For those who have met on Breastcancer.org and want to continue growing their cybersibling friendships beyond cancer.
Posted on: Jul 31, 2014 09:27PM
Posts 20791 - 20820 (31,394 total)
Mar 21, 2017 05:36AM SerenitySTAT wrote:
Quinn - Listening to all the Republicans focus on the leakers shows an independent investigation is warranted. Funny to hear Spicer trying to distance themselves from Manafort and Flynn.
Mar 21, 2017 06:01AM ChiSandy wrote:
>>Now, can someone explain this why Obama said this: "You can keep your insurance if you like your insurance." It is the ONLY "lie" Republicans can point to, made by Obam - though it's hardly a lie (demonstrative of malicious intent), but I find it fascinating their dirth of resources when it comes to attacking Obama.<<
Obama said that because nowhere in the ACA did it say that one had to drop their existing insurance—or change their providers—in order to benefit or comply with the law. What he, and the drafters, failed to take into account was the instinctive profit-seeking by private enterprise, which includes the entire healthcare industry—providers & insurers alike. Nowhere did the ACA mandate that doctors & hospitals had to accept all insurance policies, nor that insurers had no right to narrow their provider networks. Nowhere did it say that employers had to keep offering the same insurance plans at the same cost to their employees. There was also no restriction as to what insurers could charge or whatever steps they could take to pass their own increasing cost on to consumers. (Had there been these restrictions, the ACA would have been DOA). The law originally even indemnified insurers for anticipated losses incurred by having to take all comers w/o regard to preexisting conditions and lifting coverage caps, and except for providers who dropped insurers for better reimbursements (as has always been their right) and insurers who narrowed their networks to negotiate lower costs (ditto), the ACA worked pretty well until the Senate flipped red in 2015 and Rubio slipped that poison pill into an appropriations bill that cut that indemnification of insurers’s compliance-related losses by 75%.
There is no way any law would pass that mandated doctors & hospitals to accept all insurance policies, nor forced insurance companies to eliminate covered provider networks. Yes, Obama should have stated that caveat, but people should have used their common sense to figure that out. He should have added “…if your insurance policy wants to keep paying for your doctor and if your doctor wants to keep accepting your insurance.” (Which is exactly the situation as it existed before Obamacare). The only way around all that is to cut private enterprise out of the health care system completely and go to strictly single-payer, which no Republican would vote for.
Mar 21, 2017 06:52AM SerenitySTAT wrote:
This is not normal!
Mar 21, 2017 06:54AM IllinoisLady wrote:
Wasn't it found as well, a bit after the fact, that a lot of the insurance people paid for themselves was all but worthless. But that statement by Obama should have had better wording for sure. Not sure why anyone would be foolish enough to buy insurance that pays for virtually nothing, but maybe it gave some people a sense of comfort --- well, as long as they didn't really have to try and use it.
Opinion A column or article in the Opinions section (in print, this is known as the Editorial Pages).See what happens when Trump's not winning March 20 at 1:00 PM
Some of President Trump's support came from voters who did not agree with him on a number of issues and may not have liked him all that much. But, they reasoned, he was rich and successful so he could help America (and people like them) win. No question but that superficial aura of confidence and business experience Trump conjured up was enough to win over voters who didn't much listen to the details of what he was saying or focus on his incoherent, a-factual utterances.
Trump is losing more than he is winning — or hitting roadblocks that deplete momentum. After all, he's lost repeatedly in court on his Muslim ban. He's lost the support of Republicans and Democrats alike who say his allegations of wiretapping are bunk. The FBI director has debunked his crazy allegation and confirmed a serious investigation into Russian meddling in our election is underway. Despite his best efforts to distract from Russian interference in the election on his behalf news of his associates' connections to Russia surface regularly.Comey: No information to support Trump's wiretapping tweets Embed Copy Share
FBI Director James B. Comey said at a House Intelligence Committee hearing that he has no information that Trump Tower was wiretapped by former president Barack Obama. (Reuters)
FBI Director James B. Comey said at a House Intelligence Committee hearing that he has no information that Trump Tower was wiretapped by former president Barack Obama. FBI Director James B. Comey says he has no information that Trump Tower was wiretapped by former president Barack Obama. (Photo: Matt McClain/The Washington Post/Reuters)
It's not clear if Trump will lose the vote in the House on the American Health Care Act, but he's virtually assured of losing in the Senate without significant changes that then are likely to lose support from right-wing Republicans. Tax reform, if Congress ever gets to it, is already mired in a giant fight between advocates and opponents of the border adjustment tax.
