The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns
dave said:From 1958
How do you find this stuff? Or do you just drink wine and know things?
Red_Barchetta said:
dave said:How do you find this stuff? Or do you just drink wine and know things?
From 1958
It was all over twitter today, though it has turned up earlier.
ridski said:
mtierney said:Source doesn't matter (it's from The Young Turks). This is 2 minutes of Donald J. Trump telling us he is going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it. He had 2 years of a Republican majority, and where's the wall? Where's the money from Mexico?
watched your clip, Ridski. What is the source? I think the anchor had her hair pulled up too tight — she quoted figures I haven’t heard elsewhere.
Here's the budget he submitted in March 2017.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2018-BLUEPRINT/pdf/BUDGET-2018-BLUEPRINT.pdf
Page 23 talks about 2.6 billion dollars for a wall that isn't there and is not funded by Mexico.
Here is the budget he submitted in February 2018.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2019-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2019-BUD.pdf
In this, on page 58, they mention a further allocation of 1.6 billion dollars to build a 65 mile wall in South Texas. That's not insignificant, it's the equivalent of a wall running the length of I-78 from Maplewood to Bethlehem, PA. But it's only as part of an 18 billion dollar border wall package. Remember, that was almost a year ago and still... No wall, no sign of any cash from Mexico. So...
Red_Barchetta said:
dave said:How do you find this stuff? Or do you just drink wine and know things?
From 1958
Haven't had a drink in almost two years, so I must know things. But I think I found it on a friend's FB wall.
drummerboy said:
Red_Barchetta said:It was all over twitter today, though it has turned up earlier.
dave said:How do you find this stuff? Or do you just drink wine and know things?
From 1958
U2 was showing an excerpt from this at their 2017 shows.
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:U2 was showing an excerpt from this at their 2017 shows.
Red_Barchetta said:It was all over twitter today, though it has turned up earlier.
dave said:How do you find this stuff? Or do you just drink wine and know things?
From 1958
I am afraid to ask, but how did this episode end?
basil said:
ml1 said:I am afraid to ask, but how did this episode end?
drummerboy said:U2 was showing an excerpt from this at their 2017 shows.
Red_Barchetta said:It was all over twitter today, though it has turned up earlier.
dave said:How do you find this stuff? Or do you just drink wine and know things?
From 1958
with a rousing version of "One"
Here is the Conservative Freedom Caucus on Trump declaring state of emergency:
In an interview with POLITICO, Meadows sounded a bit more concerned about setting a bad precedent that would empower future executive branches to sidestep Congress and act unilaterally, but noted Trump "would find broad support if it's determined that ultimately he has to do it."
So, in other words, we support president Trump's abuse of executive powers, but we are just concerned it also sets precedent for a democratic president to do the same, because we are very much against that!
https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/11/wall-trump-mark-meadows-freedom-caucus
Can't we just pass a bill that says - Funding the government is always a independent bill? It should never be used as a bargaining chip for any other initiative.
jamie said:
Can't we just pass a bill that says - Funding the government is always a independent bill? It should never be used as a bargaining chip for any other initiative.
I don't see how the Congress can pass a bill denying the president veto power that would be constitutional.
I know the man is creating a tornado of insults, blunders, and other distractions, so it is easy to get numb. But look at this headline. This. Is. Not. Normal.
and before anyone claims this is just irrational Russophobia, would it be at all better if the FBI thought Trump was working for Britain, Germany or Israel?
read this story this am, curious because , it appears on page one above the fold, and thinking there may be a new twist.
The story is a total rehash of stories run over and over again since 2016.
mtierney said:
read this story this am, curious because , it appears on page one above the fold, and thinking there may be a new twist.
The story is a total rehash of stories run over and over again since 2016.
There must be some neurological disorder that compels seemingly rational people to display this blindness...it's not even worth it with you.
Trump works for his own gain. He cares about nothing else outside of his immediate family. If damaging U.S. interests benefits him, he will do it.
Yesterday I read a (long, detailed) thoughtful essay on your President’s attention to detail in language, that was written by a linguist. I think it in The Atlantic (?), I’ll see if I can find it again and link it. The writer’s contention is that your use of language reveals your inner thoughts about your audience, whether you’re using spoken or written language. Usually you will reveal consistency about the same audience in both formats even using a variety spoken and written forms. Not correcting errors in writing reveals more than you wish.
The conclusion, reached by objective measures, is that the current incumbent communicates less clearly than Truman, and is not focused on his role of President, he is not fit to be President.
Edited to add link:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/what-trumps-typos-reveal/579919/
Writer is a contributing editor, and a professor at Columbia.
tjohn said:
Trump works for his own gain. He cares about nothing else outside of his immediate family. If damaging U.S. interests benefits him, he will do it.
