Trump 45

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, Dandruff said:

At least he's talking, though.  If more of these alienated former higher-ups would choose loyalty to their friends and country over enabling Trump then word might start to really get around.

Sadly, his talking now won't have any real effect, other than us saying 'I told you so' and the trumplicans either ignoring or maligning him. If he had spoken up during the impeachment hearings, things might -- might -- have turned out differently. 

What I find so egregious, and frankly detestable, about Kelly, is that he has clearly shown that he only cares about his 'group' (in his case, the military) and cares absolutely nothing for the country he supposedly served. 

[WiseGirl]

[fraurosena]

This!

 

[apple1]

I also think Kelly disqualified himself on the separation policy.

That said -

There is a part of me that visualizes a teeter-totter (at least that's what we called it) on a playground, with the load on one end getting heavier and heavier as one more, then one more, and so on, of "only the best people" keeps getting on the end Trump is not on, and pushing out the dirt underneath the lower end and it going further and further down, leaving Trump and his remaining enablers higher and dryer by the day.

I realize the visual only goes so far, but...

[fraurosena]

34 minutes ago, apple1 said:

I also think Kelly disqualified himself on the separation policy.

That said -

There is a part of me that visualizes a teeter-totter (at least that's what we called it) on a playground, with the load on one end getting heavier and heavier as one more, then one more, and so on, of "only the best people" keeps getting on the end Trump is not on, and pushing out the dirt underneath the lower end and it going further and further down, leaving Trump and his remaining enablers higher and dryer by the day.

I realize the visual only goes so far, but...

I like this visual!

You'll have to kick one heavy kid off Trump's side first and foremost though. MoscowMitch has too much weight on that end tipping the scales unevenly. Once he's out of the picture, Trump will go flying off the seesaw in no time. 

[apple1]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

I like this visual!

You'll have to kick one heavy kid off Trump's side first and foremost though. MoscowMitch has too much weight on that end tipping the scales unevenly. Once he's out of the picture, Trump will go flying off the seesaw in no time. 

Oh my, yes, I agree about Mitch.

[Ozlsn]

23 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Dotard doesn't understand basic math:

 

Can they prosecute his campaign for fire safety violations then? I mean that's pretty seriously over capacity!  /joke

[47of74]

Lol 

 That ought TK get the Orange Shitbiscuit going, bring called that. 
 

[fraurosena]

I agree! When are you leaving?

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I don't recall seeing this shared here. It's brutal, just like all the Lincoln Project ads.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

This infuriates me.

 

[SilverBeach]

19 hours ago, AuntK said:

I pray for him

Sorry, I can't do it. It would be like praying for Hitler. I pray for all of us who are his victims.

19 hours ago, AuntK said:

I pray that Americans will open their eyes and see what a disaster he is.

I can get with this.

[thoughtful]

On 2/12/2020 at 2:21 AM, fraurosena said:

 

 

What's an aborition? Did he mean abberation? Abhorent? Apparition?

 

[fraurosena]

3 minutes ago, thoughtful said:

What's an aborition? Did he mean abberation? Abhorent? Apparition?

 

I’m going with abortion. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump to headline a $580,600-per-couple fundraiser, the most expensive of his reelection bid"

Spoiler

President Trump will be the guest of honor at a Saturday fundraiser at the palatial Palm Beach estate of billionaire Nelson Peltz. Trump’s fellow guests: donors who gave $580,600 per couple to support the president’s reelection, making it the most expensive such fundraising event since Trump took office.

The dinner, taking place just a few miles from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club, shows how enthusiastically Trump has embraced big-dollar fundraising in his bid for a second term — a dramatic about-face from 2016, when he criticized the influence of wealthy donors on the politicians who court them.

It also shows the special access enjoyed by many of Trump’s wealthiest donors, including business executives and lobbyists, who get the chance to air their grievances with the president’s tariffs or promote their pet projects, often while dining on Trump’s favorite foods.

Since October 2017, Trump has attended at least 48 intimate gatherings with the Republican Party’s elite donors, including dinners or roundtable discussions, according to a Washington Post analysis of his fundraising schedule. Tickets to these events can range from $50,000 to six figures per person.

Republican officials note that previous presidents also raised large amounts from wealthy people and that President Barack Obama regularly held small dinners with top donors.

“President Trump is the most accessible president in history, both with the press and with supporters. These roundtables, which previous presidents attended as well, are an opportunity for our supporters to get an update on the campaign and his record as president, all things the president discusses publicly all the time,” said Mike Reed, a spokesman for the RNC.