In foreign policy, Trump is losing stature by the minute, presenting himself as a blunderbuss who doesn't even know how NATO works. The German defense minister couldn't take it any longer and publicly admonished the president for his repeated assertion that German "owes" us money:
German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen on Sunday rejected U.S. President Donald Trump's claim that Germany owes NATO and the United States "vast sums" of money for defense.
"There is no debt account at NATO," von der Leyen said in a statement, adding that it was wrong to link the alliance's target for members to spend 2 percent of their economic output on defense by 2024 solely to NATO.
"Defense spending also goes into UN peacekeeping missions, into our European missions and into our contribution to the fight against IS terrorism," von der Leyen said.
Trump has to create enemies to fight with and vanquish (lest he be judged on his own puny accomplishments), but his daily fight with the press has grown tiresome. No matter how much he insists news outlets are "losing" (subscriptions, revenue), legacy media is booming. And the press, unlike his presidential primary opponents, don't go away. They come back each and every day to challenge him and highlight his team's blunders.
None of this means his presidency has failed, although he is digging himself quite a hole. Trump's losing streak nevertheless might be the cause of his plummeting poll numbers. In the most recent Fox News poll, his approval dropped 5 points (to 43 percent approval, 51 percent disapproval). He's also hit a new low in Gallup polling with only 37 percent approval and 58 percent disapproval. At about this point in their presidencies, Presidents Barack Obama (62/27), George W. Bush (58/22) and Bill Clinton (53/34) were sailing along in their political honeymoons. (And this polling all comes before FBI director James B. Comey's devastating testimony today.)
Perhaps the idea of a blunt, even boorish, billionaire as president (and the hope he'd eventually grow into his job) was appealing enough (just barely) with the help of Russian counterintelligence to beat (in the electoral college) a weakened, life-long pol. But so far Trump's not maintaining the mystique of a winner. If he doesn't start winning a bit, he'll be consigned to the list of feeble, one-term presidents. Indeed, so far he most resembles Jimmy Carter, another president who never lived up to expectations.
Mar 21, 2017 06:58AM IllinoisLady wrote:
This is for anyone who didn't get to watch the opening statements made this morning. Schiff really did lay things out in a supremely cogent fashion and I hope it will keep the burden on the Repugs quite high.
Right Turn Opinion
Opinion A column or article in the Opinions section (in print, this is known as the Editorial Pages).The Democrats have their breakout star By Jennifer Rubin By Jennifer Rubin Right Turn Opinion
Opinion A column or article in the Opinions section (in print, this is known as the Editorial Pages).March 20 at 2:30 PM Schiff: We'll never know if 'Russian intervention' determined 2016 election Embed Copy Share
At the House Intelligence Committee's first hearing on Russia's involvement in the 2016 election, ranking Democrat Adam Schiff (Calif.) said the U.S. is engaged in "a new war of ideas." (Reuters)
At the House Intelligence Committee's first hearing on Russia's involvement in the 2016 election, ranking Democrat Adam Schiff (Calif.) said the U.S. is engaged in "a new war of ideas." Rep. Adam Schiff's opening statement during the House Intelligence Committee's first hearing on Russia's involvement in the 2016 (Reuters)
Ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) hardly rates as a household name. He's a bit stiff, not your typical glad-handing politician. Nevertheless, with the primacy of the Russia investigation he has become a frequent face on TV news. His effective, precise arguments, delivered largely without hyperbole, are an effective counterpoint to the often hysterical White House utterances.
At the start of the House Intelligence hearing, Schiff methodically traced the series of events concerning President Trump's Russia scandal. He pointedly reminded the audience and fellow lawmakers, "We will never know whether the Russian intervention was determinative in such a close election. Indeed, it is unknowable in a campaign in which so many small changes could have dictated a different result. More importantly, and for the purposes of our investigation, it simply does not matter. What does matter is this: The Russians successfully meddled in our democracy, and our intelligence agencies have concluded that they will do so again."
