Trump 23: The Death Eaters Have Taken the Fucking Country

[onekidanddone]

Forgive me if I've said this already Trump is making is phony deals with the Dems only because he thinks it will keep him from impeachment next year 

[GrumpyGran]

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

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

  Hide contents

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.

This is what winning looks like?

[onekidanddone]

35 minutes ago, GrumpyGran said:

This is what winning looks like?

Excuse me I'll be right back Donnie, I need to get a box of tissues from all the crying because I'm so sad.  Oh hold a sec, I'm not sad.  TT is SAD. Now back to your regularly scheduled twitter tantrum.

[47of74]

Donald J. Putinfluffer had this to say about Sander's health care plan

Quote

President Trump on Thursday called Sen. Bernie Sanders's (I-Vt.) "Medicare for all" plan a "curse on the U.S.”

"Bernie Sanders is pushing hard for a single payer healthcare plan - a curse on the U.S. & its people," Trump tweeted. 

"I told Republicans to approve healthcare fast or this would happen. But don't worry, I will veto because I love our country & its people."

Look, dumb fuck.  I know what the curse on this country is.  If you want to know what it is try looking in the goddamn gold plated mirror we all know you have.

And I see he's now blaming his failure to call Mexico after their natural disasters on bad cell service....

Quote

President Donald Trump has claimed the reason he did not reach out to Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto immediately after the country’s huge earthquake was because there was no cellphone reception in Mexico.

“It’s been a week and a half. If you didn’t have cell phone service or three days why couldn’t you contact him after that?” user Ed Krassenstein‏ wrote. Another, David Putnam‏, said, “Wow, Trump is just now getting to the Mexico earthquake disaster. Most (good) people would send condolences immediately.”

It had been noted that Trump had not reached out to Mexico after the country was hit by two natural disasters—the earthquake and Hurricane Katia—in a short space of time, prompting Mexico to withdraw its offer of aid to the U.S. after Hurricane Harvey.

Jesus, fuck face.  Grow up already. 

[GreyhoundFan]

A good one from Joe Scarborough: "With Trump, it is never over"

Spoiler

The tweet by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) read like a primal scream. “Trump base is blown up, destroyed, irreparable, and disillusioned beyond repair,” he bellowed. “No promise is credible.”

King wasn’t alone in his horror that President Trump appears on the verge of doing a deal with his old friends, Chuck and Nancy — Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — that would write into law protections he had once vowed to undo, for the young “dreamers” covered by the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

Poor Ann Coulter, seemingly whipsawed on a weekly basis by Trump’s political gyrations, exhibited her trademark reticence, declaring the president “dead,” advocating Trump’s impeachment and musing about the glorious ascension of President Pence. And just a few days after Stephen K. Bannon’s “60 Minutes” loyalty oath to Trump, Breitbart savaged the president in a headline borrowed from my 2016 parody song, “Amnesty Don.” For good measure, Bannon’s website mockingly referred to the president as “Drumpf.”

Even the president’s most loyal lap dog let out a tiny bark Thursday morning when Fox News host Sean Hannity suggested that his love for the president would be “over!” if Trump went back on his word to deport the dreamers.

But Hannity, Bannon and King are about to learn the same lesson that Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton, Jeff Zucker, Mika Brzezinski and I discovered in 2016: With Trump, it is never over. His base will stick with him no matter what — no matter how loudly and how often the other self-styled leaders of that base take to Twitter or talk radio or any other platform to bleat that Trump has betrayed them.

Coulter’s and Hannity’s abandonment of Team Trump — if it really comes to that — won’t impact the trajectory of this presidency. If Trump’s political career is ever brought to an abrupt end, it won’t be because a few right-wing carnival barkers found themselves unable to pressure the president into adopting a policy position — expulsion of the dreamers — that is supported by only 12 percent of Americans.

Since his inauguration, Trump has chained himself to these characters deep inside an ideological cave where two-thirds of the American electorate never venture. That political strategy predictably led to a 34-percent approval rating at the start of this month. Now that the president has managed to go a week without aggressively working to provoke more than 200 million Americans, he will be on the receiving side of talk radio’s wrath. But if these political entertainers really believe that Trump’s political base is going to blow apart over a deal most Americans support, they are as clueless about Trump’s political base as Clinton was.

Trump’s superglue hold over his supporters has flummoxed conservative and liberal commentators alike since he first rode down his golden escalator at Trump Tower in 2015. Others declared his political career “over!” after he insulted, variously, Mexicans, John McCain, Megyn Kelly, Fox News, body-shamed women, Access Hollywood viewers and a host of others on his trail to the presidency. But many voters sided with the bellicose celebrity they have known since the 1980s. It’s the personality that keeps them, not the policies.

And that Trump base is not going anywhere now. They are not Coulter’s book-buying base, they are not King’s Republican voting base and they will never be Bannon’s populist base. Trump’s base is Trump’s base, period, and there is nothing that Hannity, Breitbart or King will ever be able to do to change that fact. Trump fans stick with Trump through thick and thin. If you don’t believe me, just ask President Clinton.

Hannity and his "tiny little bark" made me giggle.

[sawasdee]

Quote

1 hour ago, 47of74 said:

And I see he's now blaming his failure to call Mexico after their natural disasters on bad cell service

 

He just doesn't have any normal empathetic feelings, does he? 