Apparently, part of the original FBI counter-intelligence investigation was to find out if he was:
1) Knowingly doing Putins bidding,
or,
2) Unwittingly was helping the Russians, as a side-effect of only pursuing his own personal goals
I know there is a lot of speculation about him being compromised by the Russians, and I certainly would not rule it out as a matter of character, but if I had to guess I would guess option #2 as well. He is pretty shameless about pursuing his own self-interests, not even try to hide it much.
But in any case, this means that the FBI, overseen by senior DOJ officials, prior to the special counsel, started a counter-intelligence investigation (as well as a criminal investigation) into whether a sitting US President was helping our enemies because he was committing treason, or that he was merely so focused on himself that he was inadvertently assisting them. In other words, is he a traitor or is he just a self-centered idiot. This is the FBI, DOJ, and a sitting US President. This seems way beyond Watergate. Nixon was "just" engaging in criminal activities. It's definitely a first.
Amazing - how is this even a possibility?
https://www.newsweek.com/ivanka-trump-world-bank-president-1288815
Perhaps we could compare her credentials with past World Bank presidents:
http://www.worldbank.org/en/about/archives/history/past-presidents
basil said:
I know the man is creating a tornado of insults, blunders, and other distractions, so it is easy to get numb. But look at this headline. This. Is. Not. Normal.
Day 2: Sessions recuses himself
Day 3: Rosenstein takes up position of acting AG
Day 4: Trump has Rosenstein write letter about Comey doing bad job w/Clinton emails
Day 5: Comey fired
....
And now we know what happened on Day 1. If this isn't obstruction of justice, nothing is.
Washington Post: Trump went to "extraordinary lengths" to keep details of his meetings with Putin secret. I wonder if Mueller or Congress can subpoena the interpreter. It all comes back to the FBI counter-intelligence investigation: is he working with Russia knowingly, or is he just stepping in it while pursuing his own self-interests. These secret conversations with Putin would probably go a long way to answer that question.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/12/politics/trump-putin-meetings-no-records/index.html
jamie said:
Amazing - how is this even a possibility?
https://www.newsweek.com/ivanka-trump-world-bank-president-1288815
Perhaps we could compare her credentials with past World Bank presidents:
http://www.worldbank.org/en/about/archives/history/past-presidents
A new era. Our shining beacon of democracy being turned into a kleptocracy.
Thank you Trump voters.
Thank you third party voters who refused to vote for that horrible email woman. Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi.
You deserve so much credit.
And don't forget the probable new Attorney General who believes a President is above the law of the land I.e. exempt from examination or scrutiny of any kind. In a democracy.
I cannot believe this has happened in my lifetime.
OK. Now I'm confused, and if anyone feels up to explaining I'd appreciate it. But you might be fed up with politics, so I'd understand if you'd rather not.
I don't want to stir the pot, so to speak, I just truly don't understand how this reasoning works:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46862504
Having decided that a woman can decide to use a form of birth control advised by her doctors, her medical insurance might subsidise the costs of this over time. (After all, these days we all know that hormones are prescribed for lots of reasons, not just 'birth control' but form of those hormones is often the same as for birth control. The point is, the artificial hormones are keeping this woman happier and healthier)
The decision was made that more women should be able to have the opportunity to claim on medical insurance. But lots of wowsers thought that immoral and objected. So this administration overturned the legislation. That was objected to in the courts, and a judge has agreed (sort-of).
It's the sort-of that has me confused.
Trump read and cited a Pat Buchanan piece yesterday. It's typical Pat Buchanan white supremacist garbage.
Trump's tweet --"Border is eventually going to be militarized and defended or the United States, as we have known it, is going to cease to exist...And Americans will not go gentle into that good night. Patrick Buchanan. The great people of our Country demand proper Border Security NOW!"
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1084650944846012417
Buchanan's article -- https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/patrick-j-buchanan/patrick-buchanan-memo-trump-declare-emergency
Because mass migration from the global South, not climate change, is the real existential crisis of the West.
...
America's southern border is eventually going to be militarized and defended or the United States, as we have known it, is going to cease to exist. And Americans will not go gentle into that good night.
...
The more multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural, multilingual America becomes — the less it looks like Ronald Reagan's America — the more dependably Democratic it will become.
The Democratic Party is hostile to white men, because the smaller the share of the U.S. population that white men become, the sooner that Democrats inherit the national estate.
The only way to greater "diversity," the golden calf of the Democratic Party, is to increase the number of women, African-Americans, Asians and Hispanics, and thereby reduce the number of white men.
destroying lives — because social media makes it doable...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/opinion/call-out-social-justice.html
So after all the action involving Rep. Steve King the last few days, no concern on your part that Trump also adopts White Supremacist claims?
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
dave