Moreover, he reiterated that Trump had personally welcomed such interference after the first Wikileaks release of Hillary Clinton's emails:
A hacker who goes by the moniker Guccifer 2.0 claims responsibility for hacking the DNC and giving the documents to Wikileaks. But leading private cybersecurity firms including CrowdStrike, Mandiant and ThreatConnect review the evidence of the hack and conclude with high certainty that it was the work of APT28 and APT29, who were known to be Russian intelligence services. The U.S. intelligence community also later confirms that the documents were in fact stolen by Russian intelligence and Guccifer 2.0 acted as a front. Also in late July, candidate Trump praises Wikileaks, says he loves them, and openly appeals to the Russians to hack his opponents' emails, telling them that they will be richly rewarded by the press.
He also recalled that Trump confidante Roger Stone correctly predicted the release of John Podesta's emails.
Schiff was just getting warmed up. He walked through Michael Flynn's calls with the Russian ambassador, his lying about them and his firing. Then, like a good prosecutor (he once was one), Schiff made his closing argument:
Now, is it possible that the removal of the Ukraine provision from the GOP platform was a coincidence? Is it a coincidence that Jeff Sessions failed to tell the Senate about his meetings with the Russian ambassador, not only at the convention, but a more private meeting in his office and at a time when the U.S. election was under attack by the Russians? Is it a coincidence that Michael Flynn would lie about a conversation he had with the same Russian Ambassador Kislyak about the most pressing issue facing both countries at the time they spoke — the U.S. imposition of sanctions over Russian hacking of our election designed to help Donald Trump? Is it a coincidence that the Russian gas company Rosneft sold a 19 percent share after former British intelligence officer [Christopher] Steele was told by Russian sources that Carter Page was offered fees on a deal of just that size? Is it a coincidence that Steele's Russian sources also affirmed that Russia had stolen documents hurtful to Secretary Clinton that it would utilize in exchange for pro-Russian policies that would later come to pass? Is it a coincidence that Roger Stone predicted that John Podesta would be the victim of a Russian hack and have his private emails published, and did so even before Mr. Podesta himself was fully aware that his private emails would be exposed?
Is it possible that all of these events and reports are completely unrelated, and nothing more than an entirely unhappy coincidence? Yes, it is possible. But it is also possible, maybe more than possible, that they are not coincidental, not disconnected and not unrelated, and that the Russians used the same techniques to corrupt U.S. persons that they have employed in Europe and elsewhere. We simply don't know, not yet, and we owe it to the country to find out.
It's that sort of precise, factual case — one that summons us to use common sense and reason — that will be necessary to cut through Trump's fog of distraction and lies. Trump won't be undone by dramatic rhetoric or showy performances. He can be revealed as a huckster and fraud only when facts and reason triumph over irrationality. If that comes to pass, a good amount of the credit should go to Schiff.
Mar 21, 2017 07:07AM - edited Mar 21, 2017 07:12AM by ChiSandy
It had to come as a stinging blow to Trump that, according to Comey, Putin's motivation for meddling in the election campaign was his hatred of Hillary Clinton for calling him out on rigging his own 2011 reelection—so he favored Trump purely because he was Clinton's opponent, not because of any admiration (there was none). Had to be an embarrassment to Trump that Putin didn't really mean he was “brilliant" after all.
Mar 21, 2017 08:03AM badger wrote:
OMG can you say bye-bye Emoluments Clause? RESIST!!
Flynn: Wisconsin legislators put constitutional rights at risk
A constitutional convention is unlikely to call it quits after a single amendment when there is nothing to stop it.
Karen Hobert Flynn, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel (Opinion), March 20, 2017
A well-funded national campaign to rewrite the U.S. Constitution to the benefit of wealthy special interests has found its way into the Wisconsin legislature. Over the last few weeks, Wisconsin Republicans have jumped on the bandwagon to push for a dangerous new constitutional convention. The proposal (Senate Joint Resolution 18 introduced last Thursday) would add Wisconsin to an alarming and growing number of states calling for a constitutional convention to impose a federal balanced budget amendment. But a constitutional convention, if unleashed, is unlikely to call it quits after a single amendment when there is nothing stopping it from making an unlimited number of changes to our nation's founding document.
Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, two-third of state legislatures (34) can pass applications to call a constitutional convention to propose amendments. Throughout the Constitution's 226-year history, this process has never been used. Yet, 28 states have now called for an Article V convention to add a balanced budget amendment. That means Article V advocates are just six states away from reaching their goal.
The secretive big money groups behind the call for an Article V convention are counting on Wisconsin to help them reach their goal.
Several of these organizations have close financial ties to the billionaire mega-donor Koch brothers. Gov. Scott Walker is also known for his close relationship with the Kochs' donor network, which is why it's not surprising that Walker endorsed the idea of call an Article V convention a few months ago. The bill's chief sponsor, Sen. Chris Kapenga, is a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a secretive corporate lobbying group funded by the Koch brothers that has been pushing Article V legislation across the country.
A constitutional convention is dangerous process with all kinds of pitfalls. Perhaps the most dangerous is the threat of a runaway convention.
The Constitution says very little about an Article V convention, meaning there are no prescribed rules.
Therefore, there is nothing to prevent a convention from being expanded to issues not raised in the original petitions calling the convention. That means everyone's constitutional rights and civil liberties could be up for grabs. Freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and freedom of the press could be on the chopping block, not to mention possible changes to health care access, immigration, marriage equality or voting rights.
Another major concern is how delegates would be chosen. In a time of extreme partisan gerrymandering and with the lack of convention rules in the Constitution, there is nothing to guarantee that every American would be equally represented in a new constitutional convention. In fact, according to an analysis by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, one of the pieces of legislation currently being considered by the Wisconsin legislature would allow only the governor, Assembly speaker, and Senate president to appoint all of Wisconsin's delegates to the convention. All of those positions are currently held by Republicans, leaving open the possibility that not all Wisconsinites would be represented in a convention.
There is no question that our government needs to be reformed. Partisan gridlock and big money in politics have blocked congressional action on important issues and silenced the voices of the majority of voters who want government to function correctly. But an Article V constitutional convention won't solve those problems. Instead, it would only make them worse. In the end, a convention would simply lead to chaos, not a better democracy because it is those with the deepest pockets who are most likely to prevail.
Wisconsin legislators must reject any call for an Article V convention in order to protect our Constitution and by extension our democracy. Otherwise, we may well be facing a constitutional crisis where everyone's rights and liberties are on the auction block.
Karen Hobert Flynn is president of Common Cause.
Mar 21, 2017 08:21AM ruthbru wrote:
Pretty interesting that the only major news organizations in the world that didn't cover the hearings live were the Russians and FOX.
Mar 21, 2017 08:23AM badger wrote:
Wisconsin GOP moving to call for constitutional convention
TODD RICHMOND - Associated Press - 1 hr ago
Republican legislators want to make Wisconsin the 29th state to call for a convention to add a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution, raising concerns among Democrats that the state could help open the door to ultra-conservative proposals that would drastically reshape the nation's guiding document.
Sen. Chris Kapenga of Delafield introduced a resolution earlier this month that would add Wisconsin to the list of states demanding a convention to adopt the amendment. Kapenga said in a memo seeking co-sponsors that the national debt could destroy the United States. The debt stood at $19.8 trillion as of early March, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.
"Our Founding Fathers repeatedly warned against debt because they realized it was a key driver to the decline of every major civilization," Kapenga wrote.
He said he doesn't believe either political party can solve the deficit and he's worried that countries such as China could decide to stop buying U.S. bonds, making it impossible to fund the federal government.
"Everyone seems to have their head in the sand right now," Kapenga said. "It's a strange thing to me that people have become used to these large (deficit) numbers."
Article V of the U.S. Constitution lays out two paths for amending the document. The U.S. House and Senate, by a two-thirds vote of each chamber, can refer an amendment to the states. Two-thirds of state legislatures, or 34 states, also can request that Congress call a convention of the states. Both methods require at least 38 states to ratify an amendment before it can take effect.
The state convention process has never been used but talk of using one to ratify a balanced budget amendment has been swirling among conservatives for years. Twenty-eight states have called for a convention to adopt a balanced budget amendment. The November election left the GOP in control of 33 legislatures, leaving them just one state short of being able to force a convention.
Convention opponents have warned the gathering could turn into a runaway proceeding in which delegates propose all manner of amendments. Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca, a Kenosha Democrat, said American citizens' rights could be "up for grabs" at a constitutional convention.
