumented immigrants from deportation but not secure Trump’s signature campaign promise: building a massive wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Nearing midnight and into Thursday, social media accounts came alive as elected officials and activists on the right dashed off tweets and posts to share their shock.

And in between those posts, there was a flurry of fuming calls and text messages — a blaring political fire alarm among Trump’s die-hard supporters.

“The reality is sinking in that Trump administration is on the precipice of turning into an establishment presidency,” Sam Nunberg, a former Trump campaign adviser, said in an interview early Thursday morning.

While the initial wave of fury could change direction as new details emerge, the torrent represented the first major break of Trump’s devoted base from the president on a core issue.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), one of the GOP’s biggest immigration hawks, issued a dramatic warning to the president after he scrolled through news reports.

“If AP is correct, Trump base is blown up, destroyed, irreparable, and disillusioned beyond repair,” King tweeted, referencing an Associated Press story on the bipartisan agreement.

He added, “No promise is credible.”

Conservative radio talk show host Laura Ingraham, who is friendly with Trump, mocked him for seeming to shelve the pledge that has animated his supporters since his campaign’s launch.

“Exactly what @realDonaldTrump campaigned on. Not,” Ingraham wrote on Twitter. She later added, “BUILD THE WALL! BUILD THE WALL! … or … maybe … not really.”

Trump tried to calm the conservative outrage early Thursday in a series of tweets that insisted the border wall “will continue to be built” and that no deal was hashed out with Democrats on the undocumented young immigrants known as “dreamers.”

“No deal was made last night on DACA. Massive border security would have to be agreed to in exchange for consent. Would be subject to vote,” Trump wrote, referring to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, an Obama-era program that has allowed 690,000 “dreamers” to work and go to school without fear of deportation.

As he departed the White House on Thursday en route to Florida, which has been ravaged by Hurricane Irma, Trump told reporters that “the wall will come later … The wall is going to be built, it'll be funded a little bit later.”

“We are working on a plan for DACA,” Trump said, calling the negotiations “fairly close” to concluding. Congressional Republican leaders, he added, were “very much on board” with his position.

Conservative polemicist Ann Coulter, who wrote a book titled “In Trump We Trust”, did not buy the president's explanation.

“At this point, who DOESN'T want Trump impeached?” Coulter tweeted on Thursday morning.

Breitbart News, the conservative website now run by former White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, quickly became a gathering place for aggrieved Trump backers. Readers congregated by the thousands in the comments section for an article with a bright red headline: “Amnesty Don.”

Days earlier, Bannon said on CBS’s “60 Minutes” that he was “worried about losing the House now because of this, because of DACA,” arguing that Republican voters would lack enthusiasm for Trump and the party if they felt it was drifting to the center on immigration.

“If this goes all the way down to its logical conclusion, in February and March it will be a civil war inside the Republican Party that will be every bit as vitriolic as 2013,” Bannon said, referencing the stalled fight that year over a comprehensive immigration bill. “And to me, doing that in the springboard of primary season for 2018 is extremely unwise.”

“This a betrayal of the highest order,” a Breitbart editor, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said in a phone call late Wednesday. “Donald Trump should be ashamed of himself. He wasn’t elected to do this.”

The editor was mostly echoed by the site’s readers:

“Put a fork in Trump. He is done.”

“PRIMARY TIME!!!!”

“What a HUGE let down.”

“I can reconcile Trump caving on virtually any issue, Amnesty and not building the wall are not one of them.”

Adding to the tumult in the deep of night: conflicting accounts over what exactly Trump and Democrats had brokered.

Aides to Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) asserted that Trump had agreed not to request wall funding as part of their pact to soon move legislation to help undocumented immigrants who are protected under the executive order.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted at 10:21 p.m.: “While DACA and border security were both discussed, excluding the wall was certainly not agreed to.”

Eleven minutes later, Matt House, an adviser to Schumer, tweeted: “The President made clear he would continue pushing the wall, just not as part of this agreement.”

Sanders’s Twitter assurance, however, did little to calm the roiled voices, especially in the populist-nationalist wing of the Republican Party — a wing deeply linked to Trump.

“Deep State Wins, Huge Loss for #MAGA,” Fox Business anchor Lou Dobbs tweeted, alluding to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” campaign slogan.

Others who have supported Trump’s immigration positions took a wait-and-see approach amid the chaos.

“My sense is that he told Chuck and Nancy what they wanted to hear, and they heard what they wanted to hear. I think there could be some mischief-making on the part of Schumer since the White House is walking it back,” said Mark Krikorian, an immigration hard-liner who runs the Center for Immigration Studies, in an interview.

Meanwhile, Fox News host Sean Hannity, who is in regular contact with Trump, directed his ire over the developments not at the president but at GOP leaders on Capitol Hill.

“Well Mitch GREAT JOB!” Hannity tweeted, referring to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “You failed so miserably with Healthcare and ‘excessive expectations’ now @POTUS has to deal with Dem Leaders!”

Hannity added later, “I blame R's. They caused this. They wanted him to fail and now pushed him into arms of political suicide — IF TRUE.”

Oh my, the snowflakes are melting.

[GrumpyGran]

Here they are now, come to spread their sympathy in Florida. Went to Ft Myers. And is Melania going to release a line of disaster clothing? For a woman who is supposedly a fashion icon she is boring the hell out of me! Skinny jeans-check. Cotton blouse-check. Pony tail-check. Ball cap-check. Girl, you did not just wear white pants to a disaster area!

[CTRLZero]

1 hour ago, Cartmann99 said:

Anyhoo, I just looked again and now the newest story is about Sarah Palin's plans to go to Alabama and screech campaign for Judge Roy "Ten commandments" Moore, in his senate race.

Noooo.  I thought she was in exile, but here she is hitting the trail (for Moore) and vowing to help battle the "swamp monsters" in DC.  Can't America catch a break?  Sigh...

[Cartmann99]

The Daily Fail has an article up about Melania's wardrobe for this trip:

Quote

Melania Trump not only wore flats when she headed to Florida to visit hurricane victims, but the first lady even opted to throw on sneakers while doing a quick outfit change on Air Force One.

The 47-year-old, who was labeled out of touch and disrespectful when she donned stilettos to visit hurricane victims in Houston, appears to have sworn off high heels for her trip to meet with citizens in Fort Myers who have been impacted by Hurricane Irma.

After wearing $750 black and beige Chanel flats to board Air Force One with President Donald Trump on Thursday, Melania changed into a casual button-up shirt, white skinny jeans, and $50 Converse sneakers.

Her olive green top was tucked into her jeans, which were cropped to show off her Chuck Taylor All Star sneakers.

Melania shielded her eyes from the son with a pair of aviator sunglasses, and she even threw her hair up into a ponytail, topping of her look with a crisp white baseball cap. 

She also opted to leave her black Hermes Birkin, which retails at a whopping $11,900 to $12,200, on the aircraft.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4884260/Melania-Trump-wears-Chanel-flats-hurricane-hit-Florida.html

Whenever the subject of Birkins comes up, I start giggling that there are people  foolish enough to spend that much money on a purse.