[GreyhoundFan]

So the orange menace held to message for about 10 seconds in Florida. He reverted to form afterwards: "Trump’s inflammatory Air Force One gaggle, annotated"

Spoiler

President Trump just pivoted back to being President Trump.

While headed back from an empathetic visit to Hurricane Irma-stricken Florida and on the heels of more bipartisan dealmaking in Washington, the president reverted to his unapologetic, combative, dubious-claim-peddling self. In a 15-minute chat with reporters, he claimed vindication for his hugely controversial comments about Charlottesville, alluded to the Obama administration allegedly spying on his campaign, and — after repeatedly pointing to the unprecedented nature of the latest hurricanes in recent weeks — played down their size when asked whether climate change was to blame.

It was a performance that recalled Trump's wild news conferences, back when he used to do them. As we did with those, let's break Trump's comments down piece-by-piece.

On Charlottesville:

"[Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and I] had a great talk yesterday. I think especially in light of the advent of Antifa, if you look at what’s going on there. You have some pretty bad dudes on the other side also, and essentially that’s what I said. Now because of what’s happened since then with Antifa, when you look at really what’s happened since Charlottesville, a lot of people are saying, and people have actually written, 'Gee, Trump may have a point.' I said there’s some very bad people on the other side also. But we had a great conversation. And he has legislation, which I actually like very much, the concept of which I support, to get people into certain areas and building and constructing and putting people to work. I told him yesterday that’s a concept I can support very easily.”

This is Trump quadrupling down on the controversial “both sides” and “many sides” comments he made after a white supremacist allegedly killed a woman and wounded many others by driving into a crowd of counterprotesters. Those comments were decried even by Republicans and criticized by his own staff — both privately and publicly, in the case of chief economic adviser Gary Cohn — who saw it as playing down the role of white supremacy.

The question was about his meeting with Scott, and yet Trump saw fit to reignite this whole controversy — at a time when Democrats who have labeled his policies and comments racist are trying to work with him. That doesn't bode well for his immigration wheeling and dealing.

There have indeed been some Democrats decrying the tactics of antifa, or anti-fascists, in recent weeks, but that's not the same thing as a bunch of people saying "Trump was right." If that's been happening, I sure haven't seen it. In the case of Charlottesville, one group was responsible for death, which made Trump's "both sides” commentary so troubling for so many.

It will also be interesting to see what Cohn and others do now that they have to keep dealing with this headache. There have already been plenty of reports that Cohn and Trump are disillusioned with each other.

On climate change and the storms' effect on his views of it:

“We’ve had bigger storms than this.” (He cited bigger storms in the 1910s, 1930s and 1940s.)

This is a far cry from what Trump has been saying for weeks. He has at times almost gleefully pointed to the supposedly unprecedented sizes of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

... < tweets from the twit >

So which is it? The storms can't be the biggest in 500 years and “bigger than we have ever seen” but also unremarkable.

(Also, Philip Bump notes all the ways in which this hurricane season has been exceptional.)

On Susan E. Rice and unmasking:

“She’s not supposed to be doing that, and what she did was wrong. We’ve been saying that. It’s just the tip of the iceberg. She wasn’t supposed to be doing that — the unmasking and the surveillance. I heard she admitted that yesterday.”

Rice, the Obama administration's ambassador to the United Nations, told Congress this week that she unmasked — or asked for the redacted identities of — Trump aides in intelligence reports to learn what the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates was doing in New York last year. Trump's allies have argued that this unmasking was outside Rice's purview and that it may have even constituted spying on the Trump campaign.

Their claims are highly questionable, and Trump saying “what she did was wrong” is taking plenty of liberties. He also seems to be suggesting, with his “surveillance” and “tip of the iceberg” comment, that he might still believe he was spied upon by the Obama administration. And so another long-dormant controversy may have new life.

On Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and health care:

“It was a very unpleasant surprise. Now we have people talking about single-payer. So Republicans have to stick together better. We had the votes. John McCain changed his mind, pure and simple.”

Thus continues Trump's feud with McCain, who returned from treatment for brain cancer to deliver a key vote to move forward with debate, and then the deciding vote against the health-care bill.

But Trump seems to be freelancing here by suggesting that McCain changed his mind. Even as McCain voted to move forward with debate, he never suggested he was definitely on board with the final product, which has been called “skinny repeal.” In fact, his vote seemed to be very much in doubt throughout the process. (Politico has a good story on this.)

On tax reform:

“If the Republicans don’t stick together, then I’m going to have to do more and more. By the way, the Republican Party agrees with me. The people out there definitely agree with me. If they’re unable to stick together, then I’m going to have to get a little help from the Democrats. And I've got that, and I'll tell you, for the tax bill, I would be very surprised if I don’t have at least a few Democrats.” (He added that he won some states by 30 points where Democrats are running.)

This is a pretty strong threat issued to the congressional GOP.

On the Iran deal:

“You’ll see what I’m going to be doing very shortly in October. The Iran deal is one of the worst deals I’ve ever seen. Certainly, at a minimum, the spirit of the deal is atrociously kept. The Iran deal is not a fair deal to this country. It’s a deal that should not have ever been made. … We are not going to stand what they are doing with our country. They’ve violated so many different elements, and they’ve also violated the spirit of that deal.”