"These are unsettling times and there is probably not a worse time to have a constitutional convention in our nation," Barca said in an email.
Balanced budget amendment supporters plan to convene this summer in Nashville, Tennessee, to propose rules for a future convention. Kapenga has introduced a second resolution that would require Wisconsin convention delegates to abide by convention rules the Assembly of State Legislatures (ASL) adopted last summer that limit amendment proposals to the subject for which the states called the proceeding. Kapenga serves as co-president of the ASL, a group of legislators working to develop rules for a constitutional convention. Kapenga also has authored a bill that calls for dismissing any Wisconsin delegates who vote for unauthorized amendments.
Mar 21, 2017 08:51AM ChiSandy wrote:
I agree that a Balanced Budget Amendment is designed to appeal to stupid naive people who have no concept of the difference between household, business and government economics. Clinton balanced the budget…but not on the backs of the poor (except for “welfare deform”). The ASL rules would prohibit repealing the Emoluments Clause unless 2/3 of the states also call for that…and you can bet that when the public finds out what that would do, no legislator, governor or delegate who values his or her continued employment would vote to do that.
Mar 21, 2017 09:06AM badger wrote:
They want to devolve everything back to the states. Why not a Balanced Budget Amendment? I was involved in the close-but-no-cigar effort to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. Thirty-eight states is a hard sell.
Mar 21, 2017 10:04AM IllinoisLady wrote:
Posted: 20 Mar 2017 01:32 PM PDTPresident Trump's "skinny" budget proposal would make deep cuts in many government programs in the name of pruning the federal bureaucracy. But in doing so it might disproportionately (and surprisingly) affect a particular demographic sector of America: Trump voters. "It's unacceptable," says Rep. Hal Rogers (R) of Kentucky, whose district voted about 80 percent in favor of Trump. "The president's biggest support came from the rural and poor areas like mine ... And that area is going to be hit harder than anywhere else in the country quite frankly."
Mar 21, 2017 10:05AM IllinoisLady wrote:
Posted: 20 Mar 2017 11:42 AM PDTA former law student of Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, alleges that in a course she took from Gorsuch at the University of Colorado Law School last year, the judge told his class that employers, specifically law firms, should ask women seeking jobs about their plans for having children and implied that women manipulate companies starting in the interview stage to extract maternity benefits. ... "He interrupted our class discussion to ask students how many of us knew women who used their companies for maternity benefits, who used their companies to -- in order to have a baby and then leave right away," [Jennifer] Sisk said. She recalled that few students raised their hands and Gorsuch became animated. "He said, 'Come on, guys. All of your hands should be up. Many women do this,'" Sisk said.
Mar 21, 2017 10:07AM IllinoisLady wrote:
Posted: 20 Mar 2017 06:25 AM PDTPresident Donald Trump's approval rating has hit a new low, according to the latest Gallup poll. As of Sunday at 1 p.m. ET, Trump's approval rating has sunk to 37 percent, while those who disapprove of the president's job stands at 58 percent. His approval rating stood at 45 percent one week prior. The latest numbers came as U.S. House Republicans work on changes to the health-care bill that would repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. Trump has been wooing lawmakers to vote for the bill, according to Reuters. He won the backing of a dozen conservative lawmakers on Friday after an Oval Office meeting in which the president endorsed a work requirement and block-grant option for Medicaid. Trump has also been criticized for his handling of allegations of Russia ties and rhetoric surrounding global warming.
Mar 21, 2017 11:04AM SerenitySTAT wrote:
If he had more stamina, he could make both. Besides, couldn't Tillerson go to the NATO summit instead? He's been excluded from other meetings with foreign dignitaries.Exclusive: Tillerson plans to skip NATO meeting, visit Russia in April - sources
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson plans to skip an April 5-6 meeting of NATO foreign ministers for a U.S. visit by the Chinese president and will travel to Russia later in the month, U.S. officials said on Monday, a step allies may see as putting Moscow's concerns ahead of theirs.
Tillerson intends to miss what would be his first meeting in Brussels with the 28 NATO members to attend President Donald Trump's expected April 6-7 talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, four current and former U.S. officials said.