But they go against the president’s rhetoric from the 2016 campaign, when he rode a populist wave into Washington vowing to “drain the swamp.” Back then, he denounced the chase for wealthy backers and criticized his opponents for doing so, saying it made candidates beholden to donors and declaring it was “not going to happen with me.”

“Somebody gives them money — not anything wrong — just psychologically when they go to that person, they’re going to do it,” he said in a January 2016 CNN interview. “They owe them.”

He has repeatedly said that New York politicians are indebted to him because he gave them large checks.

Now, he has adopted a take-all-comers approach to raising money — from wealthy backers and low-dollar givers alike — and has built a historically large reelection money machine that has allowed his campaign to leap ahead as Democratic presidential candidates squabble over the appropriate role of wealthy donors in politics.

The president and the Republican Party have assembled a formidable war chest, with about $200 million on hand as of last month for the general election fight, party officials said.

Those who seek to reduce the role of wealthy donors in politics said Trump’s embrace of the world of wealthy political donors contradicts his promise to his voters, and fuels the same frustrations they were rejecting when they elected him.

“He’s undercutting the spirit of the energy that he’s helping foment, by hanging out with and possibly doing the bidding of the wealthy and special interests,” said Nick Penniman, founder and chief executive of ­Issue One, a bipartisan group working to reduce the influence of wealthy interests on politics.

“You’ve got to wonder now if the Trump presidency is the continuation of the kind of oligarchy that many people think is taking over in America, or whether or not it is a corrective measure like many people thought it would be,” Penniman added.

A spokeswoman for Peltz’s company — he is an investor worth $1.7 billion, according to Forbes — did not respond to requests for comment. His 13-acre beachfront estate lined with hedges was worth $94.9 million in 2014, according to the Palm Beach Post.

An invitation obtained by The Washington Post for the $580,600 dinner says the price includes a photo with the president and lists other GOP bigwigs expected to be in attendance.

The dinner is expected to attract about 30 people and raise more than $10 million for the president and his committee, according to an RNC official. Others on the guest list are Ike Perlmutter, a Trump friend and chairman of Marvel Entertainment, and Louis DeJoy, fundraising chair for the 2020 Republican convention, according to a person with knowledge of the gathering, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the event is private.

Though it is the most expensive such event Trump has headlined for the party, other pricey gatherings are planned as the election nears.

Interviews with people who have attended these fundraisers say the president is highly engaged, conversational and charming. Trump often asks the guests what they need from the administration — but not before ticking off dozens of accomplishments in extended opening remarks.

The conversations are often held over a meal of the president’s favorite dishes, such as New York strip steak with a dessert of two scoops of vanilla ice cream, served on ornate place settings. Unlike many politicians who leave their food untouched, attendees say Trump usually eats.

The roundtables are typically side events to less expensive fundraisers involving a larger group of people. The president often arrives through a side door reserved for him, greets the crowd leisurely, takes photos and then veers off to a smaller room for an intimate roundtable with the top-tiered donors, said one donor who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private settings.

Dan Eberhart, a donor who has attended several roundtables featuring the president, recalls one gathering where Trump made a show of praising an attendee wearing a Trump-branded tie.

Though Trump appears to enjoy himself, he has complained about visiting so many houses of people he did not know, said a former White House official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private discussions. Since then, more events have taken place at a friend’s home or at one of his properties, the person said. Trump considers Peltz a friend.

But the opportunity to have close interactions with the president is a particular perk enjoyed by attendees with agendas.

“Trump wants to talk about the news of the day and personalities,” Eberhart said. “The donors want to talk about policies and what’s affecting them.”

At a Texas roundtable at the stately Belo Mansion in Dallas, donor Doug Deason, the organizer of the event and several others, said supporters spoke with the president about energy and oil policy while offering support for his deregulation agenda. The room was packed with Texas Republican business figures.

“People say, look, these kinds of regulations are kicking my butt. And then Trump responds that he understands and is ideologically with you,” Eberhart said.

Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, the two indicted associates of presidential lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani who, according to Parnas, discussed the Ukrainian ambassador with Trump, gained access to the president at two separate such events in 2018 after promising to donate $1 million. Trump later fired the ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, who became a central figure in the impeachment. Their company ended up donating $325,000 to the super PAC supporting the president’s reelection.

Some donors disputed the idea that attendees at these gatherings have special pull with the president.

“I just don’t see it. [Administration officials] pay more attention to maybe the Chamber of Commerce [and other business groups], pay more attention to the source of actual votes, than they do to some individual who’s giving a lot of money,” said the donor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private discussions.