Two months ago, Trump's State Department certified Iran's compliance with the nuclear deal. If they have violated it, Trump's administration hasn't said how.

 

[Cartmann99]

[GrumpyGran]

14 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

So the orange menace held to message for about 10 seconds in Florida. He reverted to form afterwards: "Trump’s inflammatory Air Force One gaggle, annotated"

  Hide contents

President Trump just pivoted back to being President Trump.

While headed back from an empathetic visit to Hurricane Irma-stricken Florida and on the heels of more bipartisan dealmaking in Washington, the president reverted to his unapologetic, combative, dubious-claim-peddling self. In a 15-minute chat with reporters, he claimed vindication for his hugely controversial comments about Charlottesville, alluded to the Obama administration allegedly spying on his campaign, and — after repeatedly pointing to the unprecedented nature of the latest hurricanes in recent weeks — played down their size when asked whether climate change was to blame.

It was a performance that recalled Trump's wild news conferences, back when he used to do them. As we did with those, let's break Trump's comments down piece-by-piece.

On Charlottesville:

"[Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and I] had a great talk yesterday. I think especially in light of the advent of Antifa, if you look at what’s going on there. You have some pretty bad dudes on the other side also, and essentially that’s what I said. Now because of what’s happened since then with Antifa, when you look at really what’s happened since Charlottesville, a lot of people are saying, and people have actually written, 'Gee, Trump may have a point.' I said there’s some very bad people on the other side also. But we had a great conversation. And he has legislation, which I actually like very much, the concept of which I support, to get people into certain areas and building and constructing and putting people to work. I told him yesterday that’s a concept I can support very easily.”

This is Trump quadrupling down on the controversial “both sides” and “many sides” comments he made after a white supremacist allegedly killed a woman and wounded many others by driving into a crowd of counterprotesters. Those comments were decried even by Republicans and criticized by his own staff — both privately and publicly, in the case of chief economic adviser Gary Cohn — who saw it as playing down the role of white supremacy.

The question was about his meeting with Scott, and yet Trump saw fit to reignite this whole controversy — at a time when Democrats who have labeled his policies and comments racist are trying to work with him. That doesn't bode well for his immigration wheeling and dealing.

There have indeed been some Democrats decrying the tactics of antifa, or anti-fascists, in recent weeks, but that's not the same thing as a bunch of people saying "Trump was right." If that's been happening, I sure haven't seen it. In the case of Charlottesville, one group was responsible for death, which made Trump's "both sides” commentary so troubling for so many.

It will also be interesting to see what Cohn and others do now that they have to keep dealing with this headache. There have already been plenty of reports that Cohn and Trump are disillusioned with each other.

On climate change and the storms' effect on his views of it:

“We’ve had bigger storms than this.” (He cited bigger storms in the 1910s, 1930s and 1940s.)

This is a far cry from what Trump has been saying for weeks. He has at times almost gleefully pointed to the supposedly unprecedented sizes of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

... < tweets from the twit >

So which is it? The storms can't be the biggest in 500 years and “bigger than we have ever seen” but also unremarkable.

(Also, Philip Bump notes all the ways in which this hurricane season has been exceptional.)

On Susan E. Rice and unmasking:

“She’s not supposed to be doing that, and what she did was wrong. We’ve been saying that. It’s just the tip of the iceberg. She wasn’t supposed to be doing that — the unmasking and the surveillance. I heard she admitted that yesterday.”

Rice, the Obama administration's ambassador to the United Nations, told Congress this week that she unmasked — or asked for the redacted identities of — Trump aides in intelligence reports to learn what the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates was doing in New York last year. Trump's allies have argued that this unmasking was outside Rice's purview and that it may have even constituted spying on the Trump campaign.

Their claims are highly questionable, and Trump saying “what she did was wrong” is taking plenty of liberties. He also seems to be suggesting, with his “surveillance” and “tip of the iceberg” comment, that he might still believe he was spied upon by the Obama administration. And so another long-dormant controversy may have new life.

On Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and health care:

“It was a very unpleasant surprise. Now we have people talking about single-payer. So Republicans have to stick together better. We had the votes. John McCain changed his mind, pure and simple.”

Thus continues Trump's feud with McCain, who returned from treatment for brain cancer to deliver a key vote to move forward with debate, and then the deciding vote against the health-care bill.

But Trump seems to be freelancing here by suggesting that McCain changed his mind. Even as McCain voted to move forward with debate, he never suggested he was definitely on board with the final product, which has been called “skinny repeal.” In fact, his vote seemed to be very much in doubt throughout the process. (Politico has a good story on this.)

On tax reform:

“If the Republicans don’t stick together, then I’m going to have to do more and more. By the way, the Republican Party agrees with me. The people out there definitely agree with me. If they’re unable to stick together, then I’m going to have to get a little help from the Democrats. And I've got that, and I'll tell you, for the tax bill, I would be very surprised if I don’t have at least a few Democrats.” (He added that he won some states by 30 points where Democrats are running.)

This is a pretty strong threat issued to the congressional GOP.

On the Iran deal:

“You’ll see what I’m going to be doing very shortly in October. The Iran deal is one of the worst deals I’ve ever seen. Certainly, at a minimum, the spirit of the deal is atrociously kept. The Iran deal is not a fair deal to this country. It’s a deal that should not have ever been made. … We are not going to stand what they are doing with our country. They’ve violated so many different elements, and they’ve also violated the spirit of that deal.”