The decisions to skip the NATO meeting and to visit Moscow risked feeding a perception that Trump may be putting U.S. dealings with big powers before those of smaller nations that depend on Washington for their security, said two former U.S. officials.
Trump has often praised Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Tillerson worked with Russia's government for years as a top executive at Exxon Mobil Corp, and has questioned the wisdom of sanctions against Russia that he said could harm U.S. businesses.
State Department spokesman Mark Toner had no immediate comment on whether Tillerson would skip the NATO meeting or visit Russia. Two U.S. officials said Tillerson planned to visit Moscow on April 12.
"It feeds this narrative that somehow the Trump administration is playing footsy with Russia," said one former U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Mar 21, 2017 11:21AM SerenitySTAT wrote:
Well, can they pull DT away for his lies, too?
Mar 21, 2017 11:40AM SerenitySTAT wrote:
Could the First Daughter (sorry, Tiff) get security clearance? This article suggests they could be in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
Mar 21, 2017 11:50AM QuinnCat wrote:
As far as Ivanka. What is the difference between what is happening to her now (new job) and what's she has been doing? She's not collecting pay - I suppose to not be accused of nepotism, but she's been attending meetings she doesn't belong in (Trudeau, Merkle, Abe, etc.)?? Seeing this fancy involved with federal government, because she is someone's daughter irks me almost as much as Trump himself.
Serenity for some reason, I thought it was that Jeanine Perrino Judge that was involved - brain confused with Napolitano. I've never seen the latter. Guess they have more than one judge. Fox News seems to be undergoing changes since Roger Ailes left. Not in any focused way, but more by attrition and plain old unraveling in their own lies. Not disappointed.
Mar 21, 2017 12:01PM SerenitySTAT wrote:
Security clearance and an office in the West Wing are what would be new.
I only learned of Napolitano as the source of some of DT's claims. He was the legal mind that President Buck-Stops-There blamed during the press conference with Merkel.
Mar 21, 2017 12:17PM ChiSandy wrote:
Jeanne Pirro had some credibility as Nassau County D.A. laying the groundwork for the eventual (hopefully upcoming) prosecution of Robert Durst. But she has blown it with her Trump Kool-Aid-guzzling.
As to Ivanka, if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, you don’t have to put a band on its leg reading “DUCK” to know what it is. No salary, no official title, no swearing in? Sorry, but a West Wing office, blood relationship to a Pres., and a security clearance should make her put up or shut up: divest herself of her fashion line or stay out of the WH (and give back the gov’t-issued smartphone she’s about to get).
Tillerson’s travel plans are a giant middle finger to NATO and a huge “kneeling down & bending over” to Russia. RM tonight analogized Manhattan Project scientist Klaus Fuchs’ giving the Soviets our nuclear secrets—enabling the USSR to become only the second nation to have a nuclear weapon—to Trump operatives’ assisting Putin’s cyber-intrusion of our election campaign (Putin’s top advisor calling Russia's cyber-warfare system the modern-day equivalent of the A-bomb). Shortly after Russia took the first steps to sink the Clinton campaign, the pro-Ukraine plank disappeared from the GOP platform, and Trump suddenly began dissing NATO. Fuchs served 14 years for treason (the Rosenbergs were put to death for their part in it); how are Manafort, Sessions, Flynn, Pence, Tillerson & Trump not guilty of treason themselves? I only hope that by the time all of this is conclusively proven there is a Democrat back in the WH and Trump allies gone from all positions in the DOJ, so that prosecution could proceed.
Otherwise, we could talk ourselves blue in the face and the worst that would happen to Trump et al is financial reversals and a failed reelection attempt—neither of which is a sure bet.
Mar 21, 2017 04:40PM Trill1943 wrote:
Quite a number of times since November 8 the thought has struck me that it must be something very strange to have Donald Trump for a dad. His kids cluster around and behind him like the encircling family members that they used to parade out, among significant others of the "star" of the evening, on that old TV show This is Your Life. The smiles that wreathed the faces--the beloved elementary school teacher, the adoring co-worker or first boss--how they loved telling stories about the chosen "star" Ralph Edwards had singled out for recognition. My parents loved that show and I loved watching it with them. I even invested a couple of precious dollars to order the "This is Your Life" book-shaped locket, a miniature replica of the album given to the "star" that contained his or her memorabilia.