One lobbyist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations, said he told several clients that it did not make sense to pay for the events — because it would not solve their political issues and would put them on the radar screen for news coverage.

Donors who turn up regularly at these events say they have developed a camaraderie. But every once in a while, a new donor attends and asks a question that is “annoying” to the rest because it relates too specifically to that person’s business, said one donor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private settings.

“What do I care about the drilling rights in freaking Kansas, or a particular permit, or something? These are broader audiences and broader participants,” the donor said.

“There’s always someone in the group who is asking him to stop tariffs,” Deason said. “They’ll say, ‘No, you’re killing me on this.’ A lot of people are worried about themselves and they are worried about their particular industry. A lot of people are concerned about how this or that might affect them.”

Trump often refers such requests to his staff and senior aides. Senior staffers sometimes interject and offer to talk to the donors later.

“What he doesn’t like is someone pushing for a contract for a particular company,” Deason said of Trump. “It just really frustrates him.”

On a recording of one of the fundraisers released by a lawyer for Parnas last month, a steel executive can be heard pressing the president on removing tariffs. Another donor can be heard pitching the president on his Korean golf course for a potential summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

Guests are not allowed to bring their phones in anymore, GOP officials said, for fear that they will record the discussion.

Aside from a cursory Secret Service check, the White House does not vet guests, campaign and White House officials said.

At one event, Deason said he encouraged the president to tell Immigration and Customs Enforcement to ease off Iraqi Christians in Michigan, arguing that it could hurt his election chances in a reelection year. Deason said he encouraged Trump to be more positive toward Hispanic audiences in his tweets.

But the tone at the events is predominantly jovial. He often calls out noteworthy donors — such as oil magnate Harold Hamm, or Paul Singer, a New York billionaire who originally did not support him — for being so rich. Deason said that White House staffers on several occasions made a slashing sign for the president to wrap up but that Trump wanted to keep talking. “He would say, ‘One more question, one more question,’ ” Deason said.

Eberhart, an oil executive, said that the opportunity to speak directly to the president was just an added bonus for being a donor to the party and that he would have given money anyway.

“I want that ideology to prevail,” he said. “It’s very energizing to be in the room with the people who have momentum on the causes you believe in.”

 

[JMarie]

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

This infuriates me.

 

NO TIP???????????

[GreyhoundFan]

9 minutes ago, JMarie said:

NO TIP???????????

Why would they tip employees? That money goes in employees' pockets, not Twitler's.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump says he may stop letting others listen in on calls with world leaders"

Spoiler

President Donald Trump suggested on Thursday that he might stop allowing administration officials to listen in on his calls with foreign leaders, musing about scrapping the longstanding practice less than a year after one such phone call kicked off events that led to his impeachment.

“That’s what they’ve done over the years — when you call a foreign leader, people listen,” the president explained in an interview with Geraldo Rivera, who’d asked why so many people were listening in on the calls.

Trump added: “I may end the practice entirely, I may end it entirely.”

The suggestion that he could block aides who typically listen in on such calls came just seconds after Trump insisted once again that his July phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, which set off the chain of events leading to Trump’s being impeached, was “perfect” and “totally appropriate.”

On that phone call, according to a rough transcript put out by the White House, Trump asked Zelensky for a “favor” — investigations of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter’s dealings in the country, as well as a debunked conspiracy that Ukraine interfered in his 2016 election.

Despite Trump’s repeated assertions that the call was “perfect,” it sparked a member of the intelligence community to file a whistleblower complaint, fueling allegations that the president was withholding military aid for Ukraine to pressure Zelensky into announcing the politically charged investigations.

Presidential phone calls with foreign leaders can sometimes have a number of political and career officials from across the government listening in, allowing them to take notes since the conversations aren’t recorded.

Because of that, despite Trump’s relentless characterization of the document as verbatim transcript, in reality what the public has read of his call with Zelensky is based on the “notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty Officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place,” according to the White House.

Trump made the offhanded suggestion on Thursday as he railed against Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a Ukraine specialist on the National Security Council who was one of several administration officials who listened in on the July call. Vindman, who was prematurely booted from his White House post last week, told impeachment investigators in the fall that Trump’s conduct during the call raised alarms and that he reported his concerns to a top White House lawyer.

On Thursday, the president blasted Vindman’s move as “insubordinate” and doubled down on his decision to have the officer and his twin brother, a senior ethics lawyer who is also an Army lieutenant colonel, reassigned from the NSC to the Pentagon.