Two months ago, Trump's State Department certified Iran's compliance with the nuclear deal. If they have violated it, Trump's administration hasn't said how.

 

Yup, back to his true self. Illiterate, babbling, rambling, contradicting himself and making liars out of his staff(sorry, Sarah, but that's what you get for actually saying something concrete). It also seems that his group of phantom supporters who say things that support him has grown. And they can write, too! According to Dumpy.

[GreyhoundFan]

"‘Amnesty Don’? Trump tests the faith of supporters with talk of immigration deal"

Spoiler

With chants of “build the wall,” warnings of rapists coming from Mexico and an unforgiving promise to deport millions, Donald Trump forged a fundamental bond with millions of frustrated Americans who helped him take over the Republican Party and win the White House.

But now the same issue of immigration is straining Trump’s ties to hard-line conservatives. Trump’s agreement this week with Democratic leaders on a more moderate approach to immigration legislation has sparked bitter talk of betrayal among some of his staunchest defenders on the right — and forced many of them to rethink their loyalties amid confusion over what the president favors.

When Trump on Thursday signaled his embrace of granting legal status to some immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally by their parents, he prompted new questions about whether he would support an eventual path to citizenship for them and raised doubts about how hard he would fight Democrats for the massive wall he promised along the U.S.-Mexico border.

In the eyes of these admirers-turned-critics, Trump’s sins include not just a refusal to issue an ultimatum on the wall but his newfound willingness to work with the detested establishments of the Republican and Democratic parties. While party leaders on both sides frame the issue of undocumented childhood immigrants in compassionate terms, others view any accommodation as an affront to U.S. sovereignty and the rule of law.

“If we’re not getting a wall, I’d prefer President Pence,” conservative author Ann Coulter tweeted Thursday.

“Amnesty Don,” declared a bright-red headline on Breitbart News, the website run by former White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon — one of many political fire alarms set off by die-hard supporters following the sudden breakthrough Wednesday at a White House dinner.

Yet the lasting political cost of Trump’s engagement with top Democrats on immigration remained ambiguous. While Coulter and others vented, several conservative leaders Thursday remained hesitant about breaking with the president publicly given his continued grass-roots support and their desire to focus Republican ire on the leadership in Congress.

“The jury is still out on whether the base starts to leave him. And I’m not sure what the truth is,” Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said in an interview. “If this stands and we end up with amnesty, the base that was pulled together because of immigration will start to peel off in significant ways.”

But, King added, “No one is quite sure about how this will play out and whether it’s truly what we worry it’ll be.”

Trump has cultivated a political persona defined, in part, by his hard-line policy positions but also by the way he speaks as a celebrity populist to the grievances of many Americans amid a fast-changing global economy and culture.

In search of a bipartisan victory that has eluded him, Trump has at times attempted to redefine those promises — to build a “big, beautiful” concrete wall, to deport all undocumented immigrants he has said “have to go.” The thought is that his base on Capitol Hill and in the activist ranks will forgive him because he shares those deeper grievances and anxieties, even if he is an unreliable champion.

The president’s statements seemed to evolve by the hour Thursday, reiterating that he would work with Democrats on shielding the thousands of “dreamers” who rely on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, while also assuring angry conservatives that the border wall remains “very important,” even if separate from the latest pact.

In another tweet, he suggested that the wall he had promised “is already under construction in the form of new renovation of old and existing fences and walls.” Hours later, he said that plans for funding the wall, which he once described as a concrete edifice, were yet to come. “The wall will come later,” Trump told reporters.

Then in an email message to supporters signed by Trump, Trump’s political committee told supporters: “There’s been a lot of noise today. . . Let me set the record straight in the simplest language possible: WE WILL BUILD A WALL (NOT A FENCE).”

Polling suggests that Trump has more room to maneuver with his base on the question of dreamers than on other planks of his immigration platform. An analysis of the 2016 presidential election by Hamilton College political scientist Philip Klinkner found that among 2016 Trump voters, 67 percent supported building a southern border wall, 80 percent said speaking English was “very important” to being American, and 80 percent were opposed to letting Syrian refugees into the United States.

But among the same voters, 68 percent said child migrants brought illegally who have been here 10 years and have graduated high school should be allowed to stay in the country.

“That’s what the White House is wrestling with right now,” says Jim McLaughlin, a campaign pollster for Trump who still consults with the White House.

Trump waffled during the campaign over how he would handle the dreamers. In the summer of 2015, he said on CNN that he would deal with the group “with big heart.” Then he changed tack weeks later, telling NBC News of those same migrants, “We are going to keep the families together, but they have to go.”

Behind the scenes of the campaign, Trump spoke often of the possibility of dealing with childhood arrivals with a gentler hand, according to several former Trump campaign advisers.

California-based pastor Samuel Rodriguez, who led a prayer at Trump’s inauguration, said he spoke repeatedly with Trump during the campaign about the dreamers issue.

“His commentary and his commitment to building the wall and stopping illegal immigration was very rigid and very fixed,” said Rodriguez, who serves as the president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. “The moment I brought up dreamers, everything shifted. In fact, at one point he brought up the fact that he was a father and a grandfather.”