My father was a sweet, soft-spoken man who worked for the C & P Telephone Company and had no ambitions beyond building a home, by hand, for his wife and five kids and being the best person he could be. Donald Trump would have made a snide comment, I'm sure, about how contented he was to do this and not seek the moon.
The thing that gets me is how slavish the Trump kids persist in being towards this train wreck of a human being who is their father. At one time I felt sorry for them, wondering how his various dark deals and dishonesty--you know they've seen and heard a LOT--struck them and how they felt about it all. We can't choose the parents we're born to, but we can, as free-standing adults, distance ourselves and maintain an arm's-length from them. The fact that they're so enmeshed with and ga-ga over him now makes me queasy. It tells me they either have been so brain-washed (by him and others) over the years, in an almost cult-like fashion, or they share on a cellular level with him (in miniature) the same character flaws, chronic weaknesses, and a self-aggrandizing ability to self-deceive, compartmentalize, and rationalize on a level that approaches the pathological.
Or, as Jimmy Breslin might have more succinctly put it: "Are just the loser kids of a loser."
Mar 21, 2017 05:27PM Trill1943 wrote:President Trump faces his hardest truth: He was wrong
On the 60th day of his presidency came the hardest truth for Donald Trump.
He was wrong.
James B. Comey — the FBI director whom Trump celebrated on the campaign trail as a gutsy and honorable "Crooked Hillary" truth-teller — testified under oath Monday what many Americans had already assumed: Trump had falsely accused his predecessor of wiretapping his headquarters during last year's campaign.
Trump did not merely allege that former president Barack Obama ordered surveillance on Trump Tower, of course. He asserted it as fact, and then reasserted it, and then insisted that forthcoming evidence would prove him right.
But in Monday's remarkable, marathon hearing of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Comey said there was no such evidence. Trump's claim, first made in a series of tweets on March 4 at a moment when associates said he was feeling under siege and stewing over the struggles of his young presidency, remains unfounded.
FBI Director James B. Comey Jr., left, and Director of the National Security Agency Mike Rogers testify before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)
Comey did not stop there. He confirmed publicly that the FBI was investigating possible collusion between Trump campaign officials and associates with Russia, part of an extraordinary effort by an adversary to influence the outcome of the 2016 U.S. election in Trump's favor.
Questions about Russia have hung over Trump for months, but the president always has dismissed them as "fake news." That became much harder Monday after the FBI director proclaimed the Russia probe to be anything but fake.
"There's a smell of treason in the air," presidential historian Douglas Brinkley said. "Imagine if J. Edgar Hoover or any other FBI director would have testified against a sitting president? It would have been a mind-
Mar 21, 2017 06:21PM Trill1943 wrote:
What gets me is the emphasis on the leaks by the Reps. . . . it's as if that's the most important thing here--not the CONTENTS of the leaks . . . if it weren't for the good guy whistleblowers who want to out something that needs outing we wouldn't know half of what we do . . if that . . .
(Maybe it's because it's ALL the finger-pointing they can do . . . only thing they can scream about. . .)
Rex Tillerson--brand spanking new Secretary of State--will skip NATO meeting in April but proceed at the end of April to Russia????????? Are they fucking kidding??? These rank amateurs do NOT KNOW ONE SINGLE THING about governance . . .
Where is Mitch McConnell these days? Never see him. . .
Mar 21, 2017 10:22PM crazy4carrots wrote:
As a Libra whose mind always seems to insist on fairness and evenhandedness in all things, what bugs me the most is that the FBI had the Trump campaign under investigation and nobody knew, while everyone was "aware" that Hillary and her emails couldn't be trusted. Comey, by his derogatory comments about her when he said their investigation was over, and then when he announced an opening of it again in October, tells me that he, himself, was behaving as underhandedly as the Russians and the Trump campaign. Some are concluding that Vladimir only hoped to lessen her win and make her more vulnerable as President. But if that were really the case, then what explains the reasons for the Trumpeters' policy changes about Ukraine etc.?
It's all very, very sad, and we can only hope that Madame Justice will prevail.
Mar 21, 2017 10:26PM nihahi wrote:
I thought Comey and Sally Yates were due to testify at the House hearing today??? Can't find anything on CSpan...