But while Trump has trumpeted his conversation with Zelensky as “perfect” since details of it came into public view, that characterization has run into sharp dissent even among his allies in Congress. Even while the Republican-led Senate rejected two articles of impeachment against Trump, a prevailing defense coming from GOP senators argued that while what Trump did was inappropriate, either his behavior wasn’t impeachable conduct or House impeachment managers didn’t meet the burden of proving that the president committed impeachable offenses.

Trump has dismissed any suggestion from his allies that his conversation with Zelensky was improper, implying in a speech after his acquittal last week that the senators who criticized the call did so only to avoid political repercussions.

Hours before his interview on Thursday, the president sparred publicly with his former chief of staff John Kelly after Kelly disputed how “perfect” the call was and suggested that Trump’s request to Zelensky amounted to an “illegal order.”

He's "learned his lesson". Now he knows he can do whatever he wants and Rs will shrug.

[GreyhoundFan]

In honor of Valentine's Day, Politico has a feature, "Sex, Lies, and Prenups: Donald Trump's Timeless Wisdom on Love"

It's a lengthy article, but I included some choice bits below.

Quote

“The only time you want your chick to have acne is if it’s because she’s a teenager.”

— The Howard Stern Show, December 7, 2005

“Women have one of the great acts of all time. The smart ones act very feminine and needy, but inside they are real killers. The person who came up with the expression ‘the weaker sex’ was either very naïve or had to be kidding. I have seen women manipulate men with just a twitch of their eye—or perhaps another body part.”

— Comeback

“I don’t know why, but I seem to bring out either the best or worst in women.”

— Comeback

“It’s all in the hunt and once you get it, it loses some of its energy. I think competitive, successful men feel that way about women. Don’t you agree?”

— TrumpNation

“Marriage is, like, really great … I don’t know if it’s security or whatever it is, but I think it’s good. If it works. I mean if it doesn’t work, it’s a total catastrophe. It usually doesn’t work.”

— The Howard Stern Show, December 15, 2004

“I never speak about my wife—which is one of the advantages of not being a politician. My marriage is and should be a personal thing.”

— Playboy, March 1, 1990

“I believe in marriage—one woman, one marriage.”

— ABC Primetime Live, March 10, 1994

“My nine-to-five day fascinated and energized me. But then, late in the afternoon, I’d often get a call from Ivana, reminding me of that night’s engagement … Sometimes I’d get angry and say I wasn’t going, and we’d fight about it on the phone. In the end, because I didn’t want to disappoint or embarrass her, I’d almost always agree to go along. When I hung up the phone, though, I’d often say, loud enough, I suppose, for anyone standing in the hall outside my office to hear me, ‘My life is shit.’”

— Surviving

“Happy Anniversary to my wonderful wife @MELANIATRUMP -- a truly great decision by me!”

— Twitter, January 22, 2014

“I always felt that if you have to work at a relationship that the relationship is not going to work.”

— TrumpNation

“One thing I have learned: There is high maintenance. There is low maintenance. I want no maintenance.”

— Comeback

“Being on the other side of a relationship with someone like me must be difficult.”

— People, May 19, 1997

“Geraldo Rivera is a friend of mine, but he did something which I thought was absolutely terrible and he admits it was a mistake. He wrote a book naming many of the famous women that he slept with. I would never do that—I have too much respect for women in general, but if I did, the world would take serious notice. Beautiful, famous, successful, married—I’ve had them all, secretly, the world’s biggest names, but unlike Geraldo I don’t talk about it.”

— Think Big

“When a man leaves a woman, especially when it was perceived that he has left for a piece of ass—a good one!—there are 50 percent of the population who will love the woman who was left.”

— Vanity Fair, September 1990

“… it happens all the time. One woman, who was also socially prominent, was getting married, and I had bumped into her on Fifth Avenue while she was exchanging wedding gifts. I had my limousine nearby, and she asked if I could give her a ride back to her apartment on Park Avenue. I said absolutely, not even suspecting that within five seconds after the door closed she would be jumping on top of me wanting to get screwed. I said, ‘You’re getting married next week, and I’m going to your wedding.’ ‘I don’t really care,’ she said. ‘I never liked him that much anyway, and you know that.’ I was really in a quandary, because she is a truly great-looking and sexy woman.”

— Comeback

“I even thought, briefly, about approaching Ivana with the idea of an ‘open marriage.’ But I realized there was something hypocritical and tawdry about such an arrangement that neither of us could live with—especially Ivana. She’s too much of a lady.”