After the election, Trump began to signal publicly that he planned to “work something out” about young undocumented immigrants. “They got brought here at a very young age, they’ve worked here and they’ve gone to school here,” he said weeks after the election.

Longtime Trump watchers said they understood Trump’s eagerness to convince his core voters Thursday that he remains with them on their animating issue, but warned that he may have gone too far for many of them.

“The base is revolting. The reality is sinking in that the Trump administration is on the precipice of turning into an establishment presidency,” said Sam Nunberg, a former Trump campaign aide.

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, referring to the stalled fight that year over a comprehensive immigration bill.

Conservative radio talk show host Laura Ingraham, who is friendly with Trump, mocked the president after news trickled out about a potential immigration deal.

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

But other Trump-supporting conservatives, such as conservative broadcasters Rush Limbaugh and Fox News’s Sean Hannity, stuck by him, directing their irritation at the media and at congressional Republicans rather than at Trump.

“They want you to think Trump has sold you out,” Limbaugh said on his program. “They want you to think that Trump has given away his mandate in exchange for doing deals. . . He’s been frustrated because the Republicans won’t do anything, so he’s going over to the Democrat side, and he’s doing deals.”

Hannity echoed him.

“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.”

I wonder if Hannity wears knee pads every day.

[47of74]

54 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"‘Amnesty Don’? Trump tests the faith of supporters with talk of immigration deal"

  Hide contents

With chants of “build the wall,” warnings of rapists coming from Mexico and an unforgiving promise to deport millions, Donald Trump forged a fundamental bond with millions of frustrated Americans who helped him take over the Republican Party and win the White House.

But now the same issue of immigration is straining Trump’s ties to hard-line conservatives. Trump’s agreement this week with Democratic leaders on a more moderate approach to immigration legislation has sparked bitter talk of betrayal among some of his staunchest defenders on the right — and forced many of them to rethink their loyalties amid confusion over what the president favors.

When Trump on Thursday signaled his embrace of granting legal status to some immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally by their parents, he prompted new questions about whether he would support an eventual path to citizenship for them and raised doubts about how hard he would fight Democrats for the massive wall he promised along the U.S.-Mexico border.

In the eyes of these admirers-turned-critics, Trump’s sins include not just a refusal to issue an ultimatum on the wall but his newfound willingness to work with the detested establishments of the Republican and Democratic parties. While party leaders on both sides frame the issue of undocumented childhood immigrants in compassionate terms, others view any accommodation as an affront to U.S. sovereignty and the rule of law.

“If we’re not getting a wall, I’d prefer President Pence,” conservative author Ann Coulter tweeted Thursday.

“Amnesty Don,” declared a bright-red headline on Breitbart News, the website run by former White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon — one of many political fire alarms set off by die-hard supporters following the sudden breakthrough Wednesday at a White House dinner.

Yet the lasting political cost of Trump’s engagement with top Democrats on immigration remained ambiguous. While Coulter and others vented, several conservative leaders Thursday remained hesitant about breaking with the president publicly given his continued grass-roots support and their desire to focus Republican ire on the leadership in Congress.

“The jury is still out on whether the base starts to leave him. And I’m not sure what the truth is,” Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said in an interview. “If this stands and we end up with amnesty, the base that was pulled together because of immigration will start to peel off in significant ways.”

But, King added, “No one is quite sure about how this will play out and whether it’s truly what we worry it’ll be.”

Trump has cultivated a political persona defined, in part, by his hard-line policy positions but also by the way he speaks as a celebrity populist to the grievances of many Americans amid a fast-changing global economy and culture.

In search of a bipartisan victory that has eluded him, Trump has at times attempted to redefine those promises — to build a “big, beautiful” concrete wall, to deport all undocumented immigrants he has said “have to go.” The thought is that his base on Capitol Hill and in the activist ranks will forgive him because he shares those deeper grievances and anxieties, even if he is an unreliable champion.

The president’s statements seemed to evolve by the hour Thursday, reiterating that he would work with Democrats on shielding the thousands of “dreamers” who rely on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, while also assuring angry conservatives that the border wall remains “very important,” even if separate from the latest pact.

In another tweet, he suggested that the wall he had promised “is already under construction in the form of new renovation of old and existing fences and walls.” Hours later, he said that plans for funding the wall, which he once described as a concrete edifice, were yet to come. “The wall will come later,” Trump told reporters.

Then in an email message to supporters signed by Trump, Trump’s political committee told supporters: “There’s been a lot of noise today. . . Let me set the record straight in the simplest language possible: WE WILL BUILD A WALL (NOT A FENCE).”

Polling suggests that Trump has more room to maneuver with his base on the question of dreamers than on other planks of his immigration platform. An analysis of the 2016 presidential election by Hamilton College political scientist Philip Klinkner found that among 2016 Trump voters, 67 percent supported building a southern border wall, 80 percent said speaking English was “very important” to being American, and 80 percent were opposed to letting Syrian refugees into the United States.

But among the same voters, 68 percent said child migrants brought illegally who have been here 10 years and have graduated high school should be allowed to stay in the country.

“That’s what the White House is wrestling with right now,” says Jim McLaughlin, a campaign pollster for Trump who still consults with the White House.

Trump waffled during the campaign over how he would handle the dreamers. In the summer of 2015, he said on CNN that he would deal with the group “with big heart.” Then he changed tack weeks later, telling NBC News of those same migrants, “We are going to keep the families together, but they have to go.”