— Surviving

“Often, I will tell friends whose wives are constantly nagging them about this or that that they’re better off leaving and cutting their losses. I’m not a great believer in always trying to work things out …”

— Comeback

“Anybody of wealth or even modest wealth who doesn’t have a prenuptial agreement is mentally retarded, okay?”

— TrumpNation

“My comeback would have been totally impossible had I not had fully executed and well-drawn prenuptial agreements with both Ivana and Marla.”

— Comeback

“I recently played golf with one of the most brilliant men on Wall Street, the head of Morgan Stanley, John Mack. John is a good friend of mine who is married to a fabulous woman. Christy is totally supportive of the long, hard hours he works. John was telling me that after our game he was going to see one of his men. This particular man had the potential to be a star at Morgan Stanley, but he was having tremendous difficulty with his wife. She always complained that he was working too hard and too long and wasn’t devoting enough time or energy to her. Without any further discussion, I looked at John and said, ‘Tell the man to lose the wife. There is no hope for that marriage. Tell him if he stays, he’ll do a lousy job for you.’ … I told John that I didn’t want to sound cold or cynical, but I knew the marriage just wasn’t going to work. If the woman was inclined this way, she was not going to change. I actually told John to pull the young man aside and tell him that it was me who made this recommendation: If he doesn’t lose the ballbreaker, his career will go nowhere.”

— Comeback

 

[Alisamer]

14 hours ago, thoughtful said:

What's an aborition? Did he mean abberation? Abhorent? Apparition?

I think that's what happens when you drop your covfefe.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

In honor of Valentine's Day, Politico has a feature, "Sex, Lies, and Prenups: Donald Trump's Timeless Wisdom on Love"

It's a lengthy article, but I included some choice bits below.

 

I agree with 5 of those things - doesn't say much about me in this area.

[SassyPants]

In the last 48 hours, I have become increasingly alarmed and concerned for our Democratic Republic. Clearly, we no longer have a balanced, 3 pronged, federal government; no checks or balances. We have a rogue President and a Senate that has given him the right to operate in this manner. We have a Justice Department that Is in shambles. Many of the key WH positions have remained leaderless over the last 4 years. Our elections processes are in disarray and have been knowingly infiltrated by a corrupt, foreign government. All we have is a vote, but with the processes so clearly broken and skewed, how much does that vote really count? 
I like reason and logic; operating with a viable plan and clear goals. In our current climate, I am totally deflated. 
Despite all of this, we are still standing. Can you imagine if Trump and this administration would have had to deal with 9/11 or the financial crisis of2007-2008? I do not think we can afford another 4 years of Trump. And Mitch and his cronies need to go too. These idiots would vote to cut off their own noses to spite their faces. What a downer I am on Valentine’s Day!

[fraurosena]

2 hours ago, SassyPants said:

Despite all of this, we are still standing. Can you imagine if Trump and this administration would have had to deal with 9/11 or the financial crisis of2007-2008? I do not think we can afford another 4 years of Trump. And Mitch and his cronies need to go too. These idiots would vote to cut off their own noses to spite their faces. What a downer I am on Valentine’s Day!

You're contradicting yourself! Despite all of this, you are still standing. That's not being a downer. 

That said, all you have said in the rest of your post is very true. But... that's not being a downer either. It's being realistic. Which is the best way to be right now. Only by being realistic, and still refusing to give up, by still standing, will you be able to overcome this heinous attack on your democracy.

2 hours ago, SassyPants said:

I like reason and logic; operating with a viable plan and clear goals. In our current climate, I am totally deflated. 

I get this. It must be so overwhelming at times, especially when it seems like you can't get a win and odds are heavily stacked against you. Still, reason and logic will keep you going in the times ahead. The months ahead will be fraught with anxiety, with ever more egregious acts as the trumplicans make a mad grab for autocratic rule. In face of this, you must stay strong, determined, and push through. Vote, vote, vote, and get them out. It will be hard, and yes, there is a distinct possibility that the interference in the election will counteract all lot of votes. But if the blue tidal wave is large enough, no matter what they do, it will never be enough to stop it. Keep the results of 2018 in mind. That was an enormous win. Do not forget that if you succeeded once, you can succeed again! 

That said...

You know what bothers me most of all about the election results this year? I don't believe for a second that Trump will admit an election loss, be it large or small. (Fake News! Rigged elections! Foreigners bussed in from Mexico!)  I hope with all my heart that people like Pelosi and Schiff and Nadler and Schumer are all preparing for that eventuality. That they manage to take hold of all elements of government before tensions escalate into something I don't even want to mention. 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I'm glad NY is not backing down:

 

[GreyhoundFan]