Behind the scenes of the campaign, Trump spoke often of the possibility of dealing with childhood arrivals with a gentler hand, according to several former Trump campaign advisers.

California-based pastor Samuel Rodriguez, who led a prayer at Trump’s inauguration, said he spoke repeatedly with Trump during the campaign about the dreamers issue.

“His commentary and his commitment to building the wall and stopping illegal immigration was very rigid and very fixed,” said Rodriguez, who serves as the president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. “The moment I brought up dreamers, everything shifted. In fact, at one point he brought up the fact that he was a father and a grandfather.”

After the election, Trump began to signal publicly that he planned to “work something out” about young undocumented immigrants. “They got brought here at a very young age, they’ve worked here and they’ve gone to school here,” he said weeks after the election.

Longtime Trump watchers said they understood Trump’s eagerness to convince his core voters Thursday that he remains with them on their animating issue, but warned that he may have gone too far for many of them.

“The base is revolting. The reality is sinking in that the Trump administration is on the precipice of turning into an establishment presidency,” said Sam Nunberg, a former Trump campaign aide.

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, referring to the stalled fight that year over a comprehensive immigration bill.

Conservative radio talk show host Laura Ingraham, who is friendly with Trump, mocked the president after news trickled out about a potential immigration deal.

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

But other Trump-supporting conservatives, such as conservative broadcasters Rush Limbaugh and Fox News’s Sean Hannity, stuck by him, directing their irritation at the media and at congressional Republicans rather than at Trump.

“They want you to think Trump has sold you out,” Limbaugh said on his program. “They want you to think that Trump has given away his mandate in exchange for doing deals. . . He’s been frustrated because the Republicans won’t do anything, so he’s going over to the Democrat side, and he’s doing deals.”

Hannity echoed him.

“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.”

I wonder if Hannity wears knee pads every day.

And some Branch Trumpvidians are burning their MAGA hats now...

Quote

#AmnestyDon was trending on Twitter Thursday after fans of the alleged president became furious over his talks with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in regards to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, an Obama-era policy which was implemented to protect undocumented immigrants who were brought into the United States as children from being deported. The Internet was ablaze yesterday with Trump supporters upset with their God-Emporer, taking out matches and lighters to set their “Make America Great Again” hats on fire.

There's some twitter pics/videos of these people burning the MAGA swag.  (Presumably before they go out to burn crosses). 

[Cartmann99]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I wonder if Hannity wears knee pads every day.

He should really have some incorporated into every pair of pants he owns, since he spends so much time in that position. That way, he doesn't have to take them on and off throughout the day.

[Howl]

5 minutes ago, Cartmann99 said:

He should really have some incorporated into every pair of pants he owns, since he spends so much time in that position. That way, he doesn't have to take them on and off throughout the day.

Uck!  I just had a mental picture of him crawling around the hallways of Faux News. 

[47of74]

19 minutes ago, Howl said:

Uck!  I just had a mental picture of him crawling around the hallways of Faux News. 

Course there's always this...

Spoiler

 

[47of74]

And of course if something happens in another country that fuck face thinks can be used to oppress minorities, he's right on top of that.

Quote

Donald Trump is being criticised for what some see as an uneven response to tragedy.

After the explosion at Parsons Green underground station in London, Mr Trump used the opportunity to denounce terrorism, and to argue that his controversial travel ban should be lengthened. All of that was in the hours after the attack, and in the midst of an investigation on the ground.

The President may have been eager to get his message out after the explosion, but some have noted that his quick response contrasts with his response to the Charlottesville attack. When a white nationalist rammed a car through a group of peaceful protesters  there, Mr Trump took days to denounce white supremacy saying that he wanted to have a clear picture of what happened. When an explosion rocked London’s Tube, the President didn’t show the same restraint.

“Trump's willingness to jump to conclusions about the London incident stands in stark contrast to his defence of his unwillingness to fully condemn the white supremacists and neo-Nazis behind the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, last month,” CNN’s Chris Cilizza wrote.

 

[onekidanddone]

21 hours ago, 47of74 said:

And I see he's now blaming his failure to call Mexico after their natural disasters on bad cell service....

Because he has no idea how to use the twitters and couldn't just tweet something supportive. 

[Cartmann99]

1 hour ago, 47of74 said:

Course there's always this...

That picture, combined with your post count rank of "Petting the Mystical Orange Penis Ferret", has me chuckling.

For Trump though, it should be Rancid Orange Penis Ferret. 

[onekidanddone]

1 hour ago, 47of74 said:

Course there's always this...

Oh shit I never should have opened that. Compared to that image, Pennywise the clown looks like a basket of kittens.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Taxpayers billed $1,092 for an official’s two-night stay at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club"

Spoiler

The bedroom suites at President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club, available only to members and their guests, feature hand-painted Moorish ceilings, antique Spanish-tiled mosaics and sweeping views of the Atlantic Ocean.

On a weekend in early March, during one of seven trips by Trump and his White House entourage to the posh Palm Beach property since the inauguration, the government paid the Trump-owned club to reserve at least one bedroom for two nights.

The charge, according to a newly disclosed receipt reviewed by The Washington Post, was $1,092.

The amount was based on a per-night price of $546, which, according to the bill, was Mar-a-Lago’s “rack rate,” the hotel industry term for a standard, non-discounted price.

The receipt, which was obtained in recent days by the transparency advocacy group Property of the People and verified by The Post, offers one of the first concrete signs that Trump’s use of Mar-a-Lago as the “Winter White House” has resulted in taxpayer funds flowing directly into the coffers of his private business.

Given the number of high-profile presidential events at Mar-a-Lago, questions about who pays for meals and rooms have generally gone unanswered. When Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visited in February, the White House made a point of saying that Abe would stay at the club free of charge as a personal guest of Trump.

The March invoice was provided to the advocacy group by the Coast Guard in response to a broader Freedom of Information Act request seeking records on the agency’s expenses related to Trump-affiliated properties. The Coast Guard FOIA office searched the agency’s credit card payment records, which led it to the invoice, according to an explanation provided by the agency.

The advocacy group has been filing records requests with the Trump administration through a project it calls Operation 45.

It is not clear whether the invoice stemmed from a one-time occurrence or represented one of many Mar-a-Lago rooms that have been booked at government expense for presidential aides or other officials since Trump took office and began traveling there on a regular basis. Other agencies that likely have had regular presence at the club, such as the Secret Service, have declined to provide The Post information about potential payments to Mar-a-Lago and have referred requests to the General Services Administration. The GSA told The Post in March that it had no records of such payments.

The document from March does not reveal anything about the occupant beyond a note atop the page that reads: “National Security Council.”

White House officials and a Coast Guard spokeswoman, as well as representatives of the Trump Organization and Mar-a-Lago, did not respond to questions, including whether Trump’s company regularly charges the government for members of his traveling party to stay at the club.

... < picture of receipt >

Now, some ethics experts say the government payment to Mar-a-Lago raises concerns about the domestic emoluments clause, which was intended to prevent the president from receiving payments beyond his salary from state or federal governments.

In addition, some questioned why the federal government should pay top dollar for luxury Palm Beach lodging when less expensive options are available nearby.

“The choice to stay there and have the government pay the $546-a-night rate seems imprudent,” said Kathleen Clark, a Washington University law professor who specializes in ethics issues. “If it were not owned by the president, it would still seem problematic. The fact that it’s owned by the president makes it doubly problematic.”

Mar-a-Lago has long been one of the signature pieces of Trump’s corporate empire.

The estate, which he bought in 1985 and later converted to a private club, includes two swimming pools, five red-clay tennis courts, the Trump Salon and the Trump Spa, as well as banquet facilities that host elaborate charity balls and weddings.

The business has experienced changes since Trump won the presidency. Soon after the election, the club doubled its initiation fee to $200,000, returning the amount to its pre-recession level. After Trump’s sharp rhetoric on immigration and race in recent months, a number of regular charity customers have opted to move their banquets elsewhere.

Trump’s frequent trips there have come at an expense to taxpayers. The Coast Guard’s increased costs to protect the waterfront property with round-the-clock patrols and gun-mounted boats have been widely publicized.

Financial disclosures filings show that Mar-a-Lago is 99 percent owned by Trump’s revocable trust, from which the president can withdraw money at any time. The club made $37 million in resort-related revenue from January 2016 to this April.

On the weekend that the government paid for the room, March 3 and 4, Trump was joined by a large retinue of administration officials, including Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, then-chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon and then-Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, who has since become Trump’s chief of staff.

On that Saturday, Trump presided over a security briefing, dined with top officials from his administration and mingled with guests in the hallway outside a charity fundraiser for the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute.

The question of whether the president’s company can profit directly from the government is raised in an emoluments lawsuit that was filed by an ethics watchdog group in January.

Much of the attention to the case has focused on the Constitution’s ban on foreign “emoluments” and the business practices of Trump’s Washington hotel. The Constitution also states that the U.S. president “shall not receive . . . any other emolument” from the United States other than his fixed salary.

Trump has said the suit is without merit, and his company has pledged to donate profits from foreign countries to the U.S. Treasury. His attorney, Sheri Dillon, has said that transactions such as hotel room payments are “arm’s-length” transactions that would not amount to an “emolument.”

Oral arguments are scheduled for the suit next month in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

“The fact that government officials would spend tax dollars at the president’s property raises serious constitutional questions under the domestic emoluments clause,” said Brianne Gorod, chief counsel with the Constitutional Accountability Center, a nonprofit Washington think tank.

Jed Shugerman, a Fordham University law professor, said that the founding founders clearly viewed attempts to curry favor from the president as a serious issue. But Shugerman said a reasonable argument could be made that emoluments would need a minimum value to qualify as a clear benefit.

“You have to make a leap from what was on the page in the 18th century to what is meant in the 21st century,” he said. “History answers some of these questions more clearly than others. History does not clearly answer this question.”

More grifting from the grifter-in-chief.

[47of74]

3 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

Oh shit I never should have opened that. Compared to that image, Pennywise the clown looks like a basket of kittens.

 

Yeah I had to share the pain.

8 minutes ago, Cartmann99 said:

That picture, combined with your post count rank of "Petting the Mystical Orange Penis Ferret", has me chuckling.

For Trump though, it should be Rancid Orange Penis Ferret. 

Comparing fuck face to penis ferrets is insulting to penis ferrets. 

[GreyhoundFan]

More on Grift-a-loco: "The first peek inside the Mar-a-Lago money engine only leaves us wanting more"

Spoiler

During the first few months of his presidency, Donald Trump regularly traveled to Palm Beach, Fla., to spend the weekend at his Mar-a-Lago resort. He spent a quarter of his first month in office at the property and was there for all or part of 25 days through mid-April. He dubbed it the “winter White House” and often invited members of his Cabinet or foreign dignitaries for visits and meetings.

This unusual habit of escaping the actual White House prompted a number of questions. For example: Who was paying for those other people to visit Mar-a-Lago? The property, after all, is owned by a company from which Trump still benefits financially. If the government is paying for people to stay at the resort, part of that money — taxpayer dollars — would wend its way back to the president’s pocket.

Another question: Who else is at the resort? It’s not a public property, so anyone who met with Trump, however briefly, wouldn’t be known unless the White House chose to share that information. Trump had a habit of stopping by events at the property and schmoozing with the guests, something the media would only learn about after the fact. He also had a habit of conducting business in the property’s main dining room, giving any number of resort members and their guests access to the inner workings of government.

On Friday, we got partial answers to both of those questions. Neither, however, was particularly satisfying.

To find out who was at Mar-a-Lago — and potentially meeting with the president and his team — a group of watchdog organizations, including the National Security Archive and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, sued for visitor records. They were originally supposed to receive those records late last week, but Hurricane Irma prompted a delay. So, on Friday morning, CREW and the National Security Archive revealed the logs they’d been given.

Here in its entirety is the Mar-a-Lago visitors list. (We’ve cleaned up the actual document a bit for easier reading.)

... < document >

There are 22 people logged from one visit. That visit was by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. For some reason, a visit by the president of China didn’t warrant the same revelation.

The director of the National Security Archive, Tom Blanton, was blunt in his reaction to the paucity of information shared. “The government misled the plaintiffs and the court,” he said in a statement. “I can only conclude that the Trump White House intervened and overrode career lawyers.”

Meanwhile, The Washington Post reported that on at least one occasion the government had paid costs associated with a stay at Mar-a-Lago. Reporters Drew Harwell and Amy Brittain obtained a receipt for a two-night stay at the hotel in March during one of Trump’s visits to the property. Apparently a receipt for a member of the National Security Council, the bill shows that the stay cost $546 a night — the nondiscounted price for a visit to the property.

... < receipt >

The percentage of that cost that makes its way back to the Trump Organization and, from there, to the trust in which Trump’s interest is held isn’t clear.

It also isn’t clear what other similar bills have been paid. That receipt was obtained by the transparency group Property of the People. We know that other government officials have visited the resort, too. The Palm Beach Daily News tracked some of those visits.

We also know that there are other costs paid by the government when Trump visits Mar-a-Lago. In August, USA Today reported that the Secret Service had spent some $60,000 on golf cart rentals for Trump’s trips to Mar-a-Lago and his club in Bedminster, N.J. Protecting the property had run up a tab of $6.6 million by July for the Coast Guard patrolling the shoreline and overhead alone.

... < chart of Coast Guard expenses >

We also know that Trump’s presidency has been lucrative for the property in some ways. Mar-a-Lago jacked up its initiation fee to $200,000 after Trump won the election. Groups have held events at the resort as a function of its owner, including the Palm Beach County Republican Party, which paid $150,000 for an event in the club’s ballroom. (The possibility of a Trump drop-in is a tacit, if not explicit, selling point.) In his most recent financial disclosure, Trump revealed a big jump in income from the resort.

The association with the president works both ways, of course. After the backlash over Trump’s comments on the violence in Charlottesville last month, a number of organizations canceled upcoming events there.

What we still don’t have a clear picture of is who’s gaining access to the president and his team while they’re at the resort and how much the government is paying for that to happen. The revelations on Friday serve more to highlight the murkiness of what is known than to shed much light.

 

[Cartmann99]

13 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

In addition, some questioned why the federal government should pay top dollar for luxury Palm Beach lodging when less expensive options are available nearby.

This is nuts. I'm sure whoever does the books for Grift-a-Lago could crunch some numbers and come up with a rate that covers expenses, but doesn't make Trump a profit. Either do that, or do as the quote suggests and get these folks a reservation at a cheaper place. 

[47of74]

58 minutes ago, Cartmann99 said:

This is nuts. I'm sure whoever does the books for Grift-a-Lago could crunch some numbers and come up with a rate that covers expenses, but doesn't make Trump a profit. Either do that, or do as the quote suggests and get these folks a reservation at a cheaper place. 

And I suppose Donald Dumbfuck and his idiot Executive Branch staff groupies get upset any time some lowly rank and file member of government stays at anything above a Motel 6. 

[onekidanddone]

1 hour ago, Cartmann99 said:

his is nuts. I'm sure whoever does the books for Grift-a-Lago could crunch some numbers and come up with a rate that covers expenses, but doesn't make Trump a profit. Either do that, or do as the quote suggests and get these folks a reservation at a cheaper place. 

Is it time for impeachment yet? How can people not see the conflict of interest from the get go? Being a 'successful' business man and running the country as a business means profiting from government and only doing things that are in HIS best finical benefit. Maybe I should go for a walk and calm down.

[Cartmann99]

I've just found the next addition to the Trump administration: