Projection
As you know, a rich Hollywood producer who is a supporter of liberal causes, Harvey Weinstein, has turned out to be a longtime sexual predator. Conservatives are making a big deal out of this, they have taken control of the message and made sure Weinstein's behavior smears liberals such as Hillary Clinton who have been associated with him, as if they condoned or were part of his sexual crimes. (Yesterday WTOP hit a new low in carrying this message, you would have thought Hillary herself was abusing young actresses.)
@paulkrugman posted a good observation about the fallout from this on Twitter yesterday.
Weinstein is a donor, a wealthy guy who supports causes and contributes to campaigns. He hasn't run for office, he isn't the liberals' candidate. Many politicians are giving his donations back, or sending the money to charities, nobody is calling this "rightwing fake news" or trying to justify it. The guy might be rich, charming, and take policy positions we agree with, but there is no excuse for some of the disgusting things he has done to traumatize women. Donors play an important role in politics -- too important, most of us think -- but we don't vote for them.
Projection in modern political discourse is where you accuse the other side of doing what you yourself are doing, and Krugman has this point about projection right. The conservative way is identity politics, us against them, you stand up for your side and oppose everything the other side wants. That's why they have to undo every Obama success, not because our healthcare system is bad or the Iran deal is bad or transgender people have caused any problem or anything else, but if Obama supported something they are obligated to oppose it. That is how the Republican Party came to be known as "the party of No" during the Obama presidency; if he was for it, they were against it, even if it was their idea originally.
And they assume everyone is like that. But actually, that's the difference between liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism is not fighting for your own group, against another group; liberals argue for inclusiveness, equality for all, and that includes people who are unlike themselves. Take for instance this week's news articles about Jeff Sessions promoting "freedom of religion." By this, he means the Christian religion that he himself practices. He would laugh at the idea of freedom for Islam or some other religion, that Sharia should be protected under the Constitution the same as the Ten Commandments. Liberals though believe in freedom for all religions, even ones that they are uncomfortable with.
The paradox is that this makes liberal views vulnerable; for instance, we end up giving freedom of speech to people who want to take our freedom of speech away. White liberals will take up issues like oppression of blacks, exploitation of migrant farm workers, discrimination against LGBT people, even if they are not part of those groups. White conservatives take up issues that are good for white people. They think everybody is taking sides based on their own identity, and watch for examples that can support that conclusion, but the core difference between conservatives and liberals is the difference between defending your own group and defending the rights of all.
Looking back, liberals did not defend Anthony Weiner's behavior -- I remember hoping it was not true but it was true and we accepted that and he is getting his punishment and nobody is calling it a false flag operation or defending him for doing stupid and bad things. I liked Anthony Weiner, he was bold and articulate, funny and on-point, and guess what, he was doing stuff on the Internet that disqualifies him from representing his party and leading people. Weinstein too, I never heard of the guy before but apparently he took the Hollywood "casting couch" thing to the nth degree, he is a creep who is going to pay the price in his career if not in criminal court. Liberals are not obligated to apologize for him -- I am sure most people he dealt with politically had no idea what was going on. He said the right things in public, donated money to the right candidates and causes, and he was a merciless sexual predator when he got a woman alone. Those women were afraid of him, afraid of his wealth and power and what he could do to destroy them professionally; they were afraid to speak out, so only his victims and a few of his immediate business associates had any idea until very recently.
The current President of the United States is known to be a sexual predator, as well, the Republicans knew that before they elected him. This is a different story altogether, because this is their candidate, the representative of their view. Their support of him reveals the GOP's talk of morality and judgment of others on the basis of their sexuality for what it is. They make excuses for Trump, accept his violations as boys-being-boys, and line up with him against "political correctness," which tries to tell men they can't grab women's pussies in this day and age and kiss them without consent, even if you are famous and they let you.
And also, because it is sure to come up, let me quote Monica Lewinsky here, regarding her affair with Bill Clinton: "Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship. Any “abuse” came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position."
@paulkrugman posted a good observation about the fallout from this on Twitter yesterday.
The Weinstein affair is giving us an object lesson in right-wing projection. I keep seeing outraged demands for liberal condemnation 1/Weinstein appears to be the worst kind of person in his abuse and exploitation of women. He is like Ailes and O'Reilly and other conservatives who have turned out to have treated women terribly. I have not seen any liberal person say otherwise. The stories that have come out are revolting, and it's been going on for years.
"Will liberals condemn Weinstein the way they condemned Ailes and O'Reilly?" they ask, presuming that the answer is no. But actually ... 2/
Everywhere I look the answer is, in fact, yes. What we should ask is: "Did cons condemn Ailes/O'Reilly the way they condemn Weinstein?" 3/
And the answer, mainly, is no. Excusing evil behavior by people on your side is what THEY do; they're just projecting it onto libs 4/
And they're outraged in advance over the false assumption that liberals are just like them 5/
Weinstein is a donor, a wealthy guy who supports causes and contributes to campaigns. He hasn't run for office, he isn't the liberals' candidate. Many politicians are giving his donations back, or sending the money to charities, nobody is calling this "rightwing fake news" or trying to justify it. The guy might be rich, charming, and take policy positions we agree with, but there is no excuse for some of the disgusting things he has done to traumatize women. Donors play an important role in politics -- too important, most of us think -- but we don't vote for them.
Projection in modern political discourse is where you accuse the other side of doing what you yourself are doing, and Krugman has this point about projection right. The conservative way is identity politics, us against them, you stand up for your side and oppose everything the other side wants. That's why they have to undo every Obama success, not because our healthcare system is bad or the Iran deal is bad or transgender people have caused any problem or anything else, but if Obama supported something they are obligated to oppose it. That is how the Republican Party came to be known as "the party of No" during the Obama presidency; if he was for it, they were against it, even if it was their idea originally.
And they assume everyone is like that. But actually, that's the difference between liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism is not fighting for your own group, against another group; liberals argue for inclusiveness, equality for all, and that includes people who are unlike themselves. Take for instance this week's news articles about Jeff Sessions promoting "freedom of religion." By this, he means the Christian religion that he himself practices. He would laugh at the idea of freedom for Islam or some other religion, that Sharia should be protected under the Constitution the same as the Ten Commandments. Liberals though believe in freedom for all religions, even ones that they are uncomfortable with.
The paradox is that this makes liberal views vulnerable; for instance, we end up giving freedom of speech to people who want to take our freedom of speech away. White liberals will take up issues like oppression of blacks, exploitation of migrant farm workers, discrimination against LGBT people, even if they are not part of those groups. White conservatives take up issues that are good for white people. They think everybody is taking sides based on their own identity, and watch for examples that can support that conclusion, but the core difference between conservatives and liberals is the difference between defending your own group and defending the rights of all.
Looking back, liberals did not defend Anthony Weiner's behavior -- I remember hoping it was not true but it was true and we accepted that and he is getting his punishment and nobody is calling it a false flag operation or defending him for doing stupid and bad things. I liked Anthony Weiner, he was bold and articulate, funny and on-point, and guess what, he was doing stuff on the Internet that disqualifies him from representing his party and leading people. Weinstein too, I never heard of the guy before but apparently he took the Hollywood "casting couch" thing to the nth degree, he is a creep who is going to pay the price in his career if not in criminal court. Liberals are not obligated to apologize for him -- I am sure most people he dealt with politically had no idea what was going on. He said the right things in public, donated money to the right candidates and causes, and he was a merciless sexual predator when he got a woman alone. Those women were afraid of him, afraid of his wealth and power and what he could do to destroy them professionally; they were afraid to speak out, so only his victims and a few of his immediate business associates had any idea until very recently.
The current President of the United States is known to be a sexual predator, as well, the Republicans knew that before they elected him. This is a different story altogether, because this is their candidate, the representative of their view. Their support of him reveals the GOP's talk of morality and judgment of others on the basis of their sexuality for what it is. They make excuses for Trump, accept his violations as boys-being-boys, and line up with him against "political correctness," which tries to tell men they can't grab women's pussies in this day and age and kiss them without consent, even if you are famous and they let you.
And also, because it is sure to come up, let me quote Monica Lewinsky here, regarding her affair with Bill Clinton: "Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship. Any “abuse” came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position."
posted by JimK at 1:49 PM
312 Comments:
Weinstein is to the Dems as the Koch brothers are to the GOP
TTF has never been shy about projecting
if the Kochs became involved with something like this, I have no doubt TTF would be projecting
it's a TTF specialty
we'll just call this karma
Wow, anon, that was a perfect example of projection. You will not find any personal comment about either Koch brother anywhere on this web site, including in the comments. I am pretty sure everybody involved in TTF disagrees with almost everything the Koch brothers do politically but their sexual behavior is not our concern as long as it is not abusive. If it is abusive then we would put them right in there with Anthony Weiner and Harvey Weinstein.
TTF wants LGBT people to be treated fairly as human beings, and also people of all religions and races, genders, and groups. Reward the good ones, punish the bad ones, and we're good with it.
If this had been a trap to catch rightwing projection, you stepped right into it. I don't think it was, but you just couldn't resist. You have proven the point in a most excellent way.
Wow, Broken Mirror, that was a perfect example of lacking reading comprehension.
"You will not find any personal comment about either Koch brother anywhere on this web site, including in the comments."
Actually, there have much discussion about the Koch Brothers. And there is no discussion about them sexually harassing employees because they haven't done that. My point, very obvious to anyone with average reading comprehension skills, is that Weinstein is as significant to liberals and the Kochs are to conservatives. This is to help Mr TTF understand why Weinstein reflects on liberals.
And, honestly, TTF comments and blogs are riven with comments about any obscure GOP politician who becomes involved in a sexual scandal. It's TTF default tactic to counter anyone who opposes the gay agenda/
"I am pretty sure everybody involved in TTF disagrees with almost everything the Koch brothers do politically but their sexual behavior is not our concern as long as it is not abusive. If it is abusive then we would put them right in there with Anthony Weiner and Harvey Weinstein."
Exactly my point. You would. Hence the post is hypocritical.
"TTF wants LGBT people to be treated fairly as human beings,"
No, they don't. They want special preferences for LGBT people, implying that they could not survive without extraordinary government intervention.
"If this had been a trap to catch rightwing projection, you stepped right into it. I don't think it was, but you just couldn't resist. You have proven the point in a most excellent way."
LOL. Yeah, I'm caught in a trap. I can't get out. Because I love the truth too much, baby!
“The disgraceful news about Harvey Weinstein has appalled those of us whose work he championed, and those whose good and worthy causes he supported. The intrepid women who raised their voices to expose this abuse are our heroes.
One thing can be clarified. Not everybody knew. Harvey supported the work fiercely, was exasperating but respectful with me in our working relationship, and with many others with whom he worked professionally. I didn’t know about these other offenses: I did not know about his financial settlements with actresses and colleagues; I did not know about his having meetings in his hotel room, his bathroom, or other inappropriate, coercive acts. And If everybody knew, I don’t believe that all the investigative reporters in the entertainment and the hard news media would have neglected for decades to write about it.
The behavior is inexcusable, but the abuse of power familiar. Each brave voice that is raised, heard and credited by our watchdog media will ultimately change the game.”
"Vice President Mike Pence's decision to walk out of a National Football League game on Sunday when some players knelt during the National Anthem was planned ahead of time, a senior Pence official said Sunday night.
Pence, a former governor of Indiana, flew to Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis so he could watch a ceremony honoring Indianapolis Colts legend Peyton Manning. But he left the arena after about 12 members of the San Francisco 49ers knelt on one knee as the anthem played.
The official, who asked not be named, told reporters Sunday night that Pence was "hopeful" that all of the players would stand.
While all of the Colts stood for the anthem, "several 49ers did not," the official said. "As he had discussed with the president, when several 49ers players disrespected the flag and the Nation Anthem, the vice president decided to leave the game."
The official wouldn't say when that discussion took place..."
Pence flew from Vegas to Indianapolis, went into the game for the anthem then immediately reboarded his waiting plane to LA at a cost of what compared to Vegas to LA directly?
There's more:
"The Trump administration, one of the wealthiest in modern U.S. history, is facing widening criticism over travel expenditures among some of the billionaires, budget hawks and business executives who head federal agencies.
Inspectors general have opened at least five investigations into charter or military flights by Cabinet officials amounting to millions in federal spending. Their decisions to veer away from cheaper commercial flights have led to criticism from Democrats in Congress and government accountability groups about a culture of entitlement in Trump’s administration.
New examples of questioned expenditures include those of Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who on Friday turned over his travel records under pressure from House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) and the panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (Md.). Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt faces an expanding investigation into his travel by private jet.
The drumbeat of controversy over Cabinet travel threatens to undermine a core pillar of Trump’s relationship with his base — his promise to “drain the swamp” of elite Washington, rein in waste and represent the working class.The Trump administration, one of the wealthiest in modern U.S. history, is facing widening criticism over travel expenditures among some of the billionaires, budget hawks and business executives who head federal agencies...
To deal with fallout, the White House has imposed a new approval process for charter jet travel by non-national-security Cabinet members. The protocol will be supervised by Chief of Staff John F. Kelly..."
So Corker's right, the White House is like adult day care.
And with his limited thinking that "only one thing will work" and that what we are now experiencing "could be the calm before the storm," it's clear as day Trumpypoo won't be happy until he gets to play with his nuclear toys and lead us horribly astray while his favored tax plan involves deficit spending as he gives himself and his family a couple of nice big fat tax breaks.
Anon, it is easy to Google for "Koch" at this site, and you will see they are occasionally mentioned but there is very little discussion and certainly no fixation on them. You don't know if they sexually harass their employees or not, so your statement defending them is spurious and void of meaning. I am willing to assume the best, I assume they do not harass women, but I don't know any more than you do.
It is not remotely hypocritical to lump conservatives who harass women with liberals who harass women; it is a situation where political affiliation is irrelevant. It would be hypocritical to insist that liberals found to abuse women are "nice guys" and that stories of harassment are fake news, but that doesn't happen. Most people did not know who Harvey Weinstein is -- had you ever heard of him? -- so there is not much call for outrage when somebody you never heard of did something. His bad acts do not make his political friends look bad, any more than an abusive conservative's political friends, and it does not make sense to expect them to apologize for him, defend him, or denounce him. It would be bizarre to think that Weinstein's political allies had anything to do with his sexual harassment of women, and it would be bizarre to expect them to comment on it. Meryl Streep has clarified that other people did not know about it, that seems sufficient to me. This is not a situation where "guilt by association" applies.
And yes, liberals do tend to notice when conservatives who want to control other people's sex lives are not able to control their own. We will publicize the anti-gay congressman or preacher hitting on guys in the men's room, hoping to weaken their sanctimonious stranglehold on our society. Because we believe in freedom.
According to the Air Force, flying a C-32, the model of plane used for Air Force 2, for one hour costs about $30,000. Pence’s flight from Las Vegas to Indianapolis Saturday took about three hours and 20 minutes, so it cost about $100,000.
Pence then flew from Indianapolis to Los Angeles on Sunday, which took about four hours and 45 minutes, costing about $142,500.
The grand total: about $242,500.
https://www.aol.com/article/finance/2017/10/09/more-details-emerge-about-mike-pences-expensive-protest-at-the-colts-game/23237280/
"Anon, it is easy to Google for "Koch" at this site, and you will see they are occasionally mentioned but there is very little discussion and certainly no fixation on them."
I never said there was a fixation on them
"You don't know if they sexually harass their employees or not, so your statement defending them is spurious and void of meaning."
That's something that's not known about most people, other than Dem bigwigs like Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, and Harvey Weinstein.
When I said they haven't harassed their employees, anyone with half a brain knows I meant there is no reason to believe they have. I guess I was just assuming you had, at least, half a brain.
"I am willing to assume the best, I assume they do not harass women,"
You may think you are being tremendously magnanimous but that's what we do in America. Assume people are innocent unless proven guilty. Say, are you from an autocratic society?
"It is not remotely hypocritical to lump conservatives who harass women with liberals who harass women;"
Oh, I agree. The hypocritical part is that TTF feigns great significance to conservative issues whenever a conservative gets involved with a scandal and now, with Weinstein, it's like "hey, let's not...pro..ject"
"His bad acts do not make his political friends look bad, any more than an abusive conservative's political friends, and it does not make sense to expect them to apologize for him, defend him, or denounce him. It would be bizarre to think that Weinstein's political allies had anything to do with his sexual harassment of women, and it would be bizarre to expect them to comment on it."
Make sense to me. Just hasn't been the MO for TTF when it comes to conservatives.
What hypocrites!
"And yes, liberals do tend to notice when conservatives who want to control other people's sex lives are not able to control their own."
Actually, no conservatives want to control anyone else's sex life.
"We will publicize the anti-gay congressman or preacher hitting on guys in the men's room, hoping to weaken their sanctimonious stranglehold on our society."
Anyone who thinks our society is one that someone has a "sanctimonious stranglehold on", has a very tenuous grip on reality. You do have cable, right?
"Because we believe in freedom."
Since when? You believe in governmental regulation over virtually every aspect of human relations. I understand that you think that freedom is harmful to society's fringe, and you're entitled to your opinion, but don't play games with words.You don't believe in freedom.
Peace, out
President Donald Trump will visit Harrisburg on Wednesday to stump for support of a tax-code overhaul.
But, although the stop is being billed as a “town hall-style” event, his appearance will not be open to the general public, a top Lancaster County official said Monday.
“My understanding is it’s by invitation only,” County Commissioner Dennis Stuckey said Monday afternoon.
Anon, this is ridiculous. Every bit of your comment is accusing me or TTF of doing what conservatives do. This is exactly what we mean by projecting.
The broken mirror has a broken grip on reality.
TTF has repeatedly done what this post complains of.
And Weinsten is much bigger than you think.
Why?
The official PR department of the Obama and Clinton campaigns, aka the New York Times, knew about this for years and covered it up.
Hollywood's most politically active, like Matt Damon, who come and testify to Congress on liberal causes, pressured the media to keep this secret.
The very types that made America sick by endorsing Hillary.
THIS STORY IS YUUUGE!!!
The New York Times last week broke the story of Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein’s long record of sexual harassment. Actresses including Rose McGowan and Ashley Judd came forward to detail Weinstein’s depredations, and so did former employees of the man who founded one of the most important independent film companies of the last 30 years, Miramax. The details were so jarring and the trail of abuse so long, that it was impossible to read the story and not come away wondering: How did no one know what he was doing?
But of course people knew about Harvey Weinstein. Like the New York Times, for instance. Sharon Waxman, a former reporter at the Times, writes in The Wrap how she had the story on Weinstein in 2004—and then he bullied the Times into dropping it. Matt Damon and Russell Crowe even called her directly to get her to back off the story. And Miramax was a major advertiser. Her editor at the Times, Jonathan Landman, asked her why it mattered. After all, he told Waxman, “he’s not a publicly elected official.”
Manhattan’s district attorney knew, too. In 2015, Weinstein’s lawyer donated $10,000 to the campaign of Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance after he declined to file sexual assault charges against the producer. Given the number of stories that have circulated for so long, Weinstein must have spread millions around New York, Los Angeles, and Europe to pay off lawyers and buy silence, including the silence of his victims. But he had something else going for him, too. He knew his victims would be reluctant to go public because it might suggest that some of their success, their fame even, was a function of their inability to protect themselves from being humiliated by a man who set the bar for humiliating others at the precise level of his own self-loathing.
Hollywood is full of connoisseurs like Weinstein, men whose erotic imaginations are fueled primarily by humiliation, who glut their sensibilities with the most exquisite refinements of shame. A journalist once told me about visiting another very famous Hollywood producer—you’d know the name—who exhibited for my friend his collection of photographs of famous female actresses—you’d know their names, too—performing sexual acts for his private viewing. As with Weinstein, this man’s chief thrill was humiliation, and the more famous the target the more roundly it was savored: Even her, a big star—these people will do anything to land a role; they’re so awful, they’ll even do it for me.
One of the refrains you hear today from media experts and journalists is that they’d known about Weinstein’s transgressions for a long time. The problem, they say, was that no one was able to nail down the story.
Nonsense. Everyone had it, not just Waxman. Sure, reporters hadn’t been able to get any stars to go on the record. But that means the story journalists were pursuing wasn’t really about Weinstein’s sexual depredations. It means that what they wanted was a story about actresses, junior executives, or assistants who had been humiliated, maybe raped, and chose to remain quiet in exchange for money and/or a shot at fame.
Of course no one was going to get that on the record—very few journalists would even want to publish a story like that. But journalists always had the actual story of how a Hollywood producer humiliated and sexually assaulted women. How? Because he victimized journalists.
Fox News reporter Lauren Sivan told Huffington Post that a decade ago, Weinstein masturbated in front of her. She says she didn’t say anything at the time, when she was an anchor on a local cable show, because she was “fearful of the power that Weinstein wielded in the media.” She was right and her fear was understandable.
Writing in New York Magazine, Rebecca Traister remembers the time when she asked Weinstein an interview question at a book party, he screamed at her, spit in her face, called her a “c—t,” and then put her boyfriend in a headlock and dragged him to the street. Traister said nothing at the time because she figured she had little chance against “that kind of force.”
I don’t blame her or Sivan for not saying anything, never mind reporting the story. Weinstein is violent, vindictive, and litigious—as well as sexually abusive—facts that the entertainment and political media knew for years. No one wanted to publish that story. But that’s not the same thing as “not being able to nail it down.” “Nailing it down” would have amounted to nothing more than printing a collection of facts under a byline.
The real issue, as Traister notes, was that “there were so many journalists on his payroll, working as consultants on movie projects, or as screenwriters, or for his magazine.” Traister is referring to Talk, the magazine Weinstein started at Miramax with Tina Brown. The catchword was “synergy”—magazine articles, turned into books, turned into movies, a supply chain of entertainment and information that was going to put these media titans in the middle of everything and make them all richer.
Traister and I worked at Talk together in the late ’90s. There were lots of talented journalists but it was still a mess. Outside of “synergy,” there was no idea driving the magazine, and Tina’s search for a vision was expensive. She spent lavishly on writers, art directors, photographers, and parties. Harvey got angry. Every time Tina went downtown to meet with him he screamed at her the whole time. He humiliated her. At least this was the story that went around the office every time she went down there, a story circulating through, and circulated by, several dozen journalists.
Or, to put it another way: More than 20 people in one magazine office alone all had the story about Harvey Weinstein’s “mistreatment” of women.
So why didn’t anyone write it? Not to take anything away from Jodi Kantor’s excellent New York Times piece, but the reality is that everyone had the story.
The reason no one wrote it is not because the press wanted to get Weinstein, but couldn’t prove the story. No, it’s because the press was protecting Weinstein.
Why wouldn’t they? He made terrific movies and he was a big mover in Democratic party politics, raising millions for local and national campaigns, including the Clintons. (Hillary, some readers will recall, was on the cover of Talk’s first issue.)
John Kennedy, Jr. tried to blend politics and entertainment with the magazine he founded, George. His basic insight was correct; but he misunderstood something crucial. And John John misunderstood it because he was, by all accounts, a good man.
You know the old joke about Washington: That it’s Hollywood for ugly people. Kennedy thought that this was unfair to Washington and that the people in the nation’s capital had the capacity for glamour, too.
But it turns out that the joke works in the opposite direction: Hollywood is for ugly people, too. That was Harvey Weinstein’s essential insight, and how he managed to combine the worlds of politics, entertainment, and media. They’re all repulsive—and I know they’re disgusting or else they wouldn’t be courting, of all people, me.
Thus his fortress was quarried from the misshapen material of human vanity, ambition, and greed. Writers and journalists—the intellectuals, in his mind—were nearly as contemptible as actors. They wouldn’t dream of crossing a guy who could turn them into culture heroes with a phone call. Hey, I just optioned your novel and I already know who’s going to make the movie. And oh yeah, please confirm that you don’t, like I think I may have heard, have a reporter looking into a story about me.
A friend reminds me that there was a period when Miramax bought the rights to every big story published in magazines throughout the city. Why mess with Weinstein when that big new female star you’re trying to wrangle for the June cover is headlining a Miramax release? Do you think that glossy magazine editor who threw the swankiest Oscar party in Hollywood was trying to “nail down” the Weinstein story? Right, just like the hundreds of journalists who were ferried across the river for the big party at the Statue of Liberty to celebrate the premiere of Talk—they were all there sipping champagne and sniffing coke with models in order to “nail down” the story about how their host was a rapist.
That’s why the story about Harvey Weinstein finally broke now. It’s because the media industry that once protected him has collapsed. The magazines that used to publish the stories Miramax optioned can’t afford to pay for the kind of reporting and storytelling that translates into screenplays. They’re broke because Facebook and Google have swallowed all the digital advertising money that was supposed to save the press as print advertising continued to tank.
Look at Vanity Fair, basically the in-house Miramax organ that Tina failed to make Talk: Condé Nast demanded massive staff cuts from Graydon Carter and he quit. He knows they’re going to turn his aspirational bible into a blog, a fate likely shared by most (if not all) of the Condé Nast books.
Si Newhouse, magazine publishing’s last Medici, died last week, and who knows what will happen to Condé now. There are no more journalists; there are just bloggers scrounging for the crumbs Silicon Valley leaves them. Who’s going to make a movie out of a Vox column? So what does anyone in today’s media ecosystem owe Harvey Weinstein? And besides, it’s good story, right? “Downfall of a media Mogul.” Maybe there’s even a movie in it.
Rebecca Traister says the stories are coming out now because “our consciousness has been raised.” Between Bill Cosby and Roger Ailes, Bill O’Reilly, and Donald Trump, argues Traister, people are now accustomed to speaking and hearing the truth about famous, sexually abusive men.
This is wrong. It has nothing to do with “raised consciousness”—or else she wouldn’t have left off that list the one name obviously missing. It’s not about raised consciousness or else the Democratic party’s 2016 presidential campaign would not have been a year-long therapy session treating a repressed trauma victim with even its main slogan—“I’m with her”—referencing a muted plea for sympathy for a woman who’d been publicly shamed by a sexual predator.
Which brings us, finally, to the other reason the Weinstein story came out now: Because the court over which Bill Clinton once presided, a court in which Weinstein was one part jester, one part exchequer, and one part executioner, no longer exists.
A thought experiment: Would the Weinstein story have been published if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency? No, and not because he is a big Democratic fundraiser. It’s because if the story was published during the course of a Hillary Clinton presidency, it wouldn’t have really been about Harvey Weinstein. Harvey would have been seen as a proxy for the president’s husband and it would have embarrassed the president, the first female president.
Bill Clinton offered get-out-of-jail-free cards to a whole army of sleazeballs, from Jeffrey Epstein to Harvey Weinstein to the foreign donors to the Clinton Global Initiative. The deal was simple: Pay up, genuflect, and get on with your existence. It was like a papacy selling indulgences, at the same time that everyone knew that the cardinals were up to no good. The 2016 election demolished Clinton world once and for all, to be replaced by the cult of Obama, an austere sect designated by their tailored hair shirts with Nehru collars. “That is not who we are as Americans,” they chant, as Harvey Weinstein’s ashes are scattered in the wind.
ouch!!
that should shut TTF up!!
Hope that made you feel better anon -- the Weekly Standard is an extremely reputable, objective source of accurate information, and this conspiracy theory, unlike the rest of them, is surely absolutely true.
Go ahead and use this miserable person to slime every Democrat you can think of. We have obviously wandered far from any semblance of reason.
"Hope that made you feel better anon --"
oh, I feel and have felt fine
nothing surprises me with these liberal types that schmooze with the Clinton crime syndicate
"the Weekly Standard is an extremely reputable, objective source of accurate information, and this conspiracy theory, unlike the rest of them, is surely absolutely true."
suuuUUuuure...it's a "conspiracy theory"
the liberals only defense is to attempt to attack the messenger
although, no one is denying that the NY Times knew this monster is out there and kept the secret for years
that, no one is denying
here's more:
https://www.thewrap.com/media-enablers-harvey-weinstein-new-york-times/
"Go ahead and use this miserable person to slime every Democrat you can think of."
you're getting a little defensive
hmmmmmm
"We have obviously wandered far from any semblance of reason."
yes, we've wandered away from the Dem semblance of reason
you know the reasonable view that Clinton, Wiener, Frank & Weinstein are the Dem Mt Rushmore
Winter started early this year. The first blizzard of the season in Montana broke a snow record with 30 inches during the first week of October, barely a few weeks into fall. In the state of Colorado too, with 11 inches of snow in Grand Mesa. Prompting the local CBS affiliate to proclaim, “The snow season is off to a big start in western Colorado!”
Town and Country magazine, which caters to one percenters in predominantly blue Northeastern enclaves, had their own forecast. Warning readers, “Prepare to Bundle Up: Winter 2017 & 2018 Is Going to Be Unusually Cold.” Predicting for the enlightened #NeverTrump residents of New York and Boston, “an above average amount of snowfall” and “a colder winter than last year.”
Do the smart set at the NY Times find any irony or contradiction in the Town and Country story about more snow and their own 2014 article titled, “The End of Snow?” Ski mountains predicted to be brown rather than white. Calamity for the Winter Olympics, not having a sufficiently snowy venue to hold the games, instead having to move them to a small town on the northern coast of Hudson Bay.
Quite certain is the NY Times asserting, “The facts are straightforward: The planet is getting hotter.” The writer was nostalgic for a family ski trip to Copper Mountain in Colorado in 1980, enjoying his first powder run. Don’t worry, Copper still gets plenty of snow. Since 2009, winter snowfall has ranged from 181 to 406 inches, depending the year, with an average in the mid-200s. Most years their largest snowfall for the season was at least a foot, plenty for a good powder run. Hardly the predicted “end of snow”.
Such claims are not new. In 2000, the Independent asserted, “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.” Confidently asserting, “snow is starting to disappear from our lives” due to what else but global warming, “now accepted as a reality by the international community.” By that I assume the writer means Al Gore, Leo DiCaprio and Jimmy Kimmel.
Seventeen years later, the same paper wrote this past January of the resurrection of snow in the UK, “Blizzard conditions bring ‘real taste of winter’ nationwide.” How could that be if snowfalls are a thing of the past? And that was only January. Fast forward a month to February and the UK got hit with another reminder that snowfalls may not quite be a historic relic. The Express, a sister paper, published, “Britain braced for blizzards and gales as temperatures plunge to -10C.”
Interestingly, the Independent removed their original “Snowfalls are just a thing of the past” article from their website. As Al Gore would say, it was an inconvenient truth. But in the internet age, nothing can be removed from the web. Rather than just removing the article, the proper approach would have been a followup article explaining why the original piece was incorrect.
That’s the scientific method. Climatology is science, or at least is should be, rather than political advocacy. Observations are made, a hypothesis is proposed to explain the observations, then further observations are made to determine whether the hypothesis is correct. If future predictions turn out to be true, this bolsters the hypothesis, in this case man-made global warming. If future observations are not what was expected, it’s back to the hypothesis to rethink and revise.
That’s how it’s done. Not with a big “never mind” by deep-sixing the original article. And not by revising the original data, as NOAA did to erase the 15-year pause in global warming.
Science is allowed to get it wrong. The high-carb, low-fat diets of the 1970s lead to an epidemic in type 2 diabetes. Current dietary recommendations have been revised accordingly. Same with coffee, butter, margarine, and a host of other foods. Once thought to be bad, now thought to be good, or at least not deadly. Or vice versa. How much of what we eat or do today will be laughed at in a few decades when new information comes to light?
Climate change science has exempted itself from such scientific scrutiny. It has become politicized and monetized to the point that its devotees cannot back down or question the global warming dogma. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change acknowledges, “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
That’s not an excuse to not study the climate and try to understand it better. Perhaps someday it will be understood and predictable. How much of modern science was once viewed as magic, witchcraft, or the whims of Greek gods?
Yet the predictions continue, doubling down on the last round of failed prognostications. Anyone who dares to dissent should be thrown in jail, says Bill Nye the science guy, now a self-proclaimed judge, jury, and executioner. The execution can be left to Monty Python’s Eric Idle who wants climate change deniers to be “put down gently.” How sporting of him. One flesh wound at a time.
Enough with the wild climate predictions. And death or imprisonment to those who dare question the church of global warming. Climatistas are starting to sound like radical Islamists preaching death to nonbelievers, winning converts by threats and coercion, not by science or common sense.
"you know the reasonable view that Clinton, Wiener, Frank & Weinstein are the Dem Mt Rushmore"
I can see it now
Bill, Anthony, Barney & Harvey carved into the hills beside the Hollywood sign
the epitome of the soon-to-be defunct Democratic Party
You come here to dump your right wing unattributed crap and think you've done something special when no one replies?
Here's what those non-replies look like:
* yawn *
Reading conspiracy theories and fake news is a complete waste of time to everyone except deplorable Trump supporters like you, the TTF Troll for Trump, who seem to enjoy not only reading but spreading crap like birther conspiracies around too, making you just as useful to Putin as your Russian bot buddies.
What’s the difference between Harvey Weinstein and President Donald Trump?
According to Republican National Committee Chair Ronna Romney, only one of them should be criticized for sexually harassing women, and it’s not the president.
Other than that key point, Romney struggled mightily to differentiate between the two men in an interview with CNN Monday, despite proclaiming they’re “not even comparable.”
Weinstein, a Hollywood film executive, was fired Sunday after The New York Times published an article detailing that he had engaged in several decades’ worth of sexual harassment, including offering to advance actresses’ careers in exchange for sex.
In the interview Monday, Romney noted that Weinstein, unlike Trump, admitted his guilt. That admission happened only after the rest of the world found out about it: Weinstein reportedly reached settlements with at least eight women in a bid to keep his misdeeds quiet.
At least 11 women have accused Trump of unwanted sexual advances. During the 2016 election cycle, Trump promised to sue them for lying, yet a USA Today analysis shows Trump often publicly threatens lawsuits but rarely follows through and, like Weinstein, often settles privately.
In addition to the women who came forward during the campaign, Trump is dogged by numerous other lascivious accusations, including the infamous “Access Hollywood” video in which he brags, on tape, about forcing himself on women because “when you’re a star, they let you do it.”
Trump also reportedly walked in on contestants as young as 15 at the Miss Teen USA beauty pageant while they were getting dressed. And he once hinted in an interview with Howard Stern in 2005 that, as the owner of both the Miss Universe and Miss USA pageants, he may have slept with some of the contestants.
But the RNC doesn’t want to talk about that. “To even make that comparison is disrespectful to the president,” Romney said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republican-national-committee-harvey-weinstein-sexual-harassment-trump_us_59dbbe62e4b00377980adb93?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
Oh yeah, the whole thing is just a conspiracy...
No one knew.
That’s the party line in Hollywood regarding Harvey Weinstein, the once-powerful producer revealed as a decades-long sexual predator.
This morning — five days after the New York Times exposé and hours after Weinstein was fired from his company — Meryl Streep, Hollywood’s grande dame, issued a statement.
“Not everybody knew,” Streep said in part. “I didn’t know.” She called Weinstein’s alleged behavior “disgraceful” and “appalling.”
“And if everybody knew,” she continued, “I don’t believe that all the investigative reporters in the entertainment and the hard news media would have neglected for decades to write about it.”
That last claim isn’t just unfair; it’s incorrect. In the wake of Thursday’s exposé, multiple high-profile journalists reported their own attempts over decades to break the story. On The Cut, Rebecca Traister wrote that in 2000, while covering a pre-election party Weinstein was throwing, Weinstein called her a “c – – t” in response to a question he didn’t like, then threw another reporter down a flight of stairs and dragged him outside in a headlock. Such was Weinstein’s power, Traister wrote, that no other reporters covered the incident and no photos ever appeared.
Veteran Hollywood reporter Kim Masters wrote that she had a confrontation with Weinstein over this very issue 20 years ago. Sharon Waxman wrote that she tried to break the story in 2004, but after pressure from Weinstein and calls from defenders Russell Crowe and Matt Damon, the Times softened and buried it.
Professional good-guy Damon serving as Harvey Weinstein’s character witness only adds to the sordidness. Damon has four daughters. Where is he now?
As recently as September, Weinstein also reportedly enlisted George Clooney, Johnny Depp, Heidi Klum and Ryan Gosling to defend him against charges of re-routing $600,000 in funds raised for amfAR, the world’s leading AIDS charity, to help stage a musical.
George Clooney, another professional good guy, is rumored to have political aspirations. What could he be thinking?
news flash: 'SNL' leaves out Harvey Weinstein scandal
AmfAR board chairman Kenneth Cole defended Weinstein. “This wasn’t just a man on the street asking — it was someone who has raised a lot of money for us,” he told the Times. “One tends to address requests based on whom they’re coming from.”
It’s precisely this sliding scale of moral outrage — no behavior is that bad if it’s our guy doing it — that alienates middle America, red-state America, from Hollywood. Awards show ratings have been on the decline since 2014, partly because no one wants to hear lectures from the hypocritical Hollywood elite — defenders of Woody Allen and Roman Polanski — on how to live, whom to vote for, what to believe.
Hollywood has no problem weaponizing itself as a single organism against people, ideas and causes the community deems unimpeachable: gun control, immigration, the Republican party, the removal of Donald Trump.
Not so when it comes to one of its own. Doubt over Weinstein’s guilt isn’t the animating factor; as Brooks Barnes reported in the Times, Weinstein’s been the main topic of industry conversation, but few want to speak up.
“There is still a lot of fear,” Variety editor Claudia Eller said. “Is Harvey really done?”
Actress Rose McGowan, who reached a settlement with Weinstein after a 1997 “incident,” took to Twitter.
“Ladies of Hollywood,” she wrote, “your silence is deafening.”
On October 8, McGowan posed a photo of herself taken that same year, writing, “This is the girl that was hurt by a monster. This is who you are shaming with your silence.”
Why won’t Hollywood weaponize against Weinstein? The balance of power has firmly shifted. How perverse that the industry fears Weinstein isn’t done. Only they could make it so.
What’s more ripe for satire than a grossly overweight, pockmarked bully calling one slender actress a “fat pig” while chasing unwilling starlets around hotel rooms? Yet this weekend “Saturday Night Live” — revived by mocking Donald Trump weekly — avoided Weinstein altogether. Lorne Michaels admitted he killed related jokes after dress rehearsal. “It’s a New York thing,” he said.
A “New York thing” making global headlines.
At January’s Golden Globes, Streep made a full-throated and fair denunciation of Donald Trump. “There was one performance this year that stunned me . . . It was that moment when the person asking to sit in the most respected seat in our country imitated a disabled reporter. Someone he outranked in privilege, power and the capacity to fight back.”
Sounds all too familiar — but by the time awards season rolls around, who really thinks Weinstein gets his? Just look at late-night talk shows, which tackle Trump with ferocity; aside from John Oliver, not one host has addressed Weinstein’s bullying and sexual predation on air.
Not everyone knew? Tina Fey knew. Back in 2012, Fey’s sitcom “30 Rock” made direct reference. “I’m not afraid of anyone in show business,” Jane Krakowski’s character said. “I turned down intercourse with Harvey Weinstein on no less than three occasions . . . out of five.”
“Harvey’s Girls” has been an Internet meme since 2010 — the list of young blonde ingénues cast in Weinstein’s films, hyped as the next big thing, only to be cast aside.
“Tell Us What You Know About Harvey Weinstein’s ‘Open Secret’ ” showbiz site Defamer posted in 2015. The accompanying article alleged that the industry knew Weinstein was even worse than Bill Cosby.
Ashley Judd told the Times that most everyone knew. “Women have been talking about Harvey amongst ourselves for a long time,” she said, “and it’s simply beyond time to have the conversation publicly.”
“The media’s white whale,” former Us Weekly and Hollywood Reporter editor-in-chief Janice Min tweeted on Thursday. “Finally, finally, finally.”
No one knew? Even the world’s greatest actress can’t sell that line
Firefighters Battle To Control 15 Wildfires Raging In California
The blazes have killed at least 10 people and destroyed hundreds of homes and businesses.
SANTA ROSA, Calif., Oct 10 (Reuters) - Firefighters battled overnight to contain wildfires in Northern California, evacuating residents in the path of 15 separate blazes that have killed at least 10 people and destroyed hundreds of homes and businesses.
Efforts to control the fires, which swept through the state’s world-famous wine country, were being helped by more favorable weather conditions, a spokesman for the governor’s Office of Emergency Services said.
However, the death toll could still rise, Brad Alexander warned.
“Firefighters and emergency management workers were taking advantage of the winds dying down ...and a lot of work is going to be done overnight and early (Tuesday) morning,” he said late on Monday.
.”..The top priority is still the evacuations for the most active fires because life protection is the number one concern.”
Some 20,000 people had been evacuated from their homes since Sunday, officials said, while broadcaster CNN said more than 100 had been treated for fire-related injuries including burns and smoke inhalation.
About 1,500 homes and commercial buildings had been destroyed, Ken Pimlott, director of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, said on Monday.
Fanned by high temperatures and dry conditions, the 15 fires broke out over the weekend and spread to cover some 73,000 acres (114 sq miles), fire officials said.
The largest, covering 42 sq miles and 39 sq miles respectively, struck in Napa and Sonoma counties, the heartland of California’s wine industry where the status of the crop currently being harvested was unclear on Monday.
In addition to potential damage to vineyards from fire itself, experts say sustained exposure to heavy smoke can taint unpicked grapes....
The Old Farmer's Almanac: THE COMING WINTER FORECAST 2017–2018
"Here’s our broad view of the coming winter: With last winter’s weak La Niña most likely to be replaced by a weak El Niño this winter, cold air masses will be able to slide into the Intermountain region and western states but will have difficulty making any prolonged inroads in the central and eastern states.
The result is that 2017–18 winter temperatures will be colder than last winter, they will likely still be above normal in the eastern and north-central states, with below-normal temperatures the rule from the Gulf States westward to California and from the Intermountain region westward to the Pacific Northwest."
"Bill, Anthony, Barney & Harvey carved into the hills beside the Hollywood sign"
Sure. I say we line them up right next to three in a row GOP Speakers of the House: Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingstone, and Denny Hastert, all under the tutelage of the Pussy Grabber in Chief.
"SANTA ROSA, Calif., Oct 10 (Reuters) - Firefighters battled overnight to contain wildfires in Northern California,"
ah, the TTFers blaming every weather on global warming
funny, I lived in California forty years ago and remember a fall when the sky was hazy from wildfires
global warming then too, huh?
basically, the globe has been warming since the the last ice age ended
even liberal regulations and one world government won't be able to stop it
"Pence’s flight from Las Vegas to Indianapolis Saturday took about three hours and 20 minutes, so it cost about $100,000.
Pence then flew from Indianapolis to Los Angeles on Sunday, which took about four hours and 45 minutes, costing about $142,500.
The grand total: about $242,500."
this should make up for it:
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump on Tuesday called for changes to U.S. tax law affecting the National Football League, noting that the league and its players' protests disrespect the nation.
"Why is the NFL getting massive tax breaks while at the same time disrespecting our Anthem, Flag and Country? Change tax law!" Trump wrote in a post on Twitter."
and don't forget about their anti-trust exemption, Donald
"What’s the difference between Harvey Weinstein and President Donald Trump?"
let's see....well, Trump bragged about women consenting to engage in sexual activity because he was famous and Weinstein didn't brag but actually sexually harassed employees
and how about this?
"The downfall of Harvey Weinstein would seem like obvious grist for TV’s late-night comedy shows. Mr. Weinstein was facing three decades’ worth of allegations that he sexually harassed women; on Sunday, his own film studio fired him. The story seemed to parallel those of other powerful men who were confronted with numerous accounts of sexual misdeeds, including Bill O’Reilly, Roger Ailes and President Trump — all of whom were widely pilloried in the monologues of the late-night hosts and on shows like “Saturday Night Live.”
Yet since Thursday, when The New York Times published an investigation into the history of complaints against Mr. Weinstein, most of the late-night shows have avoided the matter altogether. “The Daily Show” addressed it fleetingly in an episode on Thursday night, and “Last Week Tonight With John Oliver” weighed in Sunday night.
The omission of Mr. Weinstein seemed especially glaring on this weekend’s installment of “Saturday Night Live,” a show with a history of responding rapidly to news events and which, in a 90-minute broadcast, has multiple opportunities to address a range of topics.
As it turns out, the show did have jokes about Mr. Weinstein ready — they just weren’t used, according to a person familiar with how Saturday’s episode was prepared.
The absence of any commentary about Mr. Weinstein opened up “S.N.L.” to suspicions that the show was covering up for a prominent liberal.
The suspicions were hardly alleviated by remarks made early Sunday morning by Lorne Michaels, the creator and executive producer of “S.N.L.” Speaking to a videographer for The Daily Mail who noted that the show had made no mention of Mr. Weinstein, Mr. Michaels said, “It’s a New York thing.”
“S.N.L.” apparently has one standard for conservatives, and another for people like Mr. Weinstein.
Mr. Michaels was unavailable for comment on Sunday night. But the person familiar with the preparations for this weekend’s episode said that the show cut material about Mr. Weinstein during its dress-rehearsal process. (This person spoke on condition of anonymity because NBC had not authorized the person to speak for attribution.)
This person said that there were jokes about Mr. Weinstein in a comedy sketch that was dropped before airtime, and also in its “Weekend Update” segment."
"ah, the TTFers blaming every weather on global warming"
Except I didn't mention global warming at all.
That's you projecting your paranoia about being so wrong about climate all the time as you march in lockstep with the oil industry polluters.
"and how about this?"
Weinstein is not an elected official.
He's a loser.
* yawn *
Trump is the Pussy Grabber in Chief elected by deplorables.
Women of Late Night React to Harvey Weinstein's Apology
Jimmy Kimmel isn’t letting Donald Trump Jr. off the hook.
The son of President Donald Trump went after Kimmel on Twitter over the weekend, with some pretty disastrous results. Trump Jr. suggested that Kimmel use his monologue to attack film producer Harvey Weinstein, who has been accused of sexual harassment, instead of poking fun at his father. Trump Jr. also attacked Hillary Clinton for accepting campaign donations from Weinstein.
On his show Monday night, Kimmel pointed out that Clinton accepted campaign donations from at least two men accused of sexual harassment: Weinstein and Donald Trump, who was a Clinton donor until 2007.
Then, Kimmel shared a message for the younger Trump, who he’s taken to calling “DJTJ.”
“Note to DJTJ: Next time you’re defending your father, you think it’s a good idea to draw a comparison between him and a freshly accused sexual predator ― don’t,” Kimmel advised. ”It doesn’t help. Really doesn’t.”
Weinstein has apologized for causing unspecified "pain" and mentioned his "demons"
then, he said he is going to sue the NY Times for defamation
then, he leaned back on his deep involvement with Dem progressives
"I am going to need a place to channel my anger so I've decided to give the NRA my full attention...I'm making a movie about the President"
you see the problem for Dems
he thinks he can get away with anything because of his work for the Dems
so far, it's worked for him
On October, 22, 2016, in Gettysburg, PA, Trump said:
“All of these liars will be sued after the election. Thank you. Every woman lied when they came forward to hurt my campaign. Total fabrication. The events never happened—never. All of these liars will be sued after the election.”
http://time.com/4541780/donald-trump-threatens-lawsuit-against-accusers/
But it was season five Apprentice Summer Zervos who filed suit against Trump for defamation on January 17, 2017.
Then in March 2017, Trump tried to claim he was "too busy" to be party to a sexual misconduct trial.
http://www.newsweek.com/trumps-lawyers-argue-president-too-busy-apprentice-defamation-case-575800
Then in July 2017 Trump tried to claim presidential immunity for actions that happened in 2007, ten long years before Putin's bots got him elected president while losing the popular vote by 3 million American voters.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/trump-apprentice-lawsuit-presidential-immunity
And he hasn't sued a single accuser. What a coward.
It appears the pussy grabber is too scared to stand and face even one of his accusers.
"And he hasn't sued a single accuser. What a coward."
well, what has he been accused of?
all you cited was some defamation suit
big deal
we all know he talks too much
George Clooney is now saying he knew since the 90s but just thought it was a rumor
hint to Dems: if you don't want to be associated with Weinstein scandal, don't invite George Clooney to testify to Congress about the next liberal agenda cause
reminds of when Hillary said about the women accusing Bill of rape, "it's amazing what you come up with if you drag a dollar bill through a trailer park"
The NFL announced a plan to “move past” the controversy dogging the league.
Commissioner Roger Goodell has told team owners in a Tuesday letter that he wants all players to stand during the anthem and that a proposed rule change would be discussed at next week’s league meeting.
He added that, “Like our fans, we believe that everyone should stand for the National Anthem.”
“Sports, and especially the NFL, brings people together and lets them set aside those divisions, at least for a few hours,” Mr. Goodell said in the letter posted by ESPN’s Adam Schefter. “The current dispute over the national anthem is threatening to erode the unifying power of our game, and is now dividing us, and our players, from many fans across the country.”
The owners of the Dallas Cowboys and Miami Dolphins have already said they will forbid sitting or taking a knee during “The Star-Spangled Banner” as the league battles with fan outrage, declining ticket prices and faltering television ratings.
Cowboys owner Jerry Jones told reporters Sunday that anyone who refuses to stand will not play, while Dolphins owner Stephen Ross said, “I think it’s incumbent upon the players today, because of how the public is looking at it, to stand and salute the flag.”
The NFL’s fall league meeting begins Oct. 17.
Former NFL tight end Tony Gonzalez said Tuesday that the take-a-knee protests have become a distraction and that as far as he’s concerned, “it’s over.”
“I think when it starts to become a distraction and it’s dominating, I think it’s over,” Gonzalez said.
Nearly 200 players across the league sat or took a knee over the Sept. 24-25 games after the president suggested that any “son of a bitch” who refuses to stand should be fired.
Vice President Mike Pence, the former governor of Indiana, walked out of a game Sunday in Indianapolis after 23 players for the visiting San Francisco 49ers took a knee on the sideline during “The Star-Spangled Banner.”
There are significant questions as to whether President Trump obstructed justice. We do not yet know all the relevant facts, and any final determination must await further investigation, including by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. But the public record contains substantial evidence that President Trump attempted to impede the investigations of Michael Flynn and Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, including by firing FBI Director James Comey. There is also a question as to whether President Trump conspired to obstruct justice with senior members of his administration although the public facts regarding conspiracy are less well developed.
Attempts to stop an investigation represent a common form of obstruction. Demanding the loyalty of an individual involved in an investigation, requesting that individual’s help to end the investigation, and then ultimately firing that person to accomplish that goal are the type of acts that have frequently resulted in obstruction convictions, as we detail. In addition, to the extent conduct could be characterized as threatening, intimidating, or corruptly persuading witnesses, that too may provide additional grounds for obstruction charges.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/presidential-obstruction-of-justice-the-case-of-donald-j-trump/
LEWD TRUMP TAPE IS BREAKING POINT FOR MANY IN G.O.P.
Pence Frames Tonight's Debate as Urgent Chance to Turn Around Campaign
And as James Fallows pointed out on twitter, within minutes of that tape being released, Wikileaks released the hacked Podesta emails.
Coincidence I'm sure.
"There are significant questions as to whether President Trump obstructed justice."
And the significant answer to each and every one is no. To answer yes, you'd have to say the top executive in the country has no right to an opinion about the cases his justice department pursues. He has both right and obligation.
"LEWD TRUMP TAPE IS BREAKING POINT FOR MANY IN G.O.P."
Apparently not that many. A guy that talks like that is not my ideal Presdient but it had to be weighed against the destruction Hillary was promising to inflict on the Constitution.
As for that, we have the SCOTUS straightened out and filled with defenders of the Constitution.
"The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out an appeals court ruling that struck down President Donald Trump's previous temporary travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority nations countries that has now expired.
In a one-page order, the court acted in the case pending before the nine justices over Trump's travel ban, a case from Maryland brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued to stop the ban contained in a March executive order.
The justices were unanimous in deciding against ruling in the Maryland case.
The ban had targeted people from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan. A new open-ended ban, scheduled to take effect on Oct. 18, removes Sudan from the list while blocking people from Chad and North Korea and certain government officials from Venezuela from entering the United States.
The Supreme Court in June agreed to take up the case and allowed the travel ban, which had been blocked by lower courts, to go into effect."
"The justices were unanimous"
WOW!!
.
Looks like Trump is unifying the country
you know, TTF has been declaring the immigrant ban unconstitutional for months
turns out, even Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagrees with TTF
it's official: TTF is a fringe group
Anon, I don't know what can be rewarding about telling somebody they said something they didn't say, and then telling them they're wrong.
not looking for a reward but TTF has, indeed, repeatedly said this
although if you're going to go ahead and now support the Constitution, I'll let it go
In a national radio interview Monday night, former NFL tight end, coach and ESPN analyst Mike Ditka reportedly told Jim Gray on Westwood One’s pregame show that professional football players shouldn’t kneel to protest racism and police brutality because “there has been no oppression in the last 100 years” — and that a football field isn’t the place for a protest, anyway.
“If you want to protest… you’ve got a right to do that. But I think you’re a professional athlete, you have an obligation to the game,” Ditka said. “Respect the game, play the game, when you want to protest, protest when the game’s over, protest whatever other way you want to.”
Ditka, who is a fervent supporter of President Trump, went on to vocalize his support for Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, who told players they’d be benched if they kneeled or sat for the anthem.
“I don’t care who you are, or how much money you make. If you don’t respect our country, you shouldn’t be in this country playing football,” Ditka said. “Go to another country and play football. If you had to go to somewhere else and try to play this sport, you wouldn’t have a job.”
more sickening details about this major liberal agenda funder
including that everyone knew what he was up to - except the public:
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/10/10/harvey-weinstein-accused-raping-3-women-sexually-harassing-gwyneth-paltrow-angelina-jolie.html
he U.S. media is working with Russia to destablilize America
http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/10/u-s-media-help-russia-destabilize-united-states/
Hillary Clinton is a real piece of work. Truly, a debit to her gender.
For nearly six days, Hillary Clinton’s silence was deafening.
She finally spoke out against Harvey Weinstein yesterday. Clinton is "shocked and appalled by the revelations about Harvey Weinstein," and "the behavior described by women coming forward cannot be tolerated."
But it sure took time for Hillary, who had no problem denouncing Donald Trump’s treatment of women, to become shocked and appalled.
Weinstein, a major Democratic donor, had thrown a fundraiser for the former presidential candidate. There was a well-circulated picture of her laughing with him at some gathering. Other Democrats were giving back or donating contributions from the movie mogul.
But Clinton, as cautious as she was during the campaign, said nothing.
Barack Obama, also the beneficiary of a Weinstein fundraiser, spoke out late yesterday. He said in a statement: "Michelle and I have been disgusted by the recent reports about Harvey Weinstein. Any man who demeans and degrades women in such fashion needs to be condemned and held accountable, regardless of wealth or status."
I don’t blame anyone outside of his circles for being friendly with, or taking money from, a guy who was churning out Oscar-winning movies. But once the New York Times disclosed the sexual harassment allegations, and his own company suspended and then fired him, there was little reason to remain silent.
Sixteen former and current executives and assistants at Weinstein’s companies say that they witnessed or had knowledge of unwanted sexual advances and touching at events associated with Weinstein’s films and in the workplace. They and others describe a pattern of professional meetings that were little more than thin pretexts for sexual advances on young actresses and models.
What is truly chilling is an audiotape—part of a police sting—obtained by the New Torker. An Italian model named Ambra Battilana, who says that Weinstein groped her breasts the day before, tries to fend him off as he tries to badger her into going into a room with him. Weinstein is heard describing the previous conduct as something he is "used to."
The Manhattan district attorney declined to press charges.
Here’s just part of what Mia Sorvino said, describing a time when she worked with Weinstein on the movie "Mighty Aphrodite":
"He started massaging my shoulders, which made me very uncomfortable, and then tried to get more physical, sort of chasing me around."
With so many of Weinstein’s colleagues now saying they were aware of his behavior, it’s amazing that this stayed quiet for so long. And it’s a political problem for the Democrats.
The Times, meanwhile, has a new piece with allegations from Gwyneth Paltrow and Angelina Jolie, among others, that Weinstein harassed them.
Ronan Farrow, Mia Farrow's baby, concludes that "Weinstein and his legal and public-relations teams have conducted a decades-long campaign to suppress these stories." And it worked—until now.
the liberal-media-entertainment complex tried to protect Weinstein, enabling him to roam the streets:
The New Yorker published NBC reporter Ronan Farrow’s bombshell story about disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein Tuesday.
So why did the story appear in the pages of a competitor and not get broken by the news organization that has him on its payroll? Farrow said you’ll have to ask his bosses who passed on the story.
Appearing on the Rachel Maddow Show Tuesday night, the MSNBC host asked Farrow why his story — in which multiple women allege sexual assault and rape over decades against the Democratic Party mega-donor — didn’t get reported through NBC News.
Farrow played it coy. “You would have to ask NBC and NBC executives about the details,” he replied.
Farrow then recounted the threats he faced from lawyers representing Weinstein.
“In the course of this reporting, I was threatened with a lawsuit personally by Mr. Weinstein,” Farrow said, “and we’ve already seen that the Times has been publicly threatened with a suit. I don’t want to describe any suits at other organizations that I work with, but, you know, this is a considerable amount of pressure that outlets get as well.”
Maddow said NBC News claimed the story wasn’t “ready to go” when Farrow brought it to their attention. Farrow immediately shot down that statement as false.
He replied, “I walked into door at The New Yorker with an explosively reportable piece that should’ve been public earlier. And immediately, obviously, The New Yorker recognized that and it's not accurate that it was not reportable. In fact, there were multiple determinations that it was reportable at NBC.”
Viewers of Saturday Night Live noticed something missing this weekend. NBC's late night sketch show sets out to skewer the cultural zeitgeist. And what showbiz story captured the cultural zeitgeist this week better than the tale of Harvey Weinstein, the Hollywood titan who has (finally) been accused in print of decades of sexual harassment?
SNL's executive producer Lorne Michaels explained that the show had not made any jokes at Weinstein's expense this week because Weinstein's influence is "a New York thing." Which is funny, because here in London my friends and I had logged online eagerly on Sunday morning to catch up with what SNL made of America's most famous new alleged predator.
The entertainment reporter Sharon Waxman says that she worked on a Weinstein exposé for the New York Times in 2004, only for actors Matt Damon and Russell Crowe to contact the paper and "vouch for" Weinstein's alleged procurer of women in Italy. She asserted in an article on the website "The Wrap" this weekend that her "expose" story was gutted and buried on an inside page in the paper. (Her former editor at the Times, now a Bloomberg editor, Jonathan Landman, dismissed Waxman's claims, and told Politico it was "pretty unlikely that it ever happened as she relates it...").
That President Donald Trump is also a self-avowed exploiter of power for sex is not remotely an excuse for any Democratic supporters to equivocate on the subject of Weinstein.
Democrats are reluctant to denounce an alleged sexual predator in Hollywood. What this tells us is that sexual predation doesn't cause nearly enough outrage in its own right. The sexual blackmail of women as a requirement to appease powerful men should be a more burning societal issue than any Congressional divide.
The women exploited by men deserve more than to become pawns in someone else's political game.
Hollywood will not easily recover from Harvey Weinstein -- not for a long time. The hypocrisy level has hit Defcon 1, 9.9 on the Richter scale.
Hollywood’s politics have always been a self-serving charade, a liberal masquerade for a rapacious and lubricious lifestyle. But now, thanks to the Weinstein scandal, we see it more clearly than ever. And it couldn't be more repellent. Bill Clinton would have made the greatest studio executive of all time.
For conservative investors, this would be the time to make a hostile takeover of the movie business. They have abandoned the culture -- and our children -- to the creepiest people imaginable. What is going on in Hollywood is far from being just about Harvey. It’s approaching a pandemic. So many previously silent assaulted or raped women are coming out of the woodwork, it seems like a long-belated remake of “Cheaper by the Dozen.” No one knows who will be next or if it will stop at Harvey.
The rot is everywhere, even, perhaps especially, in the precincts of “high art.” Gwyneth Paltrow says now is the time to put an end to these attacks on women. But where was she years ago when Harvey got “handsy” with her? Looking the other way while earning millions and garnering Oscars. Meryl Streep claimed she was clueless about Weinstein’s repulsive antics. Time to award her her greatest Oscar yet -- for playing someone deaf, dumb, and blind while living as a troglodyte in the Gobi desert. Either the woman’s a liar or an utter nincompoop. I’ll go with the former.
As for the great feminist George Clooney -- the first male star out of the box to condemn Weinstein’s behavior -- let’s give him the Nobel Prize in virtue signaling. By coming forward, he was able to ace out his competition -- Howard Zinn-loving Matt Damon, who disgraced himself forever by covering up for Harvey a decade ago. (For those who may have missed it in the onslaught of sleazy details, Damon assured then New York Times reporter Sharon Waxman that Miramax’s high-paid Italian representative was a genuine “creative film executive” and not Harvey’s European procurer, as was, evidently correctly, rumored. Damon is the same “progressive” movie star who makes films opposing school choice for the masses while living in a thirty million dollar house and sending his kids to private school. I take it back -- maybe we should give him the Nobel in virtue signaling.)
Trump coming through for Puerto Rico:
The Trump administration on Tuesday sought an additional $4.9 billion in emergency hurricane aid to stave off what Puerto Rico’s governor recently warned could become a fiscal catastrophe.
The Office of Management and Budget sent a formal request to House leadership Tuesday afternoon, revising its most recent recovery package request to nearly $35 billion.
The extra $4.9 billion would “address the immediate liquidity issue that Puerto Rico is having,” OMB spokesman John Czwartacki told POLITICO. It would allow the island government to make its payroll and fund pensions amid its worst natural disaster in decades.
The White House’s request exceeds the $4 billion request from Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rosselló last week, though it would be delivered in the form of a loan, rather than a grant.
In his letter to the White House, Rosselló warned that Puerto Rico’s government needed an immediate cash infusion.
“In addition to the immediate humanitarian crisis, Puerto Rico is on the brink of a massive liquidity crisis that will intensify in the immediate future,” the governor wrote the White House.
The loan funds would likely be added to the storm recovery package that the House is expected to approve this week.
The House Appropriations Committee has received and is reviewing the request, a GOP aide confirmed.
Harvey Weinstein is not a Democratic candidate, not an elected official. To insinuate that Hillary Clinton or any other Democratic candidate or official knew what he was doing or were complicit is purely libelous.
On the other hand, Here is NPR's List of Women Who Have Accused the President of the United States of Inappropriate Sexual Conduct.
if you would actually pay attention, you would know that the Hollywood crowd's connection to the Obama WH so strong, they were part of the regular traffic there
it is now documented that the Tinsel Town Gang was fully aware of Weinstein's activities
given their closeness to Obama and Hillary, it's inconceivable they weren't aware
Weinstein gave Malia Obama an intern job
he personally threw fundraisers for Hillary
remember how the media in 2015 said Hillary was a lock for the nomination because she raised so much money?
so, when others are returning his contributions,, Hillary stays silent for SIX DAYS
at least the gay agenda is still thriving in California:
California health care workers who “willfully and repeatedly” decline to use a senior transgender patient's “preferred name or pronouns” could face punishments ranging from a fine to jail time under a newly signed law.
California Gov. Jerry Brown signed the legislation last week.
The bill itself is aimed at protecting transgender and other LGBT individuals in hospitals, retirement homes and assisted living facilities. The bill would ensure those facilities accommodate transgender people and their needs, including letting them decide which gender-specific bathroom they prefer to use.
"It shall be unlawful for a long-term care facility or facility staff to take any of the following actions wholly or partially on the basis of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status," the bill reads.
Among the unlawful actions are “willfully and repeatedly” failing to use a transgender person’s “preferred name or pronouns” after he or she is “clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns.”
The law states that if provisions are violated, the violator could be punished by a fine “not to exceed one thousand dollars” or “by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed one year,” or both.
The bill's author noted that the law “does not create any new criminal provisions,” but rather creates “new rights within an existing structure.”
One opponent of the law, the California Family Council's Greg Burt, slammed the measure when the bill was in its early stages.
“How can you believe in free speech, but think the government can compel people to use certain pronouns when talking to others?” he said to the California Assembly Judiciary Committee in August.
so, if you won't bake a cake celebrating gay "marriage", you get fined and lose your business license
now, you can go to jail for not calling a guy who dresses like a girl "she"?
we need to get Neil and the justices on this
just happy Americans voted against Merrick Garland in 2016
https://medium.com/@annevictoriaclark/the-rock-test-a-hack-for-men-who-dont-want-to-be-accused-of-sexual-harassment-73c45e0b49af
Rock approves!
https://twitter.com/TheRock/status/917619595015487488?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fentry%2Fdwayne-johnson-the-rock-test-harassment_us_59de0c75e4b0b26332e82d89
It's not all the president's fault, but he did sell himself as a master negotiator and so far he's been a bust.
Who could have known negotiating would be so complicated? Obviously not President Trump.
He built his brand on his best-selling book, The Art of the Deal. He was tough on Washington gridlock during the 2016 campaign (“They’re all talk, they’re no action, nothing gets done”) and sold himself as the cure. He offered encouraging words that suggested he understood the need for flexibility, the “tug and pull,” in order to reach compromise.
For all that, Trump has been a singular bust as a negotiator.
The fault does not lie entirely with him. He’s dealing with congressional Republicans who are riven by internal divisions, trapped by a fantasy “repeal-and-replace” campaign slogan and, for the most part, wedded to the view that bipartisanship is for sissies.
On the other hand, Trump has shown zero ability to corral his own party or lead it in a mutally agreed-upon direction. His own quirks and deficits, meanwhile, have led him to violate many of what the American Political Science Association considers fundamental principles of successful political negotiation — and to make up his own, such as reportedly coaching his trade chief to make South Korea think he’s “crazy.” Beyond that, he is an unreliable partner without a knowledge base or clear goals — core problems illuminated by the drive to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
As president, instead of starting off with a potentially bipartisan project such as infrastructure, Trump went along with House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who wanted to immediately make good on their seven-year Obamacare repeal pledge. Yet within the GOP there was no consensus on a plan to replace the law. In fact there was no consensus within Trump himself. As a candidate and president-elect, he had adopted his party’s repeal rhetoric — and also repeatedly promised affordable, universal coverage. If his Republican allies were surprised when he called their bill “mean,” they shouldn’t have been.
After the latest fail on repeal, Trump said — spuriously—that “we have the votes” to kill Obamacare and will vote on it in “January, February or March.” But he also said that until then, “I’m also going to meet with Democrats and I will see if I can get a health care plan that’s even better. So I will negotiate with Democrats.” And then he followed through, tweeting Saturday that he had called Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer to talk about health care.
This is not reassuring for anyone. For Republicans, it sounds especially ominous. The first time Trump negotiated with Democrats, they came up with a sudden deal to keep the government funded, raise the debt ceiling and approve hurricane aid. Republicans were not only out of that loop, from their perspective the purported master negotiator gave away the store. And in fact, while one ostensible rationale was to clear the decks for a September push on tax reform, with Trump’s blessing the month was consumed by yet another failed attempt to repeal the ACA.
As the GOP turns to a tax overhaul, the same problems are arising. There are divisions within the party, and there is tension over Trump’s repeated suggestions that he’ll negotiate with Democrats. Also missing are important negotiation tools that have helped doom the ACA repeal so far:
....
...
►A trusted source of information. This is usually the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, but though it’s now led by their handpicked economist, key Republicans have been on a tear to discredit its work and try to eliminate requirements for a CBO “score” going forward. CBO projections of lost coverage and rising consumer costs have been huge, possibly decisive factors in the failed repeal drive.
►A pressing deadline and penalties if they blow it. Republicans want to change the tax code and repeal Obamacare, and if they succeed, their political base and donors will be happy. But there would be costs as well. Millions could lose coverage if the health law is repealed, and a majority of the public opposes repeal. Based on current tax proposals, meanwhile, Republicans likely would have to defend increasing the national debt in order to cut taxes for the wealthy. The status quo in both cases might carry fewer consequences.
►Privacy. This has been an impossible dream in the Trump era. This administration, White House and Congress may be the leakiest ever. On top of that, Trump’s incessant tweeting and talking are a vivid window on his thinking, which is often contradictory and jumbled. Badly timed, too, such as when he tweeted “NO!” to a Puerto Rican “bailout” just as negotiators from both parties were working out an agreement on Puerto Rican debt.
►Trust and familiarity among the players. Trump was new to government, and he surrounded himself with many people like him, including unqualified friends and relatives. His campaign made clear he knew little about policy and was disinclined to study up. He also showed he had no qualms about being cruel, and would turn on allies and rivals alike in a nanosecond. Perhaps most significant to his negotiating failures, he saw the election and now sees the presidency as a zero sum game: He wins, period.
In business negotiations, this has a certain logic. You bluster and posture and aim for the outright win—the money, the property, the rights, the lawsuit that buries the other side. In politics, campaigns and headline wars offer the same clarity: somebody wins, somebody loses.
Perhaps this is why the Trump administration is undermining the ACA in every way possible, from threatening to stop paying subsidies, to shrinking enrollment windows, advertising and outreach, to depriving Oklahoma of a waiver it sought to stabilize its insurance market. If Obamacare implodes, perhaps Trump believes he’ll be in a stronger negotiating position.
If that’s a strategy, it’s highly questionable. Polling shows most voters would blame Trump and his party if the ACA starts to collapse. And if it does, there’s still no guarantee that they can achieve repeal-and-replace on their terms.
At this point in their first years, other presidents could point to major achievements to fulfill campaign promises, such as George W. Bush’s June 2001 tax cut and Barack Obama’s February 2009 economic recovery act. Trump has yet to win a significant legislative victory and now is associated with failing, again and again, on health care.
To paraphrase the president, he’s going to lose so much, he’s going to get tired of losing. At that point maybe he’ll decide it’s time to learn from the past, and get serious about negotiations.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/10/09/taxes-and-obamacare-trumps-art-of-the-deal-waterloos-jilllawrence-column/741199001/
you seem to base your whole argument about negotiations on the ACA
truth is, and any fool would know this, Trump couldn't care less about the ACA
Trump is racking up significant accomplishments in repairing the damage done to the courts by Obama and whacking away at Barry's over-regulation
the result is that the economy is hummin'
he has also down a great job on the triple hurricanes and is accomplishing great things in foreign policy, where even Russia and China are helping bring pressure on North Korea
he hasn't shown much personal growth and is a poor role model for kids
but the technical parts are going well
btw, the network that covered up the Weinstein horror may lose its FCC license:
President Trump again slammed NBC News on Wednesday, this time after a new report alleged Trump wanted a "tenfold increase" to the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
"Fake @NBCNews made up a story that I wanted a "tenfold" increase in our U.S. nuclear arsenal. Pure fiction, made up to demean," Trump tweeted. "NBC = CNN!"
"With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!" Trump said.
The license Trump refers to is that granted by the Federal Communications Commission. According to the FCC, "hoaxes" and "news distortion" are the two areas relative to broadcast news over which the group has regulatory power.
Barack and Michelle Obama, as president and first lady, oh my, how they loved Weinstein's cash and his Hollywood glitz.
As a powerful pipeline to the Democrats’ cash machine in the entertainment industry, Mr. Weinstein raised millions for Mr. Obama’s presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2012.
He and wife Georgina Chapman hosted Mr. Obama for a high-end fundraiser at their home overlooking Long Island Sound in Westport, Connecticut, in August 2012, with attendees including actress Anne Hathaway, Vogue editor Anna Wintour and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin.
“Obviously, Harvey and Georgina have just been great friends and have done so much for us, not just in this election, but in the previous one,” Mr. Obama said at the time, in a dining room with two gold Oscar statues perched on a shelf.
The Obamas’ relationship with the movie producer went beyond campaign cash. Mr. Weinstein even arranged for Mrs. Obama to make a surprise appearance at the Oscars as a presenter in 2013.
The live audience in Hollywood gasped and applauded when the first lady, dressed in a shimmering silver gown, was beamed onto a screen at the venue to make the presentation for best picture.
It wouldn’t have happened without Mr. Weinstein, who met with the producers of the Oscars and members of the first lady’s staff two weeks before the show to hammer out details. They kept her appearance a secret, and it was later described as a “major coup” for Mr. Weinstein.
Later that year, Mrs. Obama hosted Mr. Weinstein at the White House with other Hollywood luminaries for a workshop for high school students interested in careers in the film industry.
“I want to start by thanking Harvey Weinstein for organizing this amazing day,” Mrs. Obama said at the time. “This is possible because of Harvey. He is a wonderful human being, a good friend and just a powerhouse.”
Mr. Weinstein had a piece of advice for the students: “I never let anybody tell me no, even the White House.”
The Obamas’ daughter Malia was an intern at The Weinstein Co. earlier this year, before starting at Harvard University this fall.
The Obamas now say, of course, that they didn’t know anything about Mr. Weinstein’s alleged behavior, despite rumors that were rampant in Hollywood for more than a decade.
Aren't people who hang around the White House vetted?
Obama had no problem finding a way to wiretap Trump but didn't know what everyone else seemed to about the guy he and Michelle were calling "just been great friends and have done so much for us, not just in this election, but in the previous one" and "He is a wonderful human being, a good friend and just a powerhouse.”
"the result is that the economy is hummin'"
Yeah, it's been humming since Obama turned things around in 2010.
As of January 6, 2017:
1. U.S. businesses have now added 15.8 million jobs since private-sector job growth turned positive in early 2010
2. Since job growth turned positive in October 2010, the U.S. economy has added jobs for 75 straight months—the longest streak of job growth on record and more than two years longer than the next-longest streak.
3. The unemployment rate has been cut by more than half since its peak in 2009, falling much faster and further than expected.
4. Real hourly wages have grown faster over the current business cycle than in any cycle since the early 1970s.
5. Since the end of 2012, real wages for non-managerial workers have grown nearly 18 times faster than they did from 1980 to 2007.
6. Robust real wage growth and strong employment growth have translated into rising real incomes for households, with the largest gains going to low- and middle-income families.
7. On net, essentially all of the increase in employment over the recovery has been in full-time jobs.
8. Broader measures of labor underutilization have also steadily improved, and all but one are below their pre-recession averages.
9. Real average hourly wages have risen in every major industry over the current business cycle—and in nearly all, the pace of increase has been faster than in the previous cycle.
10. Unemployment rates for all major demographic groups have recovered to below their respective pre-recession averages, though more work remains to close longstanding disparities in the labor market.
11. Initial claims for unemployment insurance (UI) have been below 300,000 for 96 consecutive weeks, the longest such streak since 1970.
12. Two-thirds of States have seen their unemployment rates fall below their pre-recession averages.
13. Since 2010, the United States has put more people back to work than all the other G-7 economies combined.
"the result is that the economy is hummin'"
The consensus amongst economists is that it takes about a year for an incoming presidents policies to start having an effect on the economy.
The current U.S. economy is the Obama economy.
Via press release from the Democratic National Committee:
“Today, on National Coming Out Day, we celebrate the fact that love is love and are resolute in our belief that all people deserve to be treated with dignity. We remember a time not long ago when living openly as a member of the LGBTQ community was nearly impossible. And we honor those who have fought and struggled to advance the cause of true equality. Even more importantly, we welcome and embrace those who are openly LGBTQ, those who choose to come out today, and those who are still unable to live openly.
“Unfortunately, this year’s celebration is clouded by a presidency that is openly hostile to LGBTQ people. Donald Trump, Mike Pence, and their administration began attacking the LGBTQ community on their first day in office. They retracted the Department of Education’s guidance on transgender students, abandoned America’s global leadership role on LGBTQ rights, proposed cuts to HIV/AIDS testing and care, and just last week reinterpreted the law to give businesses a license to discriminate.
“Democrats are committed to fighting this administration’s anti-LGBTQ actions tooth and nail. We will redouble our efforts to protect the progress we’ve made. And we wish all Americans a happy Coming Out Day.”
"at least the gay agenda is still thriving in California"
It's good to see you celebrating State's rights.
Of course you likely prefer other states' laws pertaining to LGBT folk than California's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States#State-by-State_Summary_table_of_LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States
"Yeah, it's been humming since Obama turned things around in 2010."
really?
The consensus amongst economists is that Obama's economy was anemic
I notice your little list played fast and loose with most of the dates
sad!
"The unemployment rate fell to a 16-year low of 4.2 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday.
Additionally, the closely watched hourly wages figure jumped higher, to an annualized rate of 2.9 percent.
Economists had expected the unemployment rate to hold steady at 4.4 percent. It declined even as the labor-force participation rate rose to 63.1 percent, its highest level all year and the best reading since March 2014.
An alternate number that includes discouraged workers as well as those working part-time for economic reasons also tumbled, falling from 8.6 percent to 8.3 percent, its lowest reading since June 2007.
The number was expected to be lower than usual due to Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, which hammered Texas and Florida, respectively, as well as other states. The storm's effects were obvious — eating and drinking establishments lost 105,000 positions as workers were laid off due to damage from the record-breaking hurricanes. Harvey and Irma's effects weren't all negative when it came to jobs — Wall Street-related finance positions grew by a net 10,000 thanks to an increase of 11,000 for insurance carriers and related activities.
Revisions will bear watching in coming months, as the final payrolls number comes from the Labor Department's byzantine estimation methods. The department's household survey showed the actual level of employed Americans grew by 906,000 while the unemployment rolls fell by 331,000. The report indicated a record 154.3 million Americans at work.
Job gains for the month came from health care, at 23,000, transportation and warehousing with 22,000 and professional and business services, which added 13,000.
Many economists were prepared to dismiss the report due to the hurricanes. However, one number sure to garner attention was the wages pickup.
The BLS reported that average hourly earnings were up by 12 cents on the month to $26.55, equating to a 2.9 percent gain for the year."
"The consensus amongst economists is that it takes about a year for an incoming presidents policies to start having an effect on the economy."
no, it isn't
“Today, on National Coming Out Day,
haven't anything unusual about today
kind of like when gay agendists boycotted Chik-Fil-A
"we celebrate the fact that love is love"
when gay agendists say this, they mean lust is lust
"It's good to see you celebrating State's rights."
no state has the right to overturn the Bill of Rights
you're pretty damn stupid, aren't you?
Devin Nunes appears to be running a 'parallel' Russia probe without Democrats' consent
The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee subpoenaed the opposition research firm Fusion GPS earlier this month for more information about the dossier the firm produced alleging ties between President Donald Trump's campaign team and Russia, according to CNN.
Rep. Devin Nunes stepped aside from the committee's Russia investigation in early April following his decision to brief Trump and the press on classified intelligence — without telling his fellow committee members. But he quickly began conducting his own investigation into "unmaskings" by the Obama administration and the credibility of the dossier.
An attorney for Fusion GPS, Joshua A. Levy, said in a statement on Tuesday that "if Rep. Nunes were serious about HPSCI’s stated mission, he would start by reviewing the 10 hours of voluntary testimony that Fusion co-founder Glenn Simpson provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this summer."
Neither Nunes' spokesman nor the Senate Judiciary Committee immediately returned requests for comment.
Levy said while Nunes stepped aside from the probe earlier this year, he "now appears to be running a parallel investigation outside of the official HPSCI investigation run by Reps. Conaway and Schiff."
Republican Rep. Mike Conaway, who is heading the committee's investigation, reportedly approved Nunes' subpoenas to Fusion GPS, but House Intelligence Democrats have indicated that they were not consulted. A spokesman for Rep. Adam Schiff, the committee's ranking member, did not return a request for comment.
Levy further alleged that "Nunes in bad faith, unilaterally broke our discussions with committee staff and abruptly demanded that my clients submit to a fresh inquiry."
That claim was bolstered by a Democratic committee source, who told CNN that the subpoenas were issued "without the minority's agreement and despite good faith engagement thus far by the witnesses on the potential terms for voluntary cooperation."
Rep. Eric Swalwell, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said it looked like Nunes was trying to "undermine" the investigation.
This is not the first time Democrats have accused Nunes of going '"rogue."
Nunes subpoenaed the CIA, FBI, and NSA for more details in June about why Obama administration officials requested the unmasking of Trump associates last year. He and other Republicans have expressed concern that those requests might have been politically motivated.
A Democratic committee source told Business Insider earlier this summer that Nunes was trying to make questions about unmasking "the focal issue" of the committee's probe into Russia's election interference in order "to divert attention away from the investigation" into Trump's campaign.
"That's the obvious motive," the source said, adding that Nunes told the Democrats "super last minute" about his unmasking subpoenas.
"The Democrats feel that Nunes has gone rogue, or that he's trying to undermine the committee because he no longer serves in the top position on this investigation," the source said...
"A Democratic committee source told Business Insider earlier this summer that Nunes was trying to make questions about unmasking "the focal issue" of the committee's probe into Russia's election interference in order "to divert attention away from the investigation" into Trump's campaign."
Gee, isn't that appropriate since the only crime that has been established throughout this Russian hoax circus is when someone unmasked surveillance of Flynn and leaked the classified information to the press.
The Obama administration's wiretapping of the Trump campaign by excessive use of unmasking is the 21st century equivalent of Watergate.
The Russian investigation, according to the top members of the Senate committee from both parties, have uncovered no other crime after nine months of investigation.
Being opposed to Nunes investigating the Obama administration activity, which has since been verified, makes one wonder what Dems are hiding
Nunes is still working for the Trump campaign. Due to Nunes' antics over the summer, which included going to the White House to get information that would supposedly clear the White house but ended up self-recusing himself from his own bogus House investigation, is an embarrassment to the GOP and America.
"IT’S STRANGE HOW some things really catch on and go viral and others don’t. These days, nothing quite makes a story blow up — no pun intended — like the president’s fixation with it. That’s why it’s so peculiar that what sure looks like an attempted terrorist attack was narrowly thwarted at an American airport this past Friday without so much as peep from Donald Trump about it. No tweets. No nicknames for the alleged would-be-terrorist. Nothing. You’ll see why in a minute.
On past Friday morning, at 12:39 a.m., security footage from the Asheville Regional Airport in North Carolina showed a man walking through the front doors wearing black clothing and a black cap, while carrying a bag. “Based on a review of the video, the individual walked near the entrance to the terminal, went out of sight momentarily, and was then seen departing the area without the bag,” according to the criminal complaint...
What investigators eventually found in the bag was AN/FO (Ammonium Nitrate/Fuel Oil) explosives that, according to the criminal complaint, have been used “in a number of terrorist-related incidents around the world. When AN/FO comes into contact with a flame or other ignition source it explodes violently. Nails or ball bearings are often items added to the device so as to increase the devastation inflicted by the explosion.”
In fact, sharp nails and bullets were found in this improvised explosive device. Whoever built it designed the bomb to cause horrific bodily harm. Before disarming it, authorities discovered that the alarm attached to it was scheduled to go off at 6:00 a.m. that morning just as a fresh round of travelers was scheduled to arrive at the airport.
The man who planted it, it turns out, openly admitted to authorities that he was “preparing to fight a war on U.S. soil” and that this bomb was but one part of that war...
The story didn’t go viral and Trump didn’t tweet about it because the bomb was not placed by an immigrant, or a Muslim, or a Mexican. It was placed there by a good ol’ white man, Michael Christopher Estes. Unlike the Las Vegas shooter, Stephen Paddock, whose motive is still hard to discern, Estes wanted to be very clear that his ultimate goal was to accelerate a war on American soil.
Sorry if it sounds like you’ve heard this story before. I’m as tired of writing it as you are reading it, but you know good and well that if Estes was a young Muslim — hell, if he had ever even visited a mosque in the past 25 years — that Trump would be tweeting about him right this very moment to tout how essential a Muslim ban is for American safety.
A Muslim attacker’s mugshot would become a meme across the conservative media. Mainstream American outlets would be covering the heroic bravery of those who thwarted the terrorist plot. We’d all be seeing footage of the perpetrator being walked from the police car to the jail and from the jail to the court room. Out loud, people would talk and tweet about the man’s family and friends and networks — wondering where he was radicalized, and if anyone else feels the way he does.
In this case, though? Crickets. We hear nothing at all — almost exclusively because the man who planted an improvised explosive device, just like ones that have been used to murder and maim people all over the world, was white. His guilt starts and stops with him. His actions aren’t an indictment of his whole faith, political outlook, and race. White people aren’t, thanks to Estes, suddenly labeled terrorists or seen as a threat to American safety in the way that would almost certainly happen had it been anybody other than a white man.
This isn’t me calling for all of those things that happen to Muslims and immigrants every single day to now happen to Estes and white people all over the country. It’s me saying that the fundamentally bigoted double standard by which it is done to virtually everyone except for Michael Christopher Estes and other white men has to stop.
"Nunes is still working for the Trump campaign. Due to Nunes' antics over the summer, which included going to the White House to get information that would supposedly clear the White house but ended up self-recusing himself from his own bogus House investigation, is an embarrassment to the GOP and America."
Wrong. He importantly brought to attention a truth that the press and liberals were trying to suppress: that Obama abused foreign surveillance and unmasking procedures to wiretap the Trump campaign. Even after he disclosed this. the press mocked him. We now know he and Trump were right.
Meanwhile, the story of how Dems colluded with foreigners to produce dirt on Trump is is being uncovered:
"The Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee has subpoenaed the head of the Washington firm that commissioned the sensational anti-Trump campaign research dossier — adding fresh intensity to the behind-the-scenes scramble among lawmakers to grasp how the infamous document fits into the Russian election meddling investigation.
The subpoena issued for Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson comes as special counsel Robert Mueller’s separate investigation interviewed the former British spy, Christopher Steele, who worked with Mr. Simpson in compiling the dossier of negative intelligence on Mr. Trump.
Commissioned by a Democratic client, the dossier contains allegations about President Trump’s Moscow contacts. Mr. Steele wrote it in 2016 with support from Mr. Simpson and his firm before it was published by the online news service BuzzFeed just before January’s inauguration."
progress on Obamacare repair:
President Donald Trump was expected to sign an executive order on Thursday that would make it easier for Americans to buy bare-bones health insurance plans and circumvent rules put in place by Obamacare.
The order would allow small businesses and individuals to band together as associations to buy cheaper health plans that would be exempt from some Obamacare requirements. Among the requirements would be the mandate that all health plans cover 10 essential health benefits, including maternity and newborn care, prescription drugs, and mental health and addiction treatment.
The order would also change an Obama-era limit on the time span people can use short-term health insurance plans, which are cheaper but cover few medical benefits. Trump was expected to order an extension for the period that long short-term insurance can be used to about a year, versus three months under Obamacare.
Republicans view Obamacare as a government intrusion into Americans' healthcare.
Experts said the association health plans could attract young, healthy people who are now opting out of Obamacare.
Conservative groups and lawmakers, including Republican Senator Rand Paul, who said he has worked with Trump for months on the expected order, and Republican Senator Ron Johnson, have cheered the expected order. Paul opposed the Senate's most recent attempt to overhaul Obamacare because he said it left too many of Obamcare's regulations and spending programs in place.
Just think: the entire Obama legacy is in shambles and Dems can only blame themselves.
Why did they nominate Hillary?
What was TTF thinking?
Eleven times out of ten, she loses that election.
Despite his business career as a builder, Donald Trump’s first year as president has focused more on dismantling his predecessor’s achievements — with less focus on how to replace them. This week gives us two key examples.
At 11:15 am ET, Trump will sign an executive order that experts believe “could rattle the Affordable Care Act’s private insurance markets by allowing a proliferation of cheaper, less comprehensive plans that would undermine rules about who and what insurers must cover,” the Huffington Post’s Jonathan Cohn writes.
“The new, less regulated insurance plans could provide an attractive alternative to consumers who don’t expect to have large medical bills and who are frustrated with the high premiums they pay for policies today. At the same time, comprehensive coverage could become harder and eventually even impossible to find, especially for people with pre-existing conditions.”
Then tomorrow, Trump is expected to announce that he’s decertifying the Iran nuclear deal, despite almost every observer and national-security expert — including in Trump’s own cabinet — saying that Iran has abided by the deal.
Wow, the Trumpeteers are really on a tear here trying to deflect people away from Herr Drumpenfuhrer's sexcapades.
The big difference though they are trying to ignore, is that Dem bad boys like Wine and Weiner lost their jobs and are too toxic for dems to touch again.
Meanwhile, the "party of family values" shepherded Groper Cleveland through to win thier party nomination, and then on to the presidency. And now they try to claim it's Hilary's and the Dem's fault we have such a deplorable president.
Meanwhile, another Gopper Groper, Bill O'Reilly started another "news" program on the internet and was back on Fox with Hanity in September. With no one mentioning how long O'Reilly had been on the air before all his sexual shenanigans caught up with him.
O'Reilly wasn't the only heterosexual predator forced to leave Fox - his creepy boss Roger Ailes and another reporter, Eric Bolling had to go to. It left many people wondering if the only dude left reporting at Fox might be the gay guy (Shepard Smith); after all, no one had accused him of harrassing anyone. Wouldn't that be a big irony for the "family values" Republican propaganda arm.
How come it took so many years for people to come forward on Ailes? People knew. But if you're a powerful, rich, white heterosexual guy, you can get away with quite a bit. Just ask the giant carrot man the next time you're on the bus with him. If you're a rich, famous black heterosexual, apparently it takes spiking girls' drinks.
"Wow, the Trumpeteers are really on a tear here trying to deflect people away from Herr Drumpenfuhrer's sexcapades."
don't you know how stupid all this type of wordplay makes you look?
Trump isn't anyone's model "boy-next-door"
but, as far as I know, he didn't threaten to fire anyone or use the media to attack them because they refused sexual advances from him
you know, like Dem bigwig Weinstein
as far as I know, he didn't send pictures of his penis to underage girls
you know, like key member of the Clinton crime family, Anthony Weiner
haven't heard that he got a BJ from an entry-level employee of his, young enough to be his daughter
you know, like the head of the Clinton crime family
haven't heard that a homosexual prostitution ring was being run out of his house by his boyfriend
you know, like Barney Frank, the Dem most responsible for the 2008 super-recession
his big crime was to brag to some reporter that women find him so attractive that they let him get away with any sexual advance he wants
deluded, I know
still, miles from the Mt Rushmore of Dem pervs: Weintein, Weiner, Bill & Barney
"And now they try to claim it's Hilary's and the Dem's fault we have such a deplorable president"
she couldn't beat the candidate with the highest negative ratings in history and it isn't her fault?
she mistakenly assumed she had Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, and North Carolina wrapped and chillaxed the weekend before the election while Trump barnstormed til 5 am election day
and that's not her fault?
she sent emails with classified info on her home server and that's not her fault?
she took money from foreign governments and gave them favors as Secretary of State and that's not her fault?
who's fault is it?
Vlad?
I guess you can't blame Hillary
she's just a woman
Lost in the uproar over the NFL sideline protests against police brutality are newly released statistics showing that the threat to black men is skyrocketing — not from trigger-happy or racist cops, but from crime.
More than any other demographic group, black men are paying the price with their lives with a surging violent crime rate over the past two years, including a 20 percent jump in the overall homicide rate, even as the number of blacks killed by police declines.
Using homicide figures from the 2016 FBI Uniform Crime Report released Sept. 25, Manhattan Institute fellow Heather Mac Donald found that the number of black homicide victims has jumped by nearly 900 per year since the Black Lives Matter movement took root in 2014.
“The majority of victims of that homicide surge have been black,” Ms. Mac Donald said in an email. “They were killed overwhelmingly by black criminals, not by the police and not by whites.”
Meanwhile, the number of blacks killed by police dipped from 259 in 2015 to 233 in 2016, with 2017 so far coming in below both years with 175 deaths as of Oct. 12, according to The Washington Post’s Fatal Force database.
"his big crime was to brag to some reporter that women find him so attractive that they let him get away with any sexual advance he wants"
What a moron. You really should stop licking the orange stuff.
No.
His crime was serially sexually assaulting women.
Bragging about it isn't a crime. It usually means you get in trouble for it though.
Weinstein's mistake was he didn't try to call it "locker room banter" to see if he could get away with it, or if that only works for Republicans.
There were 16 other Republican candidates - a few of whom were even less deplorable than the Trumpster fire.
It's not the job of Democrats to keep idiot Republicans from shooting themselves in the foot with a guy who claimed Ted Cruz's dad hung out with Lee Harvey, and that the National Enquirer should get a Pulitzer. Even some Republicans are starting to realize that now.
You keep trying to blame the gay guy (Barney) for the 2008 crash, usually by claiming that he forced banks to loan to poor people who couldn't afford them. But that simply doesn't fit facts.
Freddie and Fannie got bailed out to the tune of 187 billion dollars. The first round of Bank bailouts was $700 billion. So for anyone who can do some basic math, the question is where did the other $513 billion go?
Here's a hint. It wasn't to bail out bad loans to poor people. Freddie and Fannie had a lower default rate than banks that served people with more money. The fact is we don't know where it all went. Some of it went to AIG, and there are signs it left the country after that.
Thanks to something called "credit default swaps," and banking regulations that had been egregiously and blindly dismantled by decades of the Republican theology of deregulation, hedge funds all over the planet built up an investment bubble in a market with no significant capital requirements. That was bad enough, but under Bush, even regulations that were still in place, simply weren't enforced. This led to the creation of "liar loans" where mortgage brokers simply found warm bodies to get signatures for documents where they just made up numbers like "income."
Why? Because they made big commissions selling those loans to investors. Whether those loans were any good or not wasn't a concern.
Of course, the investment banks that put these securities together also paid Bush's SEC to give them a great rating. Nevermind that in many counties it is not legal to sell a loan to someone else unless you record the transfer at the local court. Those securities could have changed hands hundreds of times without ever complying with the law.
Keep trying to blame poor people and Barney for the collapse of the $45 trillion dollar credit default swap market in 2008 (twice the size of the US stock market) but it was the rich boys playing dangerous investment games that the US taxpayer got stuck bailing out.
Anyone who can add and subtract should be able to figure that out.
"His crime was serially sexually assaulting women."
and, by that, you mean what?
I've seen TTF make a big deal because he popped a breath mint before trying a kiss with some female
let's hear what else you can document that he did
"Bragging about it isn't a crime"
well, that's all Trump did
sorry to disappoint you
Trump's sad
Weinstein a pig
see the difference?
"Weinstein's mistake was he didn't try to call it "locker room banter" to see if he could get away with it,"
no, his mistake was the overwhelming retaliation toward those who rejected his disgusting advances
oh, and trapping them in rooms and closets and chasing them down when they said no
let us know when you can show Trump did that
"Keep trying to blame poor people and Barney"
I didn't blame any poor people
I blamed Barney, the guy who had a homosexual prostitution ring running out of his townhouse
"Weinstein's mistake was he didn't try to call it "locker room banter" to see if he could get away with it,"
Wow!
the Dems start their story saying you can't blame all Dems for stuff done by the guy that finances the whole thing
now, they're feeling they have to defend him
why?
they know full well Weinstein reflects the Dem mentality:
the coastal fat-cats who think they can bully their way out of anything and have contempt for the values of flyover country
"now, they're feeling they have to defend him"
That wasn't a defense of Weinstein. It was a slam at Trump.
Find a quarter and buy a clue.
Jill Harth filed a lawsuit in 1997 in which she accused Trump of non-consensual groping of her body, among them her "intimate private parts", and "relentless" sexual harassment. The suit was withdrawn after Houraney settled with Trump for an undisclosed amount in a lawsuit that claimed that Trump backed out of a business deal. She still claims to have been sexually assaulted and although he was never violent with her, she says he made attacks that were "unwanted and aggressive, very sexually aggressive."
---------
Suddenly, according to Ivana, The Donald storms into the room. He is looking very angry, and he is cursing out loud. “Your fucking doctor has ruined me!” he screams. The Donald flings Ivana down onto the bed. Then he pins back her arms and grabs her by the hair. The part of her head he is grabbing corresponds to the spot on his head where the scalp reduction operation has been done. The Donald starts ripping out Ivana’s hair by the handful, as if he is trying to make her feel the same kind of pain that he is feeling. Ivana starts crying and screaming. The entire bed is being covered with strands of her golden locks. But The Donald is not finished. He rips off her clothes and unzips his pants. Then he jams his penis inside her for the first time in more than sixteen months. Ivana is terrified. This is not lovemaking. This is not romantic sex. It is a violent assault. She later describes what The Donald is doing to her in no uncertain terms. According to the versions she repeats to some of her closest confidantes, “He raped me.” When The Donald finally pulls out, Ivana jumps up from the bed. Then she runs upstairs to her mother’s room. She locks the door and stays there crying for the rest of the night. The next morning Ivana musters up the courage to return to the master bedroom. The Donald is there waiting for her. He leaves no doubt that he knows exactly what he did to her the night before. As she looks in horror at the ripped-out hair scattered all over the bed, he glares at her and asks with menacing casualness: “Does it hurt?
When Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump was to be released, Ivana Trump provided a statement that was inserted into the book. It read:
During a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband had raped me. I wish to say that on one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a ‘rape,’ but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.
Ivana’s statement does not contradict her deposition nor exonerate Donald for his abusive conduct. Her statement did not deny Donald’s conduct of pushing her, pulling her hair out from her scalp, or sexually “violating” her. (It is important to note that the Trump’s 1991 Settlement Agreement includes a gag order which forbids Ivana from speaking about her marriage to Donald without his permission.)
Ivana's claim of rape was believed by a judge and in 1990 she was granted a divorce, in New York, on the grounds of “Cruel and Inhumane Treatment”. In New York, a couple cannot divorce absent a showing of grounds, unlike every other State. In all other states, a couple can file under the oh so popular, “irreconcilable differences” grounds.
""Weinstein's mistake was he didn't try to call it "locker room banter" to see if he could get away with it,"
Wow!
the Dems start their story saying you can't blame all Dems for stuff done by the guy that finances the whole thing"
How soon they forget. It's George Soros who finances the whole thing. Just ask Bannon's Breitbart, he'll set you straight:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/11/soros-funded-protest-at-white-house-demands-prosecution-for-donald-trump-jr/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/14/report-left-wing-billionaire-george-soros-upping-lobbying-efforts-in-2017/
http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2017/10/05/nfl-players-union-partnered-george-soros-fund-leftist-advocacy-groups/
Thousands of people in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, this week opened their mail to find vile and disturbing neo-Nazi flyers.
The white supremacist(s) behind the mass mailing appeared to have scoped out neighborhoods in three towns: East Greenville, Red Hill and Pennsburg.
East Greenville Police Chief Andrew Skelton told HuffPost that a resident with a Philadelphia Eagles flag in their front yard got an envelope addressed to “Eagles fan.” Another envelope, addressed to “Proud American,” was sent to a resident with an American flag in their front yard. And another envelope, addressed to “Intrepid Gardener,” was sent to a resident often seen gardening in their front yard.
Warning: Disturbing images below.
The flyers come two months after a violent white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia — the largest such rally in over a decade — drew attention to a resurgent and emboldened white supremacist movement in the United States.
Marilyn Mayo, senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism, said flyer campaigns like this are designed to “promote white nationalism and anti-Semitism.”
The ADL, Mayo said, has documented a “huge recruitment drive” by white supremacist groups in recent months that includes coordinated flyer campaigns in towns across the country, primarily on college campuses.
It’s unclear why this part of Pennsylvania, halfway between Philadelphia and Allentown, was targeted. Skelton, the police chief, said he had consulted with the Montgomery County District Attorney’s office, which told him the mass mailing didn’t amount to a crime.
“Is it disturbing? Yes,” Skelton said. “But a crime? No.”
A report by NBC10 estimated that 5,000 flyers were sent out in total. Allyson Sanders, 30, received one of those flyers at her Pennsburg home Tuesday afternoon.
Inside the envelope — addressed simply to “Head of Household”— was a flyer featuring an apparently non-white man holding a knife to the throat of a white man in a business suit.
“‘Multicultural’ USA’,” it read. “Felling Enriched?”
At the bottom of the flyer is the web address for The Right Stuff, a prominent white supremacist site, next to a Swastika in Confederate flag colors and what appears to be the logo for The Daily Shoah, a Right Stuff podcast.
“I’m glad I opened it and not my kids."
That night at dinner, Sanders said she was discussing hatred and intolerance with her two young daughters, when they heard a knock on the door. It was their neighbor, a 70-year-old immigrant woman.
“She came over completely shook up,” Sanders recalled. She had also received a flyer, this one featuring a man holding a Nazi flag next to the words “White and Proud.”
“Initially she thought she was targeted,” Sanders said, adding that she then explained to the neighbor that nearly everyone in town had received the flyers too.
Elsewhere in the area, people received flyers featuring quotes from Adolf Hitler and Nazi Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels. Another included the Rudyard Kipling poem, “Wrath of the Awakened Saxon.” And another featured a crude, anti-Semitic drawing of a Jewish man playing puppeteer to American politicians.
Mayo, of the ADL, said that although such flyer campaigns rarely rise to the level of a crime, they still “impact communities and make them feel fearful or intimidated in some way.”
"That wasn't a defense of Weinstein. It was a slam at Trump."
by comparing Weinstein to an innocent person, you defend him
"Jill Harth filed a lawsuit in 1997 in which she accused Trump of non-consensual groping of her body, among them her "intimate private parts", and "relentless" sexual harassment. The suit was withdrawn after Houraney settled with Trump for an undisclosed amount in a lawsuit that claimed that Trump backed out of a business deal. She still claims to have been sexually assaulted and although he was never violent with her, she says he made attacks that were "unwanted and aggressive, very sexually aggressive.""
he wasn't violent just aggressive
and not only did he not retaliate over the accusations but he helped her financially
doesn't sound anything like Weinstein
"I wish to say that on one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a ‘rape,’ but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense."
why don't you believe the accuser?
again, nothing like Weinstein
you pretty much prove my point by coming up with two examples:
some relationship over 20 years ago that went bad
and his wife, whom he still has good relations with, who once used the term "rape" in a heated divorce case and later conceded it was rhetoric used to gain a legal advantage
that's all you've got?
sad!
"It's George Soros who finances the whole thing."
well, Weinstein wasn't alone but it will cause a big hole for Dems now that they can't take his money
this is as big a financial problem for Dems as when the SCOTUS ruled that corporations have the same rights as unions to make political donations
"Find a quarter and buy a clue."
based on what Weinstein paid, I think your type of "clue" goes for more than that!!
"Welcome to Trumplandia. White supremacists are trying to recruit your kids to hate minorities. Thousands of people in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, this week opened their mail to find vile and disturbing neo-Nazi flyers."
Trump has nothing to do with these groups which liberals have tried to encourage for political purposes.
these fringe groups have always existed and are best ignored
giving them trivial issues like confederate statues and sports mascots helps them to try to build support
fighting the Civil War again is really not in anyone's interest
Trump on Friday became the first sitting president to address the Values Voter Summit, an event sponsored by the Family Research Council.
The Values Voter Summit started in 2006 as a gathering for people who want “to preserve the bedrock values of traditional marriage, religious liberty, sanctity of life and limited government.”
During his remarks at the event in Washington, D.C., on Friday, Trump touted his administrations “religious freedom” guidance, arguing that “no religious group is ever targeted under my administration.”
Trump spoke at the summit as a presidential candidate in both 2015 and 2016.
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said Friday that President Trump is “systematically” removing hundreds of regulations put in place by the Obama administration.
“The president has already knocked out some 860 rules and regulations from the Obama administration, and every day we’re finding more and more to do. Remember, Obama put in something like 7,000 new rules and regulations just in the last two years he was in office,” Mr. Ross said.
When asked what types of regulations Mr. Trump was removing — whether oil and gas, environmental or banking — the secretary responded, “All of the above.”
“You would think the American public was a wild and woolly place two years earlier to require 7,000 new rules. But the president is systematically removing them, changing them, getting rid of them. And I think we’ll beat his formula of two reductions for one increase,” he said.
Mr. Ross said the upturn in the economy is due to the loosening of these regulations, and companies have said they feel the relief of less regulation and enforcement. He did say infrastructure is also a top priority for businesses and Mr. Trump.
Responding to a question by BBC’s Andrew Marr on disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, Hillary Clinton, the disgraced former secretary of state, in an interview published Friday, claimed her 2016 presidential rival was a self-confessed “sexual assaulter.”
Mrs. Clinton said she was “shocked and appalled” at decades of sexual harassment charges against Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein — a long-time Democratic Party donor — before bringing up Mr. Trump.
“This kind of behavior cannot be tolerated anywhere, whether it’s in entertainment -or politics,” Mrs. Clinton said. “After all, we have someone admitting to being a sexual assaulter in the Oval Office. There has to be a recognition that we must stand against the kind of action that is so sexist and misogynistic.”
Mr. Marr then noted that Mrs. Clinton’s memoir, “What Happened,” seems unconcerned about sexual-assault accusations against former President Bill Clinton.
“In your book, the three women brought on stage during the 2016 campaign by Trump attacking your husband, you kind of dismiss them. Was that the right thing to do? Are you sure about that?”
“Well yes, because that had all been litigated,” Mrs. Clinton replied.
The question by Mr. Marr was in reference to an October 2016 debate performance in St. Louis, Missouri, in which Mr. Clinton’s accusers — Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones — sat in the audience.
Juanita Broaddrick insists Mr. Clinton raped her in 1978 when she was 35 years old.
Kathleen Willey says Mr. Clinton sexually assaulted her November 1993 while she was a former White House aide.
Paula Jones filed a lawsuit against Mr. Clinton for sexual harassment in 1994. An $850,000 out-of-court settlement was reached in 1998.
Mrs. Clinton’s remarks to BBC are a likely response to a 2005 “Access Hollywood” tape released during Mr. Trump’s campaign, which featured lewd remarks to then-host Billy Bush.
“I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it, you can do anything — grab women by the p-y,” the billionaire told Mr. Bush.
“This was locker room banter, a private conversation that took place many years ago,” Mr. Trump said after the story broke. “Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course — not even close. I apologize if anyone was offended.”
"Welcome to Trumplandia. White supremacists are trying to recruit your kids to hate minorities. Thousands of people in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, this week opened their mail to find vile and disturbing neo-Nazi flyers."
Trump has nothing to do with these groups"
Everybody knows who it was that claimed there were "very fine people" who marched in Charlottesville right there with those tiki-torch bearing neo-Nazis and white supremacists.
And now everyone knows There’s Something Horribly Familiar About The Accusations Against Harvey Weinstein
They sound like the accusations against the president of the United States.
[Look at those two privileged white pussy grabbers with their beautiful trophy wives.]
"The accusations of sexual assault and harassment against movie mogul Harvey Weinstein are sickening. Women describe a man who coerced them into unwanted physical contact ― and got away with it because ultimately, he was powerful and famous and they were not.
The accusations also sound a lot like what women have said about President Donald Trump.
The Republican Party ― including members of Trump’s own family ― has aggressively gone after Democrats who once hobnobbed with Weinstein and took campaign donations from him.
At the same time, they’re supporting a man who is accused of much of the exact same behavior.
Below are statements from women describing what Trump and Weinstein allegedly did to them. They sound remarkably similar. Sliding to the left will reveal which man they’re referring to.
[He] then lunger at her, groping her breast and attempting to put a hand up her skirt while she protested. He = Weinstein
According to [her], [he] grabbed her breasts and tried to put his hand up her skirt. "He was like an octopus," she said. "His hands were everywhere." He = Trump
..."
"why don't you believe the accuser?"
That's your reading comprehension problem again. No one here even implied they didn't believe the accuser. Is English your first language? I can run it through Google translate first to help you. I just have to select the "English > Barely Literate Blowhard" option.
"again, nothing like Weinstein"
Indeed. Nothing I've heard so far from Weinstein's victims comes close to the abuse did to his ex. Of course she's friendly to him -she paid him a lot of money and knows the kind of abuse he will do when provoked - or even when not provoked. It's called "self-preservation."
Keep minimizing what Trump did - I'm sure you'll be proud of your support for him after he leaves office and leaves the country in a mess. Abusers gotta stick together.
You keep bringing up Bill's faults, but America didn't know of the extent of his bad behavior before he got in office the way we did Trump. And Hillary didn't make him do any of that philandering.
Put up all the smoke screen you like, but anyone with more than a couple of ounces of grey matter knows that.
Haven't you got anything better?
No one is surprised Trump was the first sitting pres to address the FRC shindig. He was also the first pres in modern history to openly court the white supremacists vote.
Both are hardcore Christian groups that want to get rid of people they don't like. One is willing to get more physical than the other, but philosophically, they are essentially the same. Their differences are mostly in tactics and style.
The FRC wants to regulate LGBT folks to the fringes of society, while the skin heads want to beat the crap out of them. They are mutually supportive of each other.
And now they have one of their own on Pennsylvania Ave.
"Everybody knows who it was that claimed there were "very fine people" who marched in Charlottesville right there with those tiki-torch bearing neo-Nazis and white supremacists."
a much-hyped statement by those rabid to attack Trump
without analyzing to a ridiculous degree, it's enough to say that he has since made it clear that he didn't mean that neo-Nazis are "fine people"
you want that to be true though, and you are a person that obviously believes what he wants to believe
"They sound like the accusations against the president of the United States."
not based on anything you've posted here
"The accusations of sexual assault and harassment against movie mogul Harvey Weinstein are sickening. Women describe a man who coerced them into unwanted physical contact ― and got away with it because ultimately, he was powerful and famous and they were not.
The accusations also sound a lot like what women have said about President Donald Trump."
actually, they're completely
Trump made moves but didn't retaliate when rejected
Weinstein did a lot more sickening- and weird- stuff
and he ttried to destroy any women who rejected him
"No one here even implied they didn't believe the accuser."
actually, Ivana said she misused the word "rape" and you said she didn't
"Indeed. Nothing I've heard so far from Weinstein's victims comes close to the abuse did to his ex. Of course she's friendly to him -she paid him a lot of money and knows the kind of abuse he will do when provoked - or even when not provoked. It's called "self-preservation."
it's call consent
and you need to read more about Weinnstein
"Keep minimizing what Trump did - I'm sure you'll be proud of your support for him after he leaves office and leaves the country in a mess."
actually, I'd much prefer a libertarian in office and anyone with a little maturity and class
I don't want that so much as to abandon the Constitution to those who want to undermine it, however
what you call "support" is simply me defending truth from the rabid foaming hyperbole that is inflaming our society
no other motive
"Abusers gotta stick together."
wow! pretty slanderous but I'll ignore it
"You keep bringing up Bill's faults, but America didn't know of the extent of his bad behavior before he got in office the way we did Trump."
Trump didn't do the type of things Bill did
the incidents you cited were nothing compared to Bill's rapes and misuse of public office
"And Hillary didn't make him do any of that philandering."
she has participated in attacking his accusers
"He was also the first pres in modern history to openly court the white supremacists vote."
actually, you have accused many Republicans of that
Nixon, both Bushes
"Both are hardcore Christian groups that want to get rid of people they don't like."
you know absolutely nothing about FRC
FRC is inclusive of all races and only pursues moral suasion
to disagree with you about sexual morality is not a hate crime
"The FRC wants to regulate LGBT folks to the fringes of society, while the skin heads want to beat the crap out of them. They are mutually supportive of each other."
that you see no difference between laws and violence is revealing of the bankruptcy of your viewpoint
Charlottesville had nothing to do with homosexuality, btw
you're kind of self-centered
it's all about you
The Bible is, after all, foreign law; none of it was written in America. It would, therefore, be in order for President Trump to revise biblical law by executive order — much as he used one this week to dismantle Obamacare without an act of Congress. He could place a copy of the order, etched in a 2 ½ -ton stone monument, in the White House Entrance Hall.
Some proposed revisions:
In Luke 6:31, strike “as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise,” and substitute: “Do ye unto men as ye would like.”
In Mark 12:31, after the phrase “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” insert: “Thou shalt not interpret anything in Section 12:31 as applying to residents of Puerto Rico.”
In Matthew 5:5, after the phrase “Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth,” insert the phrase: “The meek shalt not necessarily inherit health insurance.”
In Matthew 6:24, after the phrase “Ye cannot serve God and mammon,” insert: “But ye can hire private air charters and military aircraft at thine own discretion.”
In Exodus 20: 1-17, popularly known as “The Ten Commandments,” the following deletions, revisions and additions are to be made:
After the phrase, in 20:4, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,” insert the language: “Exempt from the term ‘graven image’ will be: (a) Time magazine covers, actual or simulated; and, (b) life-size portraits of the president purchased at auction with charitable funds.”
The phrase, in Exodus 20:8-11, is hereby revised to state the following: “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Acceptable remembrances of the sabbath include (a) any golf played in Bedminster, N.J., (hereafter referred to as The Land of Milk and Honey); (b) any golf played at Mar-a-Lago, Palm Beach, Fla. (hereafter referred to as the Garden of Eden).”
In Exodus 20:12, in the phrase “Honor thy father and thy mother,” insert: “Inasmuch as they hath given thee a very, very small loan of $14 million.”
In Exodus 20:13, after the phrase “Thou shalt not kill,” insert the following: “Thou mayest, however, totally destroy North Korea, which thou shalt accomplish by expanding thy nuclear arsenal tenfold.”
In Exodus 20:14, following the phrase “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” insert: “What thou has done with thine previous wives is thine own business.”
In Exodus 20:15, after the phrase “Thou shalt not steal,” insert: “Exempt from section 20:15 shall be ‘emoluments’ as defined in the U.S. Constitution.
In Exodus 20:16, the phrase “Thou shalt not bear false witness” is to be amended with the following: “No Pinocchios, nor Pants-on-Fire, nor any other description of false witness by the Fake News Media shall be judged as evidence thou violated clause 20:16.”
In Exodus 20:17, after the phrase “Thou shalt not covet,” insert: “but thou canst grabbest whomsoever by whatsoever part, if thou art a star.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-holy-bible-according-to-trump/2017/10/13/53b37752-b01d-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html
"President Trump used executive orders this week to dismantle Obamacare without an act of Congress"
is this a lie, or just a disingenuous statement?
it's a lie
Trump's orders don't dismantle Obamacare at all
Obama issued a number of executive orders to save this bad piece of legislation
Trump has reversed these orders, which were unconstitutional, and thrown it back to Congress, the body that the Constitution charges with making the law
if Congress wants to enact Obama's executive orders into law, they may
although, since it's obvious Obamacare, as passed by the Dem Congress, doesn't work, why not repeal and replace?
yes, absolutely
WHY NOT?
they're building Democratic party version of Mt Rushmore on Mount Trashmore in Virginia
Harvey, Anthony, Bill and Barney:
Dem bigwig Weinstein: anyone who refused sexual advances from him,
he threatened to fire and use the media to attack them, and he raped other women
member of the Clinton crime family, Anthony Weiner: he sent pictures of his penis to underage girls, and any other women he encountered in cyber-space
the head of the Clinton crime family: he got a BJ from an entry-level employee of his, young enough to be his daughter, and raped other women
Barney Frank, the Dem most responsible for the 2008 super-recession: a homosexual prostitution ring was being run out of his house by his boyfriend
Democratic Party elder statesman offers to pay for a witch hunt to get dirt on Trump:
"Hustler Magazine publisher Larry Flynt has purchased a full-paid advertisement running in The Washington Post this weekend offering $10 million for information leading to President Trump’s impeachment and removal from office."
Harvey Weinstein
Anthony Weiner
Bill Clinton
Barney Frank
Larry Flynt
who says the Democratic Party has no leaders?
Last year at the 89th Annual Academy Awards, then-Vice President Joe Biden walked on stage to a standing ovation. He gave a passionate speech on the topic of campus sexual assault, about the need to speak up and “intervene in situations when consent has not or cannot be given.”
In 2013, Michelle Obama appeared at the Oscars via satellite from the White House decked in full evening gown and flanked by U.S. military service members to announce the winner of the best picture Oscar.
The late night hosts who only last week were happy to help Chuck Schumer push the Democrats’ gun control message are suddenly mute when it comes to Weinstein. And this is exactly where the Democrats find themselves in a bind. The party has depended on celebrity messaging for eight years.
It’s also the reason why Democrats can’t easily undo their connections to the sexual assault scandal involving super mogul Harvey Weinstein that is currently rocking the foundations of the industry.
Weinstein once stated that Hollywood “has the best moral compass, because it has compassion” – and for the past eight or so years, the Democratic Party has embraced Weinstein and his philosophy on Hollywood.
The flirtations between the party and Hollywood were not simply brief cameos at awards shows. President Obama used Hollywood to push almost every social action program his administration rolled out.
On ObamaCare, he enrolled the likes of Bill Murray in an Oval Office visit, and his famous “Between Two Ferns” appearance with Zach Galifianakis. Several celebrities, including Amy Pohler, Connie Britton, Olivia Wilde and Lady Gaga, Mark Ruffalo, Alyssa Milano and Mia Farrow participated in hashtag campaigns to “#GetCovered”.
When Obama wanted to give the impression he was tackling prison reform, he went to HBO and Vice. On Opioid abuse, he enlisted MTV to film a video at the White House. Tom Hanks wrote about the virtues of free community college for the New York Times. Christina Hendricks was invited by the White House to speak at a family values summit. Alison Janney of West Wing fame cameoed to a twitterpated White House press corps.
On the Iran Deal, Obama enlisted Morgan Freeman as well as comedian and nuclear physicist Jack Black. Saturday Night Live, which refused to address the Weinstein scandal altogether last weekend, sang “To Sir With Love” to send Obama off into the sunset after eight years of Hollywood doting. By the end of his term, Obama had gone full Hollywood, appearing with Jerry Seinfeld simply for the fun of it.
This was why, despite very few actual legislative accomplishments, Obama’s presidency always felt more relevant in the moment than perhaps it actually was. It was so intertwined with the same faces in our culture that we see on magazine stands, album covers, movie screens and sitcoms. Obama always felt fresh and cool among the Hollywood elite, despite his party being decimated out from underneath him in consecutive congressional wave elections.
Obama and his administration wanted to be as much a part of Hollywood as Hollywood wanted to be a part of him. This was his chosen path to push his agenda -- through the people in culture with the loudest microphones whom he felt could influence the largest number of people to fall in line with his ideas.
Hillary Clinton tried to mimic this same strategy with her campaign, enlisting TV stars and pop stars to help drag her over the finish line. Clinton chose high-priced Hollywood fundraisers at the homes of stars like Gwenyth Paltrow over campaign stops in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Names such as George Clooney (also a personal friend of the Obamas), Ben Affleck and Matt Damon offered public support. Clooney alone raised $1.5 million for Clinton at a fundraiser in April of last year, with such names as Spielberg and Katzenberg in attendance.
Clinton regularly appeared on the campaign trail next to celebs such as Jay Z (a personal friend of Weinstein’s) and Beyoncé. Lena Dunham appeared with her in Ohio (a state she lost), as did the cast of the long defunct “West Wing.” Katy Perry was a Clinton campaign staple, even outfitting herself in dresses with Hillary’s slogan and logos. Actress Elizabeth Banks appeared at the Democratic Convention this past year, expertly mocking Donald Trump’s strobe light spaceship entrance onto the stage.
None of this, it seems, worked against Trump – who was able to tap into the forgotten voters of the rural rustbelt. These are the voters who don’t much care what Jimmy Kimmel or Sean Penn or Leonardo DiCaprio are preaching to them about the Earth’s climate or gun control – maybe because they’re more worried about the fact that they can’t afford their health care premium and have to use money to pay for their ObamaCare tax penalty that they could have used to fix their house, or car, or take their family on a vacation instead.
In fact, it seems the more Democrats have depended on Hollywood stars to sell their message, the more that most of the middle class in the middle of the country have tuned them out as their legislative and electoral majorities shrink.
Actress Alyssa Milano and other entertainment types campaigned actively for Democrat John Ossoff, who lost a money-soaked election in Georgia’s 6th District in June. Hollywood was also vocal in Montana’s May congressional election, where Republican Greg Gianforte coasted to victory, even after being charged for assaulting a reporter only days before.
The question now, heading into 2018 and 2020, is where does the party go without its celebrity base – which they have almost no choice but to shun in the fallout surrounding Harvey Weinstein and Hollywood’s pathetically lame (and delayed) response to the “open secret” (according to many) of his decades-long sexual exploitation of women.
Weinstein’s connections run deeper than simple campaign donations. Weinstein sold influence. He was so “in” among the Democratic Power Base that President Obama felt comfortable enough allowing his teenage daughter to intern for his film company. For the Democrats and their party, hoping to catch the coattails of the Obama cool they’ve been severely lacking since his exit, severing their connections to an industry facing a crisis of character will be easier said than done.
The late night hosts who only last week were happy to help Chuck Schumer push the Democrats’ gun control message are suddenly mute when it comes to Weinstein. And this is exactly where the Democrats find themselves in a bind. The party has depended on celebrity messaging for the better part of eight years, and were clearly planning to depend on it heading into the 2018 and 2020 elections (remember Maxine Waters appearing to raucous applause as a voice of The Resistance™ at the MTV Movie Awards?).
But the days of happy backslapping with Ben Affleck and George Clooney are coming to an end for a party that now has to distance itself from celebrity-spokespeople who were content to lecture the rest of the country about their religion, their guns or their politics – but who couldn’t seem to bring themselves to clean up their own house by calling out one of their closest friends and business colleagues for preying upon vulnerable young women – for years.
If the Democrats were a smart party – and they’ve done nothing of late to suggest that they are – they would be huddling in offices around the parts of the country they lost, devising a plan of action on how to move on without Hollywood spokespeople who will do nothing but remind voters of their association with Weinstein.
Distancing themselves from Hollywood and Weinstein could, in fact, ultimately be a gift to a decimated party flailing for a message beyond symbolic resistance. It could force Democrats to get back to the dirty work of organizing at a grassroots level and focusing on a message that appeals to that big useless chunk of land between Los Angeles and New York.
But just as it was apparently evident with Harvey Weinstein, the rest of Hollywood isn’t particularly good at taking “no” for answer.
Thanks ever so much for the FOX news garbage which shall remain unread.
I see you are still freaking out about Hollywood, but you seem to have forgotten Saint Ronald Reagan was a twice married actor (to two different actresses) who acted in Hollywood movies!!
Donald Trump is a three times (so far) married TV star of his own television show.
Big Hollywood stars like Scott Baio, Ted Nugent, and Kid Rock are all solid Trumpsters! They gave speeches on Trump's behalf during the Republican Convention last year.
Larry Flynt cost Bob Livingston his 3 hours speakership and if he can expose the truth about the pussy grabber's past for all the world to see, more power to him.
Everyone but the TTF troll sees the GOP's very own affinity for the entertainment industry but I'm pretty sure we all see the TTF troll's as well as GOP's fear and loathing of Larry Flynt's ability to expose the truth.
Malia Obama interned for Harvey Weinstein. Are we to believe the Secret Service didn't vet Weinstein and report to Barack? give us all a break.
Weinstein and the end of the liberal elite:
https://medium.com/@a_sharp_writer/harvey-weinstein-and-the-death-of-liberal-america-2901c268b4e9
What did Barack know and when did he know it?
he knew everything from the moment he became President
but someone had to pay for his TV ads
All things dull and ugly
All creatures short and squat
All things rude and nasty,
The lord god made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings.
He made their brutish venom,
He made their horrid wings.
All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small
All things foul and dangerous
The lord god made them all.
All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small.
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The lord god made them all.
Amen.
For all the headlines about “dismantling Obamacare,” President Trump’s executive order will likely have less of an impact than its supporters hope or critics fear. Still, it represents a modest step toward giving consumers more choices and expanding millions of Americans’ access to lower cost insurance that better fits their individual needs.
First, understand what this order is not. It neither takes anyone’s insurance away nor removes protections for people with pre-existing conditions.
What it does is allow small businesses that band together to buy group insurance plans to be treated the same way as big companies are today. That includes the ability to buy insurance across state lines, and an exemption from some of Obamacare’s expensive mandated benefits. Plans might offer fewer benefits, but they could cost a lot less.
Individuals within a company still can’t be charged more or denied coverage because of their health. And purchasing insurance across state lines challenges the power of the insurance cartel’s monopoly power in some states.
If individuals end up being allowed to buy insurance on these association plans, it would dramatically expand options for millions of Americans.
This wouldn’t come close to fixing all of Obamacare’s problems, but it’s still a win for consumers.
This executive order should be considered separately from the administration’s effort to stop paying price stabilization subsidies to insurance companies. In that case, the administration is essentially complying with a federal court ruling that the subsidies were illegal. Yes, if the subsidies stop it could further destabilize insurance markets, but that was starting to happen anyway.
Ideally, Congress should have rewritten the Affordable Care Act, and in using an executive order to rewrite parts of the health care law, President Trump is following a route repeatedly trod by President Obama. Only this time, the president’s actions will give consumers more freedom rather than less.
Wyatt/bad anonymous dissembled "President Trump’s executive order will likely have less of an impact than its supporters hope or critics fear. Still, it represents a modest step toward giving consumers more choices and expanding millions of Americans’ access to [extremely high] cost insurance that better fits their individual needs.".
LOL, yes, Republicans giving Americans "access to" insurance in the same way that all Americans have "access to" a Lamborghini 95% of them can never afford.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Congressional Budget Office analysis shows 20 million Americans will lose access to health care as a result of Trump sabotaging Obamacare.
Trump's only goal as president is to undo everything Obama did no matter how many people it F's over because Obama made fun of him at the 2012 Correspondents Dinner. Trump is a petty, small, and evil man.
That's Republican BS for you - absurdly claiming killing the subsidies that make health insurance affordable for Americans is going to make it cheaper.
These people have no shame. They are truly evil.
The Threat of President Trump
There are over 3 million people in Puerto Rico , all American citizens, who are suffering and in a state of crisis.
Three weeks after Hurricane Maria, more than 90% of the island has no electricity (hospitals are running on diesel generators), almost half have no cell or landline phone service, and over a third have no clean water to drink or wash with. In desperation, people are turning to wastewater-contaminated wells, raising the threat of waterborne diseases. Store shelves are empty; debris-blocked roads are cutting off much of the island, especially the rural interior. Making things worse, unemployment is soaring as people are laid off from destroyed and blacked-out businesses. The official death toll is almost certainly an undercount.
Predictably, the sociopath-in-chief and his congressional allies are already threatening to cut off federal aid soon. It’s the same as what we’ve seen in Flint: conservatives will spend trillions of dollars on bombs and guns, trillions of dollars on giveaways to the rich and not have a second thought, but when ordinary American citizens have no clean drinking water, their capacity for concern shrivels up.
This month, Tennessee Senator Bob Corker became the latest Republican to admit the obvious:
Senator Bob Corker, the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, charged in an interview on Sunday that President Trump was treating his office like “a reality show,” with reckless threats toward other countries that could set the nation “on the path to World War III.”
The substance of this critique isn’t news. It’s perfectly obvious, and was perfectly obvious long before the election, that Trump’s public persona isn’t an act. He really is the erratic, narcissistic egomaniac he seems to be.
But what Corker said about his fellow Republicans is news, or should be. He asserted that “the vast majority” of the Republican caucus feels the same way as he does, yet none of them are saying anything. Whether he meant it this way or not, that’s a brutal statement about the void of moral courage in the Republican party. They know perfectly well that Trump is unstable and dangerous, but they’re so afraid of a backlash from their own voters that they’re unwilling to say so, even when the stakes are World War III.
I’m not being metaphorical about World War III. It seems that only now, a year after the election, is it starting to sink in among Republican officeholders that the planet’s largest economy and nuclear arsenal are controlled by a vindictive lunatic with a toddler’s level of impulse control.
Congressional Republicans know Trump is “paranoid” and “unhinged” and they’re terrified of him flying off the handle and starting a nuclear war. Others are thinking about doing what Bob did. Sounding the alarm. They think Trump’s nuts. Unfit. Dangerous…. Tillerson would leave tomorrow if he wasn’t so worried Trump would go nuclear, literally.
Meanwhile, an article in Vanity Fair by Gabriel Sherman paints a portrait of a White House on the ragged edge of chaos. It depicts Trump as paranoid, delusional and furious, stalking the corridors like a modern Lady Macbeth, while his highest aides are literally trying to cut him off from the outside world in a bid to stop him from doing something disastrous.
"LOL, yes, Republicans giving Americans "access to" insurance in the same way that all Americans have "access to" a Lamborghini 95% of them can never afford.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!"
Actually, Trump has made it possible for individuals to choose what insurance they want and can afford. Obama required Lamborghini health plans and then fined people if they couldn't afford them. The typical f'ed socialist mentality.
For anyone who doesn't visit here often, Priya's comments often feature strings of laughter, likely reflecting time spent in a mental institution.
"Congressional Budget Office analysis shows 20 million Americans will lose access to health care as a result of Trump sabotaging Obamacare."
CBO analyses usually feature many unlikely assumptions, which is why what they say rarely comes to pass. For example before Obamacare was passed, they said it would lower the deficit. In short, their studies are only valuable if you are able to read them in detail. Or, in Priya's case, understand them at all.
"Trump's only goal as president is to undo everything Obama"
Not a bad goal. Turned out the day Obama was elected was not the day the seas started to retreat. The whole hopey, changey thing didn't work too well.
"Trump is a petty, small, and evil man."
Yeah, he's too gay-friendly.
"That's Republican BS for you - absurdly claiming killing the subsidies that make health insurance affordable for Americans is going to make it cheaper."
That's Priya's ADD for you. We weren't talking about the subsidies EO but the other one.
"These people have no shame. They are truly evil."
You say you're looking for trouble?
You came to the right place.
You know if you chase Trump out, you'll wind up with someone who is not gay-friendly:
President Trump once joked that Vice President Mike Pence “wants to hang” all gay people, The New Yorker reported Monday.
The publication also reports that Trump has mocked Pence for his views opposing LGBTQ rights.
And when a meeting began to focus on gay rights, Trump reportedly pointed to Pence, joking, “Don’t ask that guy — he wants to hang them all!”
One Trump campaign staffer also told The New Yorker that Trump used to ask people leaving meetings with Pence, “Did Mike make you pray?"
One source said the president likes to "let Pence know who's boss," according to the report.
Pence has repeatedly clashed with the LGBTQ community throughout his political career, including his support of an amendment in 2006 that would have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. He also said at the time that legalizing same-sex marriage would cause a “societal collapse.”
The vice president has become the target of LGBTQ protests since moving to Washington, including a "queer dance party" outside his former Washington residence in January.
It was about as successful as the kiss-in outside Chik-Fil-A a few years ago.
One former official even speculated that Kelly and Secretary of Defense James Mattis have discussed what they would do in the event Trump ordered a nuclear first strike. “Would they tackle him?” the person said.
All these minimally competent Republicans (and to be clear, minimal is the right word) are thoroughly miserable and dispirited, but they’re staying on out of terror of what Trump might do without even the small amount of restraint they can exert. This is what the United States has come to. The nation founded on Enlightenment ideals, that invented the internet, and put the first human being on the moon, is now reduced to speculating about cabinet members tackling the president to physically restrain him from launching a planet-destroying nuclear war.
But this crisis isn’t the fault of one man, however reckless and immature he is. Trump is the bitter fruit of a tree that conservatives planted and have been tending for decades. In their debasement of knowledge and intellectual authority; their all-fear-all-the-time style of campaigning; their appeals to rage and xenophobia; their exaltation of from-the-gut decision-making and know-nothing belligerence as virtues in and of themselves; in all these things, they’ve done their utmost to make their voters stupid, resentful and easily led, and their voters acted accordingly. Trump is the demon they created, and the fact that they’re cowering from his shadow and can only speak their mind in whispers is fittingly ironic – if it weren’t for the fact that he might drag us all down along with him.
Trump is threatening to cut off aid to Puerto Rico because they criticized him for the poor job he's doing there. He's sending a message to them "Praise me regardless of how poor a job I'm doing or I'll make things even worse for you".
For Trump being president is all about trying to make himself look good to get back at Obama for making fun of him during the 2012 Correspondents Dinner. He couldn't care less about how destructive his actions are as long as they make him feel good about himself.
"Hi everybody! It's Priya again. Just want to remind you how stupid I am!!"
Oh, we know. We know.
"Trump is threatening to cut off aid to Puerto Rico because they criticized him for the poor job he's doing there."
Who is "they"? The governor of Puerto Rico says the Trump administration has been very responsive and he has been very appreciative.
The mayor of San Juan made some negative remarks, but she has a very low approval rating with her constituents. Not really representative of "they".
"He's sending a message to them "Praise me regardless of how poor a job I'm doing or I'll make things even worse for you"."
Let's see that quote.
"For Trump being president is all about trying to make himself look good to get back at Obama for making fun of him during the 2012 Correspondents Dinner."
Virtually everyone America has made fun of Trump. Don't think he's too riled about Obama.
The Clinton Foundation said Monday it plans to keep a six-figure donation from disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein.
“we have no plans to return them,” said the foundation in a statement to the press.
Mr. Weinstein is listed on the foundation’s website on its tally of contributors who have given $250,000.
The foundation’s decision comes with Democrats rushing to donate to charity campaign contributions from Mr. Weinstein, a major Democratic donor whose favorite politicians included Hillary Clinton, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, all of New York.
LOL, it sure doesn't take much to get Wyatt/bad anonymous in a tizzy because he can't defend his bullshite.
Hahhahahahahahahahahahahaha!
President Donald Trump on Monday said he hopes he will get the chance to go head-to-head against Hillary Clinton again.
“I was recently asked if Crooked Hillary Clinton is going to run in 2020? My answer was, ‘I hope so!’” Trump tweeted Monday morning.
Trump broke through the “blue wall” in a surprise victory last November, winning states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
The billionaire businessman turned president also noted Monday that the early months of his presidency have been a huge success, touting the strong performance of the stock market.
“Since Election Day on November 8, the Stock Market is up more than 25%, unemployment is at a 17 year low & companies are coming back to U.S.,” Trump wrote in another tweet.
“The U.S. has gained more than 5.2 trillion dollars in Stock Market Value since Election Day! Also, record business enthusiasm,” he added in another.
Clinton has inconsistently blamed her loss on a rotating list of actors, including then-FBI Director James Comey, Russian head of state Vladimir Putin, and socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Last week, I went to a dinner event at social club of which I am a member but rarely patronize. You will guess why when I tell you I ran into a friend of longstanding—someone I know well, but hadn’t seen in a couple of years—and she greeted me with the exclamation, “Here’s a Trumpster!” I could see that that was partly for the benefit of the gents she was talking to, a sort of tribal-marking announcement (“He’s one of those, boys”) but I couldn’t immediately tell whether the glint in her eye was friendly or otherwise. She soon cleared up that ambiguity. I said something about “our president.” “He’s not my president,” she snapped, adding that Donald Trump was deeply unpopular and would probably be driven from office soon.
“Actually,” I offered, “his approval ratings are on the rise.”
“So were Mussolini’s,” came the icy rejoinder.
Got it. At least I knew where we stood.
One is encouraged to leave politics at the front door of this particular club (unlike London’s “Other Club” where Rule 12 stipulates that “Nothing in the rules or intercourse of the Club shall interfere with the rancour or asperity of party politics”). But so thoroughly pink is the majority of the membership that the issue rarely arises. For the herd of independent minds, unanimity is a consoling patent of authenticity. “We all believe this, ergo it must be true—indeed, it is invisible. It simply is.”
Hence a defining irony of the contemporary progressive (one cannot truthfully call it “liberal”) dispensation: convinced that their opinions represent not their opinions but, on the contrary, that they mirror a virtuous state of nature, they regard dissent not as disagreement but as either heresy or insanity. The former calls for condemnation or ostracism, the latter for pity tinctured by contempt.
Donald Trump has introduced several novelties into this dynamic. From the point of view of my (I suspect former) friend, Trump is both (never mind the contradiction) an impossibility and an affront. Everyone she talks to knows this.
And yet on the ground, in the real world, Trump is methodically pushing ahead with the agenda he campaigned on. That includes:
Nominating judges and justices who can be counted on to interpret and enforce the law but do not endeavor to use the law to promote their social agenda;
Addressing the problem of illegal immigration and securing the borders of the United States;
Developing America’s vast energy resources;
Rolling back the regulatory state, especially the administrative overreach of agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency;
Pursuing policies that put America, and American workers, first, not to the detriment of our relationships with our international partners but through a recognition that strength and sovereign independence make nations more reliable actors;
Restoring the combat readiness and morale of the United States military;
Simplifying the U.S. tax code, making it more competitive for U.S. businesses and more equitable for individuals;
Getting a handle on the unconstitutional and shockingly inefficient monstrosity ironically called the Affordable Care Act;
Putting a stop to the obscene violation of due process that Title IX fanatics brought to college campuses across the country.
And many other initiatives large and small.
In all of these areas, Trump is proceeding not as a wrecking ball but as a deliberate, if often voluble and sometimes exasperating, agent of change.
On the campaign trail, Trump promised that, if elected, the American people would start “winning” again. “You’ll have so much winning,” he said, “you’ll get bored with winning.”
Now, almost nine months into his first term, how is he doing? Real unemployment is on the wane. The stock market is at an historic high. So is consumer confidence. Illegal immigration is down nearly 70 percent. America is now a net exporter of energy. Just a few days ago, Trump declined to re-certify the malevolent nuclear deal that Obama made with Iran, winning from Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu this commendation: “I congratulate President Trump for his courageous decision today. He boldly confronted Iran’s terrorist regime. . . . If the Iran deal is left unchanged, one thing is absolutely certain—in a few years’ time, the world’s foremost terrorist regime will have an arsenal of nuclear weapons and that’s a tremendous danger for our collective future.”
Just a couple of days ago, Trump, having been disappointed by a supine Republican Congress, issued an executive order that will make it easier for people to band together to obtain health insurance tailored to their needs (instead of being forced into federally defined, one-size-fits-all plans) while also ending the unconstitutional federal subsidies (unconstitutional because the money wasn’t appropriated by Congress) to big insurance companies, amounting to some $7 billion per year (the price of getting those companies on board with Obamacare in the first place).
In any normal world, these would be called significant accomplishments. But in the NeverTrump bubble, none of these victories can evade the protective refracting mirrors that intercept and distort the message. For months, the Huffington Post ran the following disclaimer after every article about Trump: “Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims—1.6 billion members of an entire religion—from entering the U.S.” Even now, according to the Pew Research Center, only 5 percent of news stories about Trump are positive.
Moreover, in the surreal and paranoid precincts of the NeverTrump bubble, fake news and outright fabrication proliferate. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is going to quit—say “sources”—only he isn’t. Chief of Staff John Kelly is keeping people from seeing Trump, is irritated by his tweets, is frustrated by the president’s behavior. Only he isn’t. As Kelly said at a press conference last week, Trump’s agenda is pursuing “what’s good for America.” Asked directly whether Trump’s tweets made his job more difficult, Kelly said “No.” Trump himself he described as a “decisive” and “thoughtful” man of action who was sometimes impatient with the slow-moving habits of Congress. His chief frustration, said Kelly, was with the press for reporting things that were simply not true. Asked by one reporter what he expected them to do, he said: “Maybe develop better sources.”
Kelly’s presser represented a wrinkle in the bubble—there are more and more of them these days—and it will be interesting to watch what happens when the wind finally changes.
Trump’s victorious battle with the NFL represents another wrinkle in the bubble. Football is supposed to be a beloved American pastime, not an opportunity for overpaid beefcakes to act out their adolescent political grievances. So far, it’s Trump:1. NFL: 0.
Over the past several weeks, one source of putative moral authority after the next has been snatched from the Left. The Harvey-Weinstein-Ben-Affleck-Oliver-Stone sexual assault nexus has broken a spell that not even mega-donations to the Clinton Foundation can redeem. When Donald Trump went to Warsaw and spoke up in defense of “Western civilization,” the NeverTrump bubble vibrated with cacophonous vituperation. How dare he!?
But he did dare, and just this week Trump upped the ante and announced that his administration was “returning moral clarity to our view of the world,” “stopping cold the attacks on Judeo-Christian values,” including those who condemn people for wishing one another “Merry Christmas.”
There’s a disturbance in the bubble. What just happened to the NFL and Hollywood is happening in many other avenues of our culture. Sometimes, when a thunderstorm is nigh, the wind suddenly shifts and picks up, the birds get nervous, and you can feel the storm arriving before the rain actually starts. I believe that is about to happen in American culture, though who exactly will be left standing out in the rain is a little unclear. I do expect, however, that fewer and fewer redoubts of anti- or NeverTrump complacency will remain as his policies continue to deliver winning scenarios for Americans. Maybe the next time I go to that club there will be less Mussolini and more comity.
The consensus amongst economists is that it takes about a year for an incoming presidents policies to start having an effect on the economy. Due to Bush policies the American economy was in a tailspin the first year Obama was in office but turned around a year later and there was 7 years of unprecedented job creation growth.
In 2016 Trump ranted that the unemployment numbers of the Obama economy were fake and real unemployment was as high as 40%. Hilariously Trump now claims the unemployment rate is real even though its calculated the same way by the same people it was when he was claiming it was all a lie. Obviously Trump can't have it both ways - if the numbers were fake then, they are fake now when Trump is president. If the numbers are real now they were real when Obama was president.
The current American economy is the Obama economy. The failing Trump administration hasn't implemented any policies that could affect the economy and even if it had it couldn't start having an effect until January 2018.
More standard Republican bullshite from Wyatt/bad anonymous trying to pretend Trump isn't a total disaster:
"Simplifying the U.S. tax code, making it more competitive for U.S. businesses and more equitable for individuals".
Trump hasn't made ANY changes to the U.S. tax code, he can't get any legislation past his own Republican party. But that won't stop Republicans from making such patently false claims of "accomplishments" by Trump. Trump supporters love to lie about how his many empty promises have been kept when nothing's been done.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Wyatt/bad anonymous posted about the non-existant "war on christmas".
Trump claimed that people are now able to say "Merry Christmas" again despite the fact that no one had ever been prevented from doing so in the past and Trump has done nothing that would aid people in saying "Merry Christmas" since he became president.
More fake victimhood from American religious fanatics. They love pretending they're victims when they've never experienced any hardship whatsoever and virtually ever politician is an ardent christian.
They're so hard done by! Won't someone think of the children!
A reported pause in global warming between 1998 and 2014 was false, according to US-British research.
Scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of York, England, corroborated the results of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) research paper in 2015.
Their findings were reported in the US journal Science Advances.
The NOAA paper had shown ocean buoys now used to measure water temperatures tend to report slightly cooler temperatures than older ship-based systems.
The switch to buoy measurements had hidden some of the real-world warming during the 1998-2014 period, the NOAA scientists concluded.
The NOAA paper had drawn outrage from global warming deniers who alleged there had been a "global warming hiatus" .
The US House of Representatives, controlled by the Republican Party, had even demanded the NOAA scientists provide lawmakers with their email exchanges about the research.
The US government agency agreed to transmit data and respond to scientific questions but refused to hand over the emails of the study's authors, a decision supported by scientists worried about political interference.
"Our results mean that essentially NOAA got it right, that they were not cooking the books," said Zeke Hausfather, a graduate student in UC Berkeley's Energy and Resources Group and lead author of the new study.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in a report published in September 2013, said the average global warming between 1951 and 2012 had been 0.12 degrees Celsius (0.22 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade.
But between 1998 and 2012, warming had amounted to only 0.07 degrees Celsius per decade, indicating a 'global warming hiatus.'
The 2015 NOAA analysis, which was adjusted to correct for the "cold bias" of buoy measurements, found there was no detectable slowdown in ocean warming over the previous 15 years.
Reporting in the journal Science, the NOAA scientists said the oceans has actually warmed 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade since 2000, nearly twice as fast as the earlier estimates of 0.07 degrees Celsius per decade.
That brought the rate of ocean temperature rise in line with estimates for the previous 30 years, between 1970 and 1999.
The new study uses independent data from satellites and Argo floats, a worldwide satellite-based location and data collection system, as well as from buoys.
The information gathered confirmed the NOAA results in 2015 were correct, the scientists said.
"We were initially skeptical of the NOAA result, because it showed faster warming than a previous updated record from the UK Met Office," said Kevin Cowtan of the University of York.
"So we set out to test it for ourselves, using different methods and different data. We now think NOAA got it right, and a new dataset from the Japan Meteorological Agency also agrees," he said.
And of course even if there had been a pause in global warming between 1998 and 2014, 2014 was the hottest year on record, then 2015 was the record hottest year which was topped by 2016 as the record hottest year.
Obviously global warming hasn't stopped.
Wyatt/bad anonymous accepts the reality of global warming but his identity as a conservative Republican is more important to him than the truth and he considers a marker of that identity to be global warming denial so he lies about it all the time.
The latest opinion polls show a solid majority of Americans think the country is going in the wrong direction despite the strength of the Obama economy Trump hasn't had time to destroy yet.
Normally opinion polls mirror the economy but even with a great economy Americans are terrified of the loose cannon Trump.
Wyatt/bad anonymous whined "Even now, according to the Pew Research Center, only 5 percent of news stories about Trump are positive."
Too bad Wyatt, reality has a well known liberal bias - virtually all the stories about Trump are negative because he's been an unmitigated disaster for the U.S. and potentially the world (WWIII anyone?)
Trump joked about Pence wanting to hang gays.
During a meeting with a legal scholar, Trump belittled Pence’s determination to overturn Roe v. Wade. The legal scholar had said that, if the Supreme Court did so, many states would likely legalize abortion on their own. “You see?” Trump asked Pence. “You’ve wasted all this time and energy on it, and it’s not going to end abortion anyway.” When the conversation turned to gay rights, Trump motioned toward Pence and joked, “Don’t ask that guy—he wants to hang them all!”
Bottom line: Trump knows that Pence is a right-wing Christian extremist with a faith based hatred for LGBT people, and he thinks it’s funny.
Trump himself may not care about gays one way or the other but he sees he can curry favour with his base by attacking and oppressing LGBT people so that's what he is doing.
"Hi everybody! It's Priya again. Just want to remind you how stupid I am!!"
Oh, we know. We know.
"The consensus amongst economists is that it takes about a year for an incoming presidents policies to start having an effect on the economy"
Actually, the economy is not a machine and economics is not that precise. Factors in any given economy vary. The Obama economy was so anemic because of the uncertainty he created with over-regulation. Anticipation of Trump lowering tax rates and regulation caused an immediate change is the psychology of businesses and consumers. It's the economy, stupid.
"Due to Bush policies the American economy was in a tailspin the first year Obama was in office but turned around a year later and there was 7 years of unprecedented job creation growth."
Strange, Obama didn't think things were going so well when he ran for re-election four years later. He was still blaming Bush for it then. Funny, based on his statements, he wasn't aware that things had been going great for THREE YEARS!!
He should have checked with the Wizard of Odd, Priya, the chief Economist and Bottle Washer for the Fringe-top Mounties.
Poor Barack! he couldn't see how greatly his economy was boooooming!
"In 2016 Trump ranted that the unemployment numbers of the Obama economy were fake and real unemployment was as high as 40%. Hilariously Trump now claims the unemployment rate is real even though its calculated the same way by the same people it was when he was claiming it was all a lie."
Except real employment is up, labor participation rates have returned to the pre-Obama level. It was calculated the same way. Labor participation rates were a disaster for Obama. Priya the Stupid said it was because baby boomers were retiring. But, calculated the same way, these rates have returned to their level before the Obama debacle.
"The current American economy is the Obama economy. The failing Trump administration hasn't implemented any policies that could affect the economy and even if it had it couldn't start having an effect until January 2018."
Hundreds of regulations have been eliminated. This was an action by Trump and the business community has responded.
Also, illegal immigration is way down so Priya won't show up scaring the kids on Halloween.
Trump joking that Pence wants to hang all the gays:
"My VP wants to commit genocide! Against American citizens! Haha! What a laugh riot! So funny!"
But he's the most gay friendly presidential candidate ever, amirite?
Now that's treating gays "like real people" unlike those Democrats who want to use gays for their own agenda of preventing discrimination against them and allowing them to marry!
Wyatt/bad anonymous said "Hundreds of regulations have been eliminated. This was an action by Trump and the business community has responded.".
Another lie just like your claim that Trump had simplfied and improved the tax code and all the other "accomplishments" you falsely claimed he had when in fact he's failed miserably at getting legislation passed his own Republican party.
Trump has signed a few executive orders that will rape the environment that sustains us all but those will all be undone when the Democratic president takes over in 2020. The executive orders only changed a few regulations, not hundreds.
Funny how when Obama won the 2012 election Wyatt/bad anonymous said it didn't matter because the president was a largely ceremonial office that had no real power. See when a Democrat is the president the presidential position is ceremonial, when a Republican is president all of sudden its important and even when the president does nothing Wyatt/bad anonymous delusionally thinks he's made accomplishments.
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
DOJ’s “Cynical Publicity Stunt” In Aiding Prosecution In Murder Of Iowa Trans Teen
Of course it is important and right that the Department of Justice assist in bringing to justice the murderer of Kedarie/Kandicee Johnson, one of the far too many transgender people, and especially transgender people of color, targeted in the ongoing lethal epidemic of hate violence. But it is the height of cynicism for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to use this – frankly rare – instance of civil rights enforcement under his tenure to deflect from the current department’s sustained opposition to its historic mission.
No one in the Trump administration has done more to harm LGBT people, and especially transgender people, than Jeff Sessions – and in a government chock full of anti-LGBT appointees, that is saying a lot.
From revoking the guidance that assured trans kids they were welcome in school to asserting that transgender workers do not deserve protection against employment discrimination to defending Trump’s unconstitutional ban of transgender troops, Sessions has again and again defined transgender Americans as second-class citizens and has created an environment that encourages and enables violence against trans people.
He has similarly undermined the civil rights and safety of people of color, through such actions as his order to review all consent decrees designed to address systemic police violence.
For Sessions now to seek credit for helping prosecute hate crimes against transgender people is akin to him handing out gasoline and matches and then looking for a pat on the back when he prosecutes someone for committing arson.
She didn’t name names, but when Monica Lewinsky joined the viral online campaign against sexual harassment Sunday by retweeting #MeToo, the first person who came to mind was President Bill Clinton.
Therein lies the problem for the Clintons with the Harvey Weinstein sexual-harassment scandal: It hits perilously close to home.
Not only was Mr. Weinstein a political ally and a major donor to the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation, but his alleged sexual misconduct has refocused attention on Mr. Clinton’s own checkered past as the tide turns against powerful men who take advantage of women.
“The question is on everyone’s lips: how could we have let Weinstein’s crimes continue for so long? Yet there’s little in the Weinstein story—the years of whispers of impropriety, the past allegations by women, the intimate connection with a party that advertises itself as a defender of women—that doesn’t apply to Bill Clinton,” said Jacobin’s Branko Marcetic.
Another connection emerged Monday with reports that Mr. Weinstein gave the maximum $10,000 to Mr. Clinton while he was in the White House to fund his legal defense during the independent counsel’s perjury investigation related to his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
She was a 22-year-old White House intern and he was commander-in-chief when they had an affair. Another three women—Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey—have accused him of sexual harassment or assault.
Other Hollywood bigwigs who helped Mr. Clinton cover the costs of his defense include Tom Hanks, Michael Douglas and Barbara Streisand, along with studio executives David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg, according to the 1998 article in the Washington Post.
Other celebrities have since been accused of misconduct in what director Woody Allen—himself no stranger to sexual-abuse allegations—has warned could become a “witch-hunt atmosphere,” but so far Mr. Clinton has largely received a pass from Hollywood and the left.
Mr. Clinton’s name was notably missing when the feminist publication Jezebel cited “Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Bill O’Reilly, R. Kelly, Roger Ailes, and Donald Trump” as “not the only men who have allegedly abused women from positions of great power.”
One celebrity who did break ranks was chef Anthony Bourdain, who criticized Mrs. Clintons interview Thursday on CNN as “shameful in its deflection and disingenuousness,” sparking a backlash from Clinton supporters and aides
After actor George Clooney condemned Mr. Weinstein’s behavior by citing Mr. Ailes and Mr. Cosby, fellow actor James Woods came out swinging.
“Did you forget President #BillClinton, George? The power imbalance between him and a helpless intern is prima facie sexual harassment,” said Mr. Woods on Twitter.
Mrs. Clinton has moved to shift attention to President Trump, telling the BBC in a Friday interview that “we have someone admitting to being a sexual assaulter in the Oval Office.”
Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski didn’t let the comment slide, noting that Mr. Clinton ended up paying $850,000 to settle the Paula Jones case and resigned from the Supreme Court bar rather than face disbarment for lying under oath.
“There was a sexual assaulter in the White House. He was called Bill Clinton,” Mr. Lewandowski said on Fox News, adding, “That’s the sexual assaulter she should be talking about in the White House.”
Asked by the BBC about her dismissal of allegations against her husband by multiple women, Mrs. Clinton replied, “That has all been litigated.”
“That was the subject of a huge investigation as you might recall in the late ‘90s and there were conclusions drawn. That was clearly in the past,” she said.
In a Thursday interview, Mrs. Clinton blasted Mr. Weinstein’s alleged behavior as “intolerable in every way,” admitting that she would probably have considered him a friend.
The Clintons had rented a house in the Hamptons next to Mr. Weinstein’s vacation home, and Mrs. Clinton has been frequently photographed with the former head of the Weinstein Company over the years.
“People who never spoke out before having the courage to speak out just clearly demonstrates that this behavior that he engaged in cannot be tolerated,” Mrs. Clinton told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria.
Conservative commentator Tomi Lahren accused the former First Lady of hypocrisy.
“The funniest thing about her comment there is that she finds this intolerable,” Ms. Lahren said Sunday on Fox’s “Watters’ World.” “Um, you’re still married to Bill. Apparently, you don’t find these things that intolerable.”
Actress Alyssa Milano launched the #MeToo hashtag on Sunday, unleashing a flood of retweets from women who included stars Debra Messing and Anna Paquin, as well as liberal groups like Planned Parenthood and the Women’s March.
Also retweeting was conservative radio host Dana Loesch, who said she spent her weekend “preparing to move due to repeated threats from gun control advocates.”
More than a dozen women have said they were pressured for sex or harassed by Mr. Weinstein over a period spanning nearly two decades, including three who told the New Yorker’s Ronan Farrow that he raped them.
A spokeswoman for Mr. Weinstein has denied allegations of “nonconsensual sex” and said that “there were never any acts of retaliation against any women for refusing his advances.”
“Mr. Weinstein has begun counseling, has listened to the community and is pursuing a better path,” said spokeswoman Sallie Hofmeister in a statement last week.
He was expelled Saturday from the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, which said in a statement that it hoped to “send a message that the era of willful ignorance and shameful complicity in sexually predatory behavior and workplace harassment in our industry is over.”
DOJ’s “Cynical Publicity Stunt” In Aiding Prosecution In Murder Of Iowa Trans Teen
The person who was charged with the murder isn't white.
That's the reason that the Evil Elf is sending 'help'.
Session did the same as Alabama AG, attack minority rights in every way imaginable, then prosecute one or two bigots as cover.
Trump to address another anti-LGBT hate group.
"Obviously global warming hasn't stopped."
It's too late to do anything now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQqcuEfKfu0
you should have warned us!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA6id4--BDg
we're having a chilly night in DC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgxPq4isAI8
Trump to address anti-LGBT hate group
This is no different different than Trump addressing a white supremacist group like the KKK.
No one on this forum is surprised that the anti black, anti Latino, anti Muslim popular vote losing , admitted sexual predator is turning more hatred against LBGTs.
Wyatt/bad anonymous said "It's too late to do anything now".
By cutting back on greenhouse gasses we can maximize the amount of time the human race has before it goes extinct and most if not all life on the planet is destroyed.
I told you the combination of religion and technology would destroy the human race.
Republicans prevented action on global warming largely because they foolishly believed a god controls the climate and wouldn't let it destroy us.
Russian Troll Factory Worker Reveals All Were Made To Watch House Of Cards To Learn About US Politics
October 16, 2017 2016 In Review, Politics
Yahoo News reports:
The Russians who worked for a notorious St. Petersburg “troll factory” that was part of Vladimir Putin’s campaign to influence the 2016 presidential election were required to watch the “House of Cards” television series to help them craft messages to “set up the Americans against their own government,” according to an interview broadcast Sunday (in Russian) with a former member of the troll factory’s elite English language department.
The interview, broadcast by the independent Russian TV station Rain, provides new insight into how the troll factory formerly known as the Internet Research Agency targeted U.S. audiences in part by posting provocative “comments” pretending to be from Americans on newspaper articles that appeared on the websites of the New York Times and Washington Post.
“At first we were forced to watch the ‘House of Cards’ in English,” said Maksim in the interview. It was part of a documented “strategy” in the English language department to fully understand how the American political system works. “It was necessary to know all the main problems of the United States of America. Tax problems, the problem of gays, sexual minorities, weapons,” he said.
The trolls were reportedly graded by their bosses based on how many “likes” their anti-gay, pro-gun, and anti-Hillary comments got.
"Hi everybody! It's Priya again. Just want to remind you how stupid I am!!"
Oh, we know. We know.
"This is no different different than Trump addressing a white supremacist group like the KKK"
Sure, it's no different - other than the fact that's it's nothing like that
Heritage Foundation is just full of non-whites
I've been to their HQ, I've seen 'em
no, stupid, opposition to homosexuality is not hate
"No one on this forum is surprised that the anti black, anti Latino, anti Muslim popular vote losing , admitted sexual predator is turning more hatred against LBGTs."
no believes it
he's a very gay-friendly chap!!
"By cutting back on greenhouse gasses we can maximize the amount of time the human race has before it goes extinct and most if not all life on the planet is destroyed."
nah, it's too late for all that crap
it's been too late for about a hundred and fifty years
hey kids, shake it together
mankind can't do anything to change the weather
b-b-b-b-b-benny, it's too late
Wyatt/bad anonymous said "opposition to gayness is not hate"
Whenever you're opposed to harmless innocent behavior that makes people happy there is no possible explanation for that other than hate.
You're a special kind of hater, a person who hates gays as a way of waging war against your own same sex attractions you can't accept.
Wyatt/bad anonymous said "mankind can't do anything to change the weather".
You don't believe that.
You know mankind has and continues to change the climate. Carbon dioxide traps more heat than nitrogen and oxygen ( a simple experiment anyone can do) and mankind has been pumping surplus CO2 into the air for 300 years. You won't admit it because you see denying global warming as being an indispensable indicator of who belongs to your conservative/Republican tribe.
Your brain evolved so that loyalty to your tribe is more important to you than telling the truth. When your tribe lies you're all in with that, you hate liberals more than you love truth and your own supposed values of conservative conservation
Liberals are aware the way people's brains evolved is often counter-productive in our modern world and strive to see the whole world as our tribe, not just those that look like, think like, and act like us. We want conservatives to thrive with us.
Conservatives so hate liberals they're willing to destroy themselves if it allows them to destroy liberals too.
Republicans deny global warming because they'd literally rather frustrate and bedevil liberals than leave a habital world for their children.
Yeah, they're that malevolent.
I said "The consensus amongst economists is that it takes about a year for an incoming presidents policies to start having an effect on the economy"
Wyatt/bad anonymous said "Actually, the economy is not a machine and economics is not that precise. Factors in any given economy vary. The Obama economy was so anemic because of the uncertainty he created with over-regulation. Anticipation of Trump lowering tax rates and regulation caused an immediate change is the psychology of businesses and consumers.".
I never said the economy was a machine or that economics was precise. The economy is performing much the same way it is now under Trump as it was under Obama, only GDP growth is slightly lower and unemployment slightly higher. Obviously you're in no position to dispute the consensus amongst economists that it takes about a year for an incoming president's policies to start having an effect on the economy. Obviously Trump has done nothing for the economy. 65% of Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction and Trump's approval rating vacilates between 32% and 40% while in the last year under Obama about 50% of Americans said the country was headed in the right direction and Obama's approval rating was well over 50%. Clearly Trump has only had a negative effect on the psychology of businesses and consumers. The economy continues to perform during Trump's first year as it did under Obama due to the structural improvements and positive policies of Obama.
I said "Due to Bush policies the American economy was in a tailspin the first year Obama was in office but turned around a year later and there was 7 years of unprecedented job creation growth."
Wyat/bad anonymous said "Strange, Obama didn't think things were going so well when he ran for re-election four years later. He was still blaming Bush for it then. Funny, based on his statements, he wasn't aware that things had been going great for THREE YEARS!!".
Nonsense. Obama regularly noted the big improvement in the economy during his presidency as have economists. He did express sympathy with the minority of Americans who hadn't benefited from the economic turnaround.
I said "In 2016 Trump ranted that the unemployment numbers of the Obama economy were fake and real unemployment was as high as 40%. Hilariously Trump now claims the unemployment rate is real even though its calculated the same way by the same people it was when he was claiming it was all a lie."
Wyatt/bad anonymous said "Except real employment is up, labor participation rates have returned to the pre-Obama level. It was calculated the same way. Labor participation rates were a disaster for Obama. Priya the Stupid said it was because baby boomers were retiring. But, calculated the same way, these rates have returned to their level before the Obama debacle.".
That's a lie of course and standard operating procedure for Wyatt/bad anonymous. He makes up whatever story will support his delusions about Trump not being a disaster and figures no one will check into it. There has been no significant change in labour participation rates since Trump became president and they certainly haven't returned to what they were before the babby boomers started retiring. Every honest and informed person knows the labour participation rates dropped because the massive baby boomer cohort is retiring.
The economy is currently going along much the same as it did under Obama because it takes about a year for an incoming president's policies to start having an effect. Obviously given Trump's record low approval levels and 65% of Americans thinking the country is going in the wrong direction the economy isn't continuing to perform due to obviously non-existant optimism over Trump, its continuing to perform because of the policies and structural changes Obama put in place to turn around the Bush recession and Trump hasn't passed any legislation to screw it up yet.
Trump Says His Predecessors Didn’t Call The Families Of Fallen Service Members. That’s Not True.
"...“The traditional way, if you look at President Obama and other presidents ― most of them didn’t make calls. A lot of them didn’t make calls. I like to call when it’s appropriate, when I think I’m able to do it,” Trump said. “They have made the ultimate sacrifice, so generally I would say that I like to call. I’m going to be calling them. I want a little time to pass.”
Other presidents have also gone beyond writing letters.
...President Barack Obama, meanwhile, made a late-night visit to an Air Force base in Dover, Delaware, in 2009 to receive the bodies of several soldiers who were killed in action.
President Trump’s claim is wrong,” an Obama spokesman told HuffPost Monday. “President Obama engaged families of the fallen and wounded warriors throughout his presidency through calls, letters, visits to Section 60 at Arlington, visits to Walter Reed, visits to Dover, and regular meetings with Gold Star Families at the White House and across the country.”
...Trump was actually playing golf on Oct. 7, the day one of the soldiers’ bodies was returned to Dover Air Force Base after the Islamic State ambush in Niger. "
Trump who never served in the military also attacked a gold star family during his Presidential campaign and insulted John McCain who withstood torture much worse than having his bald spot fixed.
A former Republican lawmaker says the nation might be better off if Democrats win back the House of Representatives in next year’s midterm election to help keep President Donald Trump in check.
David Jolly, who represented a Florida district, called Trump “unstable” and “risky when it comes to matters of national security” in an interview with MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell on Monday night.
He said:
“I personally as a Republican in the past few weeks have wondered, is the republic safer if Democrats take over the House in 2018. I raised that issue with the leading Republican in D.C. last week, and the remarkable thing is he had been thinking exactly the same thing. This is a president that needs a greater check on his power than Republicans in Congress have offered.”
Jolly suggested it could be a matter of national security.
“We do know that we have a president who very well might put this nation at risk and this Republican Congress has done nothing to check his power,” he added. “Democrats could, and we might be better off as a republic if they take the House in 2018.”
Jolly, who won a House seat in a 2014 special election and then won re-election later that year, has been a frequent Trump critic who in August called him “an ill-tempered, unqualified and at times dangerous leader of the free world.”
A one-time critic of the Affordable Care Act, Jolly changed his mind after he lost his House seat last year and became unemployed.
“I lost my doctor, and I lost my plan in 2013, and I was angry about Obamacare, and I ran for Congress,” Jolly said over the summer. “But in 2017, as an unemployed person with a preexisting condition, I knew Obamacare was there as a safety net if my wife and I needed it.”
San Antonio Spurs head coach Gregg Popovich did not hold back in his latest criticism of President Donald Trump.
The five-time NBA champion coach has a history of tearing into Trump, but on Monday he took his condemnation of the commander in chief to the next level by calling him a “soulless coward.”
In an impromptu telephone call to The Nation’s Dave Zirin, the U.S. Air Force veteran took fierce aim at POTUS’ false claim that former President Barack Obama didn’t call the families of fallen service members.
Popovich claimed Trump “thinks that he can only become large by belittling others” and said his lie about Obama was “as low as it gets.”
And he didn’t stop there:
“We have a pathological liar in the White House: unfit intellectually, emotionally, and psychologically to hold this office and the whole world knows it, especially those around him every day.”
Popovich added that the people working alongside Trump “should be ashamed” for not doing anything about his unsuitability for office.
Twitter users appeared to agree with his thoughts:
Jimmy Traina ✔ @JimmyTraina
I’m ready for the Eminem-Gregg Popovich duet at this year’s Grammys. https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/920051399555198976 …
6:24 PM - Oct 16, 2017
Micah Adams ✔ @MicahAdams13
There's a 6 billion pct chance Donald Trump is going to publicly call for Gregg Popovich to be replaced as head coach of US national team.
7:11 PM - Oct 16, 2017
Bart Hubbuch ✔ @BartHubbuch
Looking forward to Trump’s rage tweets on the “failing” Spurs and “loser” coach Gregg Popovich — winners of five NBA titles in 15 years.
6:48 PM - Oct 16, 2017
Donald J. TrumpVerified account
@realDonaldTrump
I was recently asked if Crooked Hillary Clinton is going to run in 2020? My answer was, "I hope so!"
6:12 AM - 16 Oct 2017
"Hi everybody! It's Priya again. Just want to remind you how stupid I am!!"
Oh, we know. We know.
It's not worth going line by through Priya's stupid posts but let's talk about this supposed "consensus".
The nature of economics is that no consensus exists about much of anything and usually when there has been consensus in the past, it was wrong. Indeed, the Reagan presidency pretty
much decimated the field for years, so discouraged were economists.
Go read the speeches given at the 2012 convention. The common theme was the economy was still bad and it was Bush's fault. Bill CLinton, sexual predator and friend of Weinstein, said "No one could repair the damage done in just four years. I couldn't."
While it was nice that the economy didn't collapse, Obama oversaw the worst recovery ever. Th economy was anemic even though Obama borrowed trillions, which should have sent the economy through the roof. Yet, this massive stimulus only resulted in treading water.
Additionally, the Fed, stocked with economists who apparently weren't in on Priya's supposed consensus, thought the economy was so bad that they kept interest rates at zero for the longest period in history. This too should have boomed the economy. But not if Obama's running it.
this whole BS about a "consensus" among economists is an old rhetorical trick of Dems:
"Since its inception, the Obama administration engaged in the deceptive routine of claiming that "economists," "every economist" or a "consensus" among economists is in lockstep agreement over whatever policy prescription the White House happens to be peddling at the moment.
It began with the stimulus, when President Barack Obama misleadingly asserted that "economists from across the political spectrum agree that if we don't act swiftly and boldly, we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double-digit unemployment and the American dream slipping further and further out of reach." Swiftly and boldly, perhaps, but not in the same way. The Cato Institute found 200 economists, three of them Nobel laureates—James Buchanan, Edward Prescott and Vernon Smith—who disagreed that all economists supported the president's stimulus plan.
Then there's Nobel laureate Thomas J. Sargent, who in 2010 took the White House to task for its incorrect assertions about economists' views of the stimulus bill's likely effects: "President Obama should have been told that there are respectable reasons for doubting that fiscal stimulus packages promote prosperity and (told) that there are serious economic researchers who remain unconvinced."
And after the stimulus failed to come close to achieving the rosy predictions set by the president's own Council of Economic Advisers, Obama attacked critics, ratcheting up the rhetoric to claim that "every economist"—yes, every—"from the left and the right, has said, because of the Recovery Act, what we've started to see is at least a couple of million jobs that have either been created or would have been lost."
Obama's chief economist Jason Furman wrote on his blog this week that the stimulus saved or created an average of 1.6 million jobs a year through the end of 2012. That piece of, um, data, like many contentions made by economists with an agenda, is nearly impossible to prove or disprove—and it should be nearly impossible to believe, because it comes from a White House shop that trumpeted pie-in-the-sky forecasts about recovery to begin with.
more:
http://reason.com/archives/2014/02/21/no-economic-consensus-on-minimum-wage
We all know what a big scary bully the TTF troll thinks he is, as if his taunts ever backed anyone down.
Here's the real issue: Trump is a fucking liar.
The troll's hero, the pussy grabber, just can't help himself, which is why he needs adult day care. The TTF troll could use some adult supervision too IMHO.
"Nearly two weeks after an attack on U.S. troops in the West African nation of Niger, President Donald Trump was forced to admit on Monday that he had still not spoken to the families of the soldiers killed in action.
When the final coffin carrying a Green Beret soldier killed after his unit was ambushed earlier this month -- one of the four who died in Niger -- arrived at Dover Air Force Base, Trump was not there. Nor did he bother to call the soldier's grieving family. He was playing golf, at a golf course he owns.
There have been 11 American combat fatalities in Afghanistan and 14 in Iraq so far this year, after more than a decade of combat in both countries. But while the Trump administration, and its aides in right-wing media, have pushed a narrative touting a successful war against ISIS, an outgrowth of the terrorist network attacked the Third Special Forces Group and more than 40 Nigerien soldiers on Oct. 4, near the country’s southwestern border with Mali.
The Trump administration's notable silence after the Oct. 4 ambush has drawn increasing scrutiny. During an impromptu press conference on Monday, the president was finally pressed on his apparent neglect.
The unscheduled press conference in the Rose Garden was the first time the White House has publicly addressed the four Green Berets killed in Niger — 12 days after it happened. In that time, Trump has hit the golf links seven times.
Offering what appeared to be an uncharacteristic awareness of shame and guilt, Trump retreated into his defensive default mode before ultimately backing down a bit. He said he would “at some point during the period of time call the parents.” In explaining the delay, he said, “Now it gets to a point where you know, you make four of five of them in one day, it’s a very, very tough day. For me, that’s by far the toughest.”
When pressed about why he had not spoken out earlier, Trump attempted to shift the blame, as usual, to the president before him. Specifically singling out Barack Obama, Trump falsely claimed that previous presidents hadn’t even bothered to call the families of fallen soldiers.
“So the traditional way — if you look at President Obama and other presidents — most of ’em didn’t make calls, a lot of ’em didn’t make calls. I like to call when it’s appropriate when I think I’m able to do it. They have made the ultimate sacrifice. So generally I would say that I like to call,” the president told reporters at the White House.
Multiple former staffers for both Obama and George W. Bush quickly rushed to social media to reject this outrageous falsehood.
The president was also challenged to defend his claim by NBC reporter Peter Alexander.
"Earlier you claimed President Obama never called the families of fallen soldiers," Alexander said. "How can you make that claim?"
Without an apology or admitting a mistake, Trump actually appeared to back down.
“I don’t know if he did. No, no, no,” Trump stammered. “I was told that he didn’t often and a lot of presidents don’t, they write letters.”
He continued to flop around in the mess of his own creation.
“President Obama, I think, probably did sometimes. Maybe sometimes he didn’t. I don’t know. That’s what I was told. All I can do is ask my generals,” he added. “Other presidents did not call. They’d write letters. Some presidents didn’t do anything. But I like the combination. When I can, I like the combination of a call and also a letter.”
This was an exceedingly rare example of Trump being pressed on one of his lies in real time and forced to back down..."
"Here's the real issue: Trump is a fucking liar"
really? have you heard of Bill and Hillary Clinton?
they couldn't decide what the definition of "is" is
howza about Barack?:
if you like your health insurance, you can keep it
that's just a sample
I an understand a stupid, uneducated Canadian but how did educated Americans at TTF fall for the Clinton crime syndicate
you guys really, REALLY blew it in 2016:
President Donald Trump has nominated 50 candidates to lifetime appointments to the federal bench — including a man who asserted transgender children were evidence of “Satan’s plan,” one deemed unqualified by the American Bar Association and a handful of prolific bloggers.
And the GOP has unanimously stuck by Trump’s judges. Senate Republicans have cleared judicial nominees at a comparatively rapid clip this year — even as the conservative base has complained they’re not moving fast enough — and are planning to pick up the pace even more in the coming months.
Republicans are committed to remaking the federal judiciary for generations to come.
“The judge story is an untold story,” Trump said Monday at a news conference with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. “When you think about it, Mitch and I were saying, that has consequences 40 years out, depending on the age of the judge, but 40 years out.”
No Republican senator has voted against Trump’s judicial nominees so far this year, either in committee or in confirmation votes on the floor.
The Senate has confirmed seven judges, including four to the powerful appellate courts and Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Even at the committee level, Republicans have been moving more quickly to fill the judicial vacancies.
As of Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will have held confirmation hearings for 26 district and circuit court nominees.
Trump came into office with not just an open Supreme Court seat but a historic number of vacancies on the federal bench, thanks in major part to McConnell’s dramatic slowdown of judicial confirmations in the final two years of Obama’s presidency.
Trump’s slate of judicial nominees has enthralled the right.
“We are thrilled with the nominees that we have been seeing coming out of this administration,” said Carrie Severino, the chief counsel of the conservative advocacy group Judicial Crisis Network. “It’s an issue that unites Republicans of all stripes.”
Severino’s group is pressuring the GOP-led Senate to more expeditiously confirm judges and has been privately communicating with McConnell’s aides.
Soon after, McConnell reiterated his desire to do away with the century-old “blue slip” tradition, in which senators can exercise veto power over judges nominated from their home states. He stressed that stance at the White House Monday, saying blue slips for appellate picks should “simply be a notification of how you intend to vote.” Otherwise, he added, Democratic senators could “blackball” a large portion of Trump’s circuit court nominees.
“The only fact conservatives can honestly cite is the high number of vacancies — but that is immediately undercut because Republicans are the ones who created it by confirming only 22 judges last Congress, the fewest since President Truman, including only two circuit judges,” Kang said.
Democrats and outside liberal groups have mounted a campaign to derail a slew of those candidates. But Democrats have few tools left at their disposal to stop confirmation of these lifetime appointments, after voting to eliminate the 60-vote threshold for nearly all nominations four years ago and watching Republicans eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees earlier this year.
“My illness helped me to see that what was missing in society is what was missing in me: a little heart, a lot of brotherhood. The '80s were about acquiring — acquiring wealth, power, prestige. I know. I acquired more wealth, power, and prestige than most. But you can acquire all you want and still feel empty. What power wouldn't I trade for a little more time with my family? What price wouldn't I pay for an evening with friends? It took a deadly illness to put me eye to eye with that truth, but it is a truth that the country, caught up in its ruthless ambitions and moral decay, can learn on my dime. I don't know who will lead us through the '90s, but they must be made to speak to this spiritual vacuum at the heart of American society, this tumor of the soul....I was wrong to follow the meanness of Conservatism. I should have been trying to help people instead of taking advantage of them. I don't hate anyone anymore. For the first time in my life I don't hate somebody. I have nothing but good feelings toward people. I've found Jesus Christ – It's that simple. He's made a difference. (Reagan's campaign manager "death-bed confession" in Feb. 1991 article for Life Magazine )”
There's a Pathological Liar In The Whitehouse
Trump attempted to defend his lack of public statements about the four United States soldiers who were killed in an ambush in Niger.
Trump said: “President Obama and other presidents, most of them didn’t make calls, a lot of them didn’t make calls. I like to call when it’s appropriate, when I think I’m able to do it.”
A former Obama White House official rejected Trump’s claim.
“I’ve been amazed and disappointed by so much of what this President had said, and his approach to running this country, which seems to be one of just a never-ending divisiveness. But his comments today about those who have lost loved ones in times of war and his lies that previous presidents Obama and Bush never contacted their families, is so beyond the pale, I almost don’t have the words.”
“This man in the Oval Office is a soulless coward who thinks that he can only become large by belittling others. This has of course been a common practice of his, but to do it in this manner – and to lie about how previous presidents responded to the deaths of soldiers – is as low as it gets. We have a pathological liar in the White House: unfit intellectually, emotionally, and psychologically to hold this office and the whole world knows it, especially those around him every day. The people who work with this President should be ashamed because they know it better than anyone just how unfit he is, and yet they choose to do nothing about it. This is their shame most of all.”
“Our country’s an embarrassment in the world,” Popovich told reporters.
In previous remarks, Popovich called the president-elect’s campaign commentary “xenophobic, homophobic, racist, misogynistic.” In January he said, “We’ve got to a point where you really can’t believe anything that comes out of his mouth.” And in May he said, “There’s a dark cloud, a pall over the whole country,” since Trump’s election.
The murder trial of an 8-year-old boy who was allegedly brutally abused and finally killed because he was thought to be gay has begun in Los Angeles, with a prosecutor detailing the “systematic torture” of the boy.
Gabriel Fernandez was repeatedly beaten, sustaining a fractured skull and broken ribs, and suffered burn marks, Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Jonathan Hatami told a jury Monday. The child was starved, fed cat feces and his own vomit, sprayed with pepper stray and tied up and forced to sleep in a closet, the prosecutor said in his opening statement.
Isauro Aguirre, 37, the boyfriend of the boy’s mother, is charged with murder and facing the death penalty in the case. The mother, 32-year-old Pearl Fernandez, also is charged with capital murder will be tried separately.
Gabriel Fernandez was found gagged and bound in a cabinet in the couple’s home in Palmdale, California, when first responders discovered him on May 22, 2013. He was declared brain dead and taken off life support two days later.
Hatami characterized the child as “happy and healthy” before moving from his grandparents’ home to live with his mother and her boyfriend, according to the Los Angeles Daily News. The couple told police that Gabriel “liked to hit himself, he was gay and he wanted to kill himself,” Hatami said.
Aguirre also allegedly made Gabriel wear girls’ clothes to school.
“This wasn’t about drugs. This wasn’t about mental health issues,” Hatami said. Aguirre abused the child “because he didn’t like him … he believed Gabriel was gay and to him that was a bad thing … he did it out of hatred of a little boy.”
“Gabriel’s last vision was [of Aguirre] standing over [him], beating him to death,” Hatami said. “The evidence will show that the defendant is nothing more than a bully. He was a security guard who intentionally tortured and abused a helpless and innocent little boy.”
Aguirre’s defense attorneys admit that he tortured Gabriel, but insisted the boy’s death was accidental.
Aguirre “through his actions committed the crime of murder, but ... in his mind he never intended to kill Gabriel,” defense attorney John Alan said in his opening statement.
The trial’s first witness, paramedic James Cermak testified that he first saw the boy when his partner carried his “limp, lifeless body” from a bedroom at the Palmdale house.
As the paramedics sought to revive the child, “we just started noting all the trauma on his body,” Cermak said. The abuse included “strangulation marks around his neck … bite marks, bruises head to toe,” he said.
Four Los Angeles County social workers who were assigned to the boy’s case face charges of child abuse and falsifying public records stemming from his death.
Wyatt/bad anonymous said "It's not worth going line by through Priya's stupid posts."
Hahahahahahahahahahahaahahaha!
Wyatt/bad anonymous knows he's been beaten so badly he doesn't even want to try his usual pitiful lies and B.S. to try and put a chink in my amour.
All you need to know about his absurd assertions about how "bad" the economy was under Obama is that now that Trump is president he's bragging about how great the economy is.
Trouble for Wyatt/bad anonymous is there's no appreciable difference in the economic indicators throughout the majority of Obama's presidency than there is now with the economy under Trump - The current economy under Trump is the Obama economy.
Pathetic Wyatt/bad anonymous when confronted with those facts lied and said "Except real employment is up, labor participation rates have returned to the pre-Obama level. It was calculated the same way. Labor participation rates were a disaster for Obama. Priya said it was because baby boomers were retiring. But, calculated the same way, these rates have returned to their level before the Obama debacle.".
That's a lie of course and standard operating procedure for Wyatt/bad anonymous. There has been no significant change in labour participation rates since Trump became president and they certainly haven't returned to what they were before the baby boomers started retiring. Every honest and informed person knows the labour participation rates dropped because the massive baby boomer cohort is retiring.
The consensus amongst economists is that it takes about a year for an incoming presidents policies to start having an effect on the economy. The economy is still the same as it was under Obama because Trump hasn't had time to screw it up yet. And given his utter failure to pass any significant legislation despite Republicans controlling all branches of government, if Americans are lucky, it might well be more than a year before he can screw up the Obama economic success.
So obviously there's no truth to Wyatt/bad anonymous's pathetic claims the economy under Obama was terrible and now the economy under Trump is great - the economic performance now is virtually identical to what it was under Obama.
The economy during Trump's first year is the Obama economy.
Good anonymous said "Here's the real issue: Trump is a fucking liar"
Wyatt/bad anonymous said "really? have you heard of Bill and Hillary Clinton? they couldn't decide what the definition of "is" is howza about Barack?".
And of course once again Wyatt/bad anonymous attempts a YUGE deception in trying to equate Hillary's and Barrack's honesty with Trump's massive dishonesty.
The fact of the matter is that when checked 27% of Clinton's statements were mostly false or worse compared with70% of Trump's statements being mostly false or worse
And when you check this chart you can see that Trump is the biggest liar by a LONG shot followed by 13 Republicans, then Joe Biden and lastly by Hillary and Barrack who were proven the most honest politicians in the group by far
Trump is by far the biggest liar in the history of U.S. politics and is only matched in his dishonesty by Wyatt/bad anonymous.
"Hi everybody! It's Priya again. Just want to remind you how stupid I am!!"
Oh, we know. We know.
Priya exposes innate stupidity by claiming the economy was great in Obamatime, when the Fed, an estimable group of economists, thought the economy so weak that they had to keep interest rates at zero to prop it up. And Bill Clinton did apologetics for the Obama bad economy at the 2012 Dem convention, halfway through.
Since Trump became President, the Fed has begun to raise interest rates and have said more is to come. Unemployment down, labor participation rate up, discouraged workers down, average earnings waaaaaaay up.
Meanwhile, Priya has not documented that a "consensus" of economists believe it takes a year for a change in administration to affect the economy.
"The unemployment rate fell to a 16-year low of 4.2 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday.
Additionally, the closely watched hourly wages figure jumped higher, to an annualized rate of 2.9 percent.
Economists had expected the unemployment rate to hold steady at 4.4 percent. It declined even as the labor-force participation rate rose to 63.1 percent, its highest level all year and the best reading since March 2014.
An alternate number that includes discouraged workers as well as those working part-time for economic reasons also tumbled, falling from 8.6 percent to 8.3 percent, its lowest reading since June 2007.
The number was expected to be lower than usual due to Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, which hammered Texas and Florida, respectively, as well as other states. The storm's effects were obvious — eating and drinking establishments lost 105,000 positions as workers were laid off due to damage from the record-breaking hurricanes. Harvey and Irma's effects weren't all negative when it came to jobs — Wall Street-related finance positions grew by a net 10,000 thanks to an increase of 11,000 for insurance carriers and related activities.
Revisions will bear watching in coming months, as the final payrolls number comes from the Labor Department's byzantine estimation methods. The department's household survey showed the actual level of employed Americans grew by 906,000 while the unemployment rolls fell by 331,000. The report indicated a record 154.3 million Americans at work.
Job gains for the month came from health care, at 23,000, transportation and warehousing with 22,000 and professional and business services, which added 13,000.
Many economists were prepared to dismiss the report due to the hurricanes. However, one number sure to garner attention was the wages pickup.
The BLS reported that average hourly earnings were up by 12 cents on the month to $26.55, equating to a 2.9 percent gain for the year."
All you need to know about Wyatt/bad anonymous is that he has said:
"there are many situations where its appropriate to lie.".
those numbers are yuuuuge!
poor Obama
don't go blaming his mama, cuz she tried!
uh, Priya has been lying about the consensus of economists and how great Obama's economy was
Don't believe Wyatt/bad anonymous's lies, check it out for yourself:
There has been no significant change in the labour participation rates since Trump became president
While some of the economic indicators have been marginally better since Trump became president the difference isn't statistically significant from the numbers throughout the majority of Obama's presidency - The economy now under Trump is the Obama economy.
The consensus amongst economists is that it takes about a year for an incoming president's economic policies to start having an effect on the economy - all the current economic performance is due to Obama policies, particularly given that Trump has failed to pass virtually any meaningful legislation since becoming president despite Republicans holding all chambers of government.
Wyatt/bad anonymous absurdly says because Trump has signed exectutive orders allowing companies to pollute more this has improved the economy. Once again that would take about a year to start having an effect if it was to improve the economy which it wouldn't.
Allowing companies to dump toxic coal ash in rivers increases profits but those extra profits aren't paid to employees who spend virtually all their income and create the economy, they go into the pockets of the top 1% and essentially that money is taken out of the economy because they don't spend their massive wealth, they just save it.
65% of Americans say the country is heading in the wrong direction. Trump's approval rating vacilates between 32% and 40% which is a record low for a president this early in his presidency. During Obama's last year his approval rating was well over 50% and a far greater percentage of Americans said the country was going in the right direction than do now.
Obviously the extremely unpopular Trump has had no effect on the economy to this point.
The current economy is the Obama economy.
(I love goading Wyatt/bad anonymous to spend his workday here instead of attending to his job duties. Hee hee hee hee!)
All you need to know about Wyatt/bad anonymous's posts is that his philosopy is:
"there are many situations where its appropriate to lie."
still no documentation of that "consensus" of economists
and what's this?
he's been beaten so badly he doesn't even want to try his usual pitiful lies and B.S. to try and put a chink in my amour
first, I lied
then, I don't even want to try
make up your mind
and keep your comments about amour to yourself, you weirdo
the facts Priya doesn't want you to know:
"The unemployment rate fell to a 16-year low of 4.2 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday.
Additionally, the closely watched hourly wages figure jumped higher, to an annualized rate of 2.9 percent.
Economists had expected the unemployment rate to hold steady at 4.4 percent. It declined even as the labor-force participation rate rose to 63.1 percent, its highest level all year and the best reading since March 2014.
An alternate number that includes discouraged workers as well as those working part-time for economic reasons also tumbled, falling from 8.6 percent to 8.3 percent, its lowest reading since June 2007.
The number was expected to be lower than usual due to Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, which hammered Texas and Florida, respectively, as well as other states. The storm's effects were obvious — eating and drinking establishments lost 105,000 positions as workers were laid off due to damage from the record-breaking hurricanes. Harvey and Irma's effects weren't all negative when it came to jobs — Wall Street-related finance positions grew by a net 10,000 thanks to an increase of 11,000 for insurance carriers and related activities.
Revisions will bear watching in coming months, as the final payrolls number comes from the Labor Department's byzantine estimation methods. The department's household survey showed the actual level of employed Americans grew by 906,000 while the unemployment rolls fell by 331,000. The report indicated a record 154.3 million Americans at work.
Job gains for the month came from health care, at 23,000, transportation and warehousing with 22,000 and professional and business services, which added 13,000.
Many economists were prepared to dismiss the report due to the hurricanes. However, one number sure to garner attention was the wages pickup.
The BLS reported that average hourly earnings were up by 12 cents on the month to $26.55, equating to a 2.9 percent gain for the year."
Wyatt/bad anonymous yesterday:
"Except real employment is up, labor participation rates have returned to the pre-Obama level. It was calculated the same way. Labor participation rates were a disaster for Obama...these rates have returned to their level before the Obama debacle.".
Wyatt/bad anonymous today:
"the labor-force participation rate rose to 63.1 percent, its highest level all year and the best reading since March 2014."
Note how Wyatt/bad anonymous just makes shite up on the fly. He doesn't care what the truth is. The world he inhabits is a fantasy where he can declare anything to be and it magically is, evidence and facts be damned.
Note how he falsely claims things were a disaster under Obama but better than every under Trump when in reality the economic indicator shows things were the same under Obama as they are now under Trump.
The truth is There has been no significant change in labour participation rates since Trump became president
When the economy is stable economic indicators inevitably still fluctuate up and down a bit but that isn't statistically significant. The economy Wyatt/bad anonymous absurdly claims was "terrible" under Obama is the same economy Wyatt/bad anonymous now says is "terrific" under Trump. He can't have it both ways. Either it was terrible then and it is terrible now, or it is terrific now and it was terrific under Obama.
65% of Americans say the country is heading in the wrong direction. Trump's approval rating vacilates between 32% and 40% which is a record low for a president this early in his presidency. During Obama's last year his approval rating was well over 50% and a far greater percentage of Americans said the country was going in the right direction than do now.
Obviously the extremely unpopular Trump has had no effect on the economy to this point.
The consensus amongst economists is that it takes about a year for an incoming president's economic policies to start having an effect on the economy - all the current economic performance is due to Obama policies, particularly given that Trump has failed to pass virtually any meaningful legislation since becoming president despite Republicans holding all branches of government.
The current economy is the Obama economy.
Wyatt/bad anonymous said "still no documentation of that "consensus" of economists".
If you knew anything about economics you would have read that in a variety of places as I have.
Here's one for you
“During the period from 1947 to 1974, the real income [adjusted to inflation] of households across the board remained relatively steady when measured as a percentage increase,..The gap between the rich and poor was growing, but the extent to which this was occurring was rather controlled.”
“After 1974, however, this trend changed dramatically, resulting in slower and less evenly distributed increases in real income,” he said, the result of which was a drastic widening of the gap between the rich and the poor.
Under Republican administrations, and allowing a one-year lag to provide for time for policies to have effect, unemployment has increased, while gross national product and inflation have decreased. The opposite has occurred under Democratic control of the White House. This, Bartels said, reflects the basic divergence in policy objectives of the two parties.
Where partisan differences really begin to exacerbate income inequality is taxation.
“The tax policy of Republican administrations tends to favor the wealthy segments of society through policies such as tax cuts that mostly favor the rich and businesses, and repeal of the estate tax, which only applies to multi-millionaires,” Bartels said. “Democratic policy follows more egalitarian values, utilizing redistribution of wealth through progressive taxation to decrease inequality.
“In fact, there are significant data that show a pattern between Republican administrations and slow income growth across the board, and among the poor especially. On the other hand, the data suggest that, under Democratic administrations, inequality temporarily decreases, while more robust income growth is seen overall, and is especially concentrated in the middle- and lower-classes.”
Bartels also discussed the minimum wage. Republicans tend to favor a lower minimum wage, while Democrats support its increase, he said. Historically, public opinion has been strongly in favor of increasing the minimum wage, but despite this, the political system is not responding to public opinion and the real value of the minimum wage has actually decreased since the late 1960s.
“In the 25 years between 1949 and 2004 in which Democrats controlled the White House, the real value of the minimum wage increased by $4, while during the 31 years in which Republicans were in office, it declined by about $2,” Bartels said. “Since the minimum wage is not indexed to keep up with inflation, its real value erodes unless if active efforts are made to increase it.”
Wyatt/bad anonymous yesterday:
"Except real employment is up, labor participation rates have returned to the pre-Obama level. It was calculated the same way. Labor participation rates were a disaster for Obama...these rates have returned to their level before the Obama debacle.".
Wyatt/bad anonymous today:
"the labor-force participation rate rose to 63.1 percent, its highest level all year and the best reading since March 2014."
Note how one day he falsely claims the labour participation rates under Trump are better than ever under Obama
and the next day he brags that the labour participation rates under Trump were just as good as under Obama.
When the economy is stable economic indicators inevitably still fluctuate up and down a bit but that isn't statistically significant. The economy Wyatt/bad anonymous absurdly claims was "terrible" under Obama is the same economy Wyatt/bad anonymous now says is "terrific" under Trump.
Breaking news:
In a powerful rebuke to Trump Republican senators passed a bill to restore the funding to Obamacare that Trump took away on Friday.
More and more Republican congressmen are acknowledging what a disaster Trump is and are opposing his attempts to harm the American people.
Some Republican congressmen have even said it would be better for the country if Democrats took over Congress in 2018 so they can further restrain Trump.
Republican Senator Mccain also delivered a powerful rebuke to Trump saying Trump's toxic white nationalism belongs on the ash heap of history.
Trump is not only dismally unpopular with the American people, he's increasingly unpopular what is supposed to be his own political party.
Fewer and fewer Republicans are willing to look the other way while Trump presents a grave threat to the United States and potentially the world.
"Hi everybody! It's Priya again. Just want to remind you how stupid I am!!"
Oh, we know. We know.
"Trump is not only dismally unpopular with the American people, he's increasingly unpopular what is supposed to be his own political party."
Priya, you really are a moron. The Republican Party is the place he took over by appealing to those disenfranchised by the bipartisan elites. He has never been popular with GOP officials. He's kinda like you - not really popular with anyone. Unlike you, however, look where he is.
"The economy brilliant anonymous absurdly claims was "terrible" under Obama is the same economy brilliant now says is "terrific" under Trump."
Without looking at all the indicators that show Trump's economy excelling, it's simple enough to know the Fed had to keep interest rates at zero throughout Obama's term to keep the economy from collapsing. Also, Obama and his surrogates spent years explaining that the economy was so stagnant because of Bush. They'd have hardly done that if the economy was wonderful.
Truth is, it was only in 2016 that the Dems had the temerity to believe that could rewrite history and claim that Obama had a great economy. They gained this courage because the press hated Trump so much that they dropped all pretense of objectivity and became an arm of the Clinton crime family.
"brilliant anonymous said "still no documentation of that "consensus" of economists".
If you knew anything about economics you would have read that in a variety of places as I have."
one economist said something like this nine years ago referring to the period after 1974?
that's your consensus?
it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about
the effect of a President on the economy would depend on the factor that was most predominant at the time
in Obama's case, the economy was in the doldrums because his thoughtless over-regulation of the nation's economy was suppressing growth
Trump's election removed that suppression immediately
the business now knows they can operate freely again
private enterprise is, and always has been, what makes America's economy go
"“The tax policy of Republican administrations tends to favor the wealthy segments of society through policies such as tax cuts that mostly favor the rich and businesses, and repeal of the estate tax, which only applies to multi-millionaires,” Bartels said. “Democratic policy follows more egalitarian values, utilizing redistribution of wealth through progressive taxation to decrease inequality."
egalitarianism through governmental activity is an evil force that has produced much suffering throughout history
the government has an interest in the common good, making sure no one suffers deprivation
they have no business trying to produce equal outcomes regardless of circumstances
the genius- and virtue- of America is that we are aspirational, not envious
the great friend of Dems
the guy who paid for Bill's Monica legal bills
the guy who hired Malia Obama as an intern
is in deep trouble as multiple accusations of rape have surfaced and his own brother has disowned him
and some TTFer has argued that this is the equivalent of Trump bragging about how women fall for him
sad!
"French President Emmanuel Macron says he is taking steps to strip Harvey Weinstein of his prestigious Legion of Honor medal.
This follows Weinstein's expulsion this weekend from Hollywood's Motion Picture Academy, the group that hands out the Oscars.
More than 40 women have now accused the disgraced movie mogul of sexual misconduct. This weekend, four more came forward.
One of them is British soap opera star Lysette Anthony. She says Weinstein stalked and raped her when she was a 24-year-old intern.
Anthony says Weinstein once showed up unannounced at her front door and pushed his way in.
"The truth is that Harvey Weinstein raped me in my own home," Anthony told the Sunday Times of London.
Paula Wachowiak says a 1980 meeting in Weinstein's hotel room left her shaken after he dropped his towel and asked her for a massage.
"When I got in and he closed the door, I noticed he had like a hand towel around his waist, which was all he had on," Wachowiak said. "He just came up to me and he said, 'So, was it the highlight of your internship to see me naked?'"
Another British woman, a former Weinstein employee using the alias "Sarah Smith," alleges he raped her in his London office in 1992.
Police in London say they're now investigating five allegations of sexual assault, involving three different victims.
Hollywood Reporter editorial director Matt Belloni interviewed Weinstein's brother Bob, who co-founded Miramax and The Weinstein Company.
"To call him a predator, to call him a 'sick man,' it was jarring at first and then the emotion just kept coming," Belloni said.
"I have a brother that's indefensible and crazy," Bob Weinstein told Belloni. "I want him to get the justice that he deserves."
Bob Weinstein says he was shocked by the sex assault allegations. He wouldn't answer questions about what the Weinstein Company's board members actually knew. With accusations piling up, even Weinstein's own brother describes Harvey as being "sick and depraved."
"If it comes out that the board knew about his behavior and authorized settlements, that is a deal killer for anyone who's going to support this company in my opinion," Belloni said.
This weekend, a fifth board member reportedly stepped down, leaving The Weinstein Company with just three. Deals with Disney, Amazon and Lin-Manuel Miranda have already been scrapped or are in jeopardy.
Say what you will about Donald Trump — and there’s plenty to say — he may be the first president in memory to actively limit his own branch’s power. Though far from perfect, on immigration, on funding issues, on international agreements, and on the regulatory state, the Trump administration has relinquished executive power.
So while civility, competence, and rhetoric matter, and none of those issues should be ignored, neither should the administration’s numerous actions that have helped reestablish some appropriate checks and balances.
When President Barack Obama was governing through executive fiat for more than six years, there was precious little anxiety from our elite publications regarding precedents of abuse or the constitutional overreach. Not so today. Take today’s post from Monkey Cage at The Washington Post: “Candidate Trump attacked Obama’s executive orders. President Trump loves executive orders.”
Trump might love them, but the content of these executive orders is more important than the number. Whenever people criticized Obama’s overreach, the reaction was to demand that we contrast the number of executive orders signed by the president’s Republican predecessors (in those heady days “whataboutism” was not only tolerated but favored). This is an exceptionally silly, or perhaps just an exceptionally dishonest, way to compare presidential records. Bean-counting the sum total of executive orders tells us nothing useful about the effects of those orders; one action could be more consequential than 15 or 50. Most of Trump’s executive orders to this point have been either statements of intent, administrative moves, or reviews of Obama-era orders.
There’s nothing improper about executive orders or actions meant to implement law or derived from the Constitution. (Trump’s order promoting free speech and religious freedom, for example, didn’t go nearly far enough.) But there’s plenty wrong with executive orders and actions meant to circumvent those things. Not only did the last administration habitually craft what was in essence sweeping legislation from the ether, it often framed these abuses as good governance. “Congress won’t act; we have to do something” was the central argument of Obama’s second term. Every issue was a moral imperative worthy of the president’s pen.
Re-litigating the past is often a waste of time. Fixing it, less so. There might be wide-ranging support for Deferred Action for Child Arrivals, but it was an obvious way to bypass process. Even President Obama, perhaps fearing legal challenges, called DACA “a temporary stopgap” when he first announced the policy. Trump’s intentions matter, and perhaps they are nothing more than a means of leverage. He may even step back from rescinding DACA. But relinquishing power and tasking Congress with the job of substantively changing immigration policy comports with norms of American governance. Unilaterally doing so does not.
You might also be a fan of the Paris Accord, but presidents have no business entering into faux treaties of great substance without Senate approval. I have been told many times that the Paris agreement is the most crucial international deal the world has ever known. Yet somehow it wasn’t important enough to be subjected to the traditional checks and balances of American governance, either. Global warming, explained Obama in 2013, “does not pause for partisan gridlock.” He might have well have said “my preferred partisan policy positions should not have to pause for the Constitution.”
When Democrats couldn’t pass their cap-and-trade plan, the Obama administration instituted a power plan that outstripped the legal authority Congress afforded the Environmental Protection Agency. This is how they planned on instituting the Paris Accord, as well. If Trump is successful in rescinding these onerous regulations, he will be reinstituting boundaries on the regulatory state. If your goal is inhibiting energy production, then elect members of Congress to pass legislation doing so.
The same arguments can be made for the Trump administration ending Obamacare’s concocted subsidies. Obama’s Treasury Secretary Jack Lew had ordered the administration to begin making these payments without ever publicly explaining the legal justification for why. The political justifications, on the other hand, are quite clear — it’s a way to hide the costs of Obamacare while keeping the fabricated marketplaces in business. It’s difficult to comprehend how anyone honestly believes these payments are constitutional. If American voters believe “cost-sharing reduction” subsidies are essential, Congress should pass a law appropriating taxpayers’ money for insurance companies. If they don’t pass such funding, then voters can elect people who will. That’s how we have been financing programs in this country for a couple of centuries. Trump could have fought to keep the power of funding from the White House, but he relinquished it.
For those who argue that all of this is nothing more than a malevolent effort to sabotage the Obama administration’s accomplishments, perhaps there is a lesson to be learned: Your legacy is going to be a rickety mess if you build it using imperious diktats rather than consensus.
Perhaps in an increasingly divided nation this kind of regulatory and executive teeter-tottering is what we can expect. With organic divisions comes gridlock and with gridlock comes an enticement to act outside the process. So one hopes that Trump’s nomination of Neil Gorsuch (and judges elsewhere) who take both separation of power and the dangers of the administrative state seriously will help mitigate some of this future abuse. Who knows, perhaps many of these changes will be even more important than Trump’s ugly tweets.
With everyone dropping Harvey Weinstein like a bag of drugs when the cops arrive, one wonders how his company could survive. They are going to need to some serious cash to help them through lean times and rebuild their image.
But who would possibly be stupid or crass enough to come to their rescue?
"Movie mogul Harvey Weinstein’s eponymous production house has reportedly started negotiating a potential sale of the company to private-equity firm Colony Capital, The Wall Street Journal reported Monday. The Weinstein Company also said that the two companies entered an agreement that the firm will provide an immediate infusion of cash, though the exact sum was not disclosed. Colony Capital is run by Tom Barrack, Jr., a friend and close ally of President Trump. The talks come about a week after Weinstein was fired after several women accused him of sexual assault. On Friday, the company denied all reports that it was up for sale or being dismantled."
That's Tom Barrack Jr., chairman of Trump's Presidential Inaugural Committee.
So one of the Pussy Grabber in Cheif's best buds just might save Harvey Weinstein's company. What a small world this is. Talk about the Good 'ol Boy Network.
And to think, just this past weekend, the folks at the Values Voter Summit were comparing Lester the Orange Molester favorably to their patron saint: Ronnie Raygun.
the Weinstein Company is being sold so it can be disassociated from Weinstein
the buyer is not coming to anyone's rescue
he is buying valuable assets
if Weinstein goes into bankruptcy and has to sell his house, would you consider the buyer to be rescuing Weinstein?
you really are sad and desperate
you hope you can find a way to make your heroes look normal
your heroes have been tainted and disgraced by their close association with this monster
his activities were well known and the Clinton crime family, including family friend Barack, accepted and traded favors back and forth with him
but, then, Hillary is very tolerant of disgusting creeps
am I right?
drag a dollar bill through Kalorama and it's amazing what you will come up with
"the Weinstein Company is being sold so it can be disassociated from Weinstein"
No s4!t Sherlock.
"if Weinstein goes into bankruptcy and has to sell his house, would you consider the buyer to be rescuing Weinstein?"
I'm sure whoever bought Charles Manson's house wasn't creepy at all. NOT!
"your heroes have been tainted and disgraced by their close association with this monster"
No one here ever called any Clinton a hero. But compared to the other options at the time, it was like finding a decent potato at a buffet full of moldy food.
Disgusting creeps? What about this one?
"According to the complaint, filed in a Manhattan federal court, one of Epstein’s assistants approached Jane Doe as she waited for a bus at the New York Port Authority terminal and offered the teenager money and contacts that could lead to a modeling contract if she came to a party at Epstein’s house. Jane Doe says she attended several parties at Epstein’s Upper East Side mansion, and supposedly had sexual contact with Donald Trump at four of them. The fourth and final time she attended a party with Trump, she alleges he tied her to a bed with pantyhose, raped her, then beat her and threatened to kill her and her family if she told a soul."
Trump cutting the Obamacare subsidies would have raised the federal deficit by $194 billion through 2026
An additional 1 million people would have lost insurance in 2018
Insurance companies would raise premiums by 20%
Thank god the Republicans for their powerful rebuke to Trump and putting the subsidies back in place!
"According to the complaint, filed in a Manhattan federal court, Donald Trump raped her,"
they need to forward it to Congress
that's who investigates allegations against Presidents
"No one here ever called any Clinton a hero. But compared to the other options at the time"
no, he is not a lesser of evils
they idolize him here
"Trump cutting the Obamacare subsidies would have raised the federal deficit by $194 billion through 2026"
what a bunch of crap!
when Obamacare was devised, they were pushing this fake fact
"An additional 1 million people would have lost insurance in 2018"
no, more would be able to afford plans because they could but the coverage they need, not what Obama wanted them to have
"Insurance companies would raise premiums by 20%"
no, Trump simultaneously took other steps that a consensus of economists agree will lower premiums
"Thank god the Republicans for their powerful rebuke to Trump and putting the subsidies back in place!"
thought you didn't believe in God
Trump supports their bill, which gives the subsidies two more years
then, they're out
Obama's unconstitutional action was cancelled
The only thing you need to know about Wyatt/bad anonymous's previous post is that his philosophy is:
"There are many situations where its appropriate to lie".
Republicans like Wyatt/bad anonymous keep making the false claim that killing Obamacare would allow Americans to get cheaper health care.
The truth is killing Obamacare will cause health care costs to skyrocket as shown by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office.
The specious argument devious Republicans make is that Americans will be able to buy cheaper health insurance polices.
Problem is those health care policies Republicans would put on the market are virtually useless as they don't cover serious illness, have extremely high co-pays, extremely high deductables, exclude people with pre-existing conditions, and have life-time caps that wouldn't cover any serious illness like cancer or heart disease.
The health care policies under Obamacare prohibit excluding people with pre-existing conditions, have no life time caps, have very low deductables and by law must cover a large range of services people typically will need at some point in their lives.
Republicans want to give Americans the "freedom" to buy virtually useless health care policies that cover next to nothing while causing the cost of actual health care to skyrocket.
Fortunately Americans haven't bought the Republican lies. Less than 20% support the Republican Repeal and "Replace" health "care" plan while a large majority want to keep obamacare in place.
Don't be fooled by Republican lies!
I said "Trump is not only dismally unpopular with the American people, he's increasingly unpopular what is supposed to be his own political party."
Wyatt/bad anonymous said "The Republican Party is the place he took over by appealing to those disenfranchised by the bipartisan elites. He has never been popular with GOP officials.".
Nonsense. Trump didn't win by appealing to anyone, he won because of the unprecidented interference by the Russians, the Republicans suppressed the minority vote, and because the partisan Comey falsely lead people to believe there was something huge to be concerned about over Hillary's emails. The Republican party rallied around Trump when he won the election. Since they've actually seen him in action they've become increasingly appalled with his insanity and are more and more opposing the threat he represents. Some Republicans are even saying the country will be better off if the Democrats take over congress in 2018 because they can better restrain Trump.
I said "The economy Wyatt/bad anonymous absurdly claims was "terrible" under Obama is the same economy Wyatt/bad anonymous now says is "terrific" under Trump."
Wyatt/bad anonymous said "Without looking at all the indicators that show Trump's economy excelling, it's simple enough to know the Fed had to keep interest rates at zero throughout Obama's term to keep the economy from collapsing. Also, Obama and his surrogates spent years explaining that the economy was so stagnant because of Bush. They'd have hardly done that if the economy was wonderful.".
Obviously Obama wouldn't have been re-elected in 2012 if the economy wasn't doing well - your lies aren't even remotely believable. And of course you are lying about the fed keeping interest rates at zero througout the Obama economy. The Fed said itself it kept interest rates low during the Obama economy out of concern for the global economy, not the American one. And they started raising interest rates before Trump took office as the Obama economic miracle continued to pick up steam due to the tremendous success of the Obama economic policies that turned around an economic crisis under the Bush presidency.
The fed interest rate is marginally higher as are some econonomic indicators are since Trump took office but that isn't statistically significant.
After previously lying about how the labour participation rate was a disaster under Obama and so fantastic under Trump that it was now better than the during entire Obama presidency I forced you to acknowledge that the best labour participation rate under Trump was no better than it was under Obama. The Obama economy you absurdly claim is terrible is virtually the same economy under Trump you're claiming is fantastic. The way you characterize the economy under Trump and Obama bears no resemblance to reality.
Wyatt/bad anonymous said "still no documentation of that "consensus" of economists".
I said "If you knew anything about economics you would have read that in a variety of places as I have."
Wyatt/bad anonymous said "one economist said something like this nine years ago referring to the period after 1974? that's your consensus?".
LOL! Its hilarious that you think people should take the opinion of an ignorant partisan boob like you over a renowned ivy league professor.
Its not a controversial statement that it takes about a year for an incoming presidents policies to start having an effect on the economy. The economy isn't a sports car that can turn on a dime, its like an ocean freighter that takes many miles to turnaround.
That's a generally accepted idea amongst economists that you would have read in many places as I have if you weren't so reliant on thinking "If I can imagine it to be true it magically is, facts and evidence be damned". The fact of the matter is Obama is responsible for the performance of the economy for the first year Trump is in power and quite probably longer given that Trump has utterly failed to pass any meaningful legislation despite Republicans controlling all branches of government.
Wyatt/bad anonymous said "the effect of a President on the economy would depend on the factor that was most predominant at the time in Obama's case, the economy was in the doldrums because his thoughtless over-regulation of the nation's economy was suppressing growth Trump's election removed that suppression immediately the business now knows they can operate freely again private enterprise is, and always has been, what makes America's economy go.
The Obama economy that you keep claiming was in the doldrums performed virtually identically to the Obama economy under Trump you're now claiming is fantastic. Obviously your assesment of the economy under any president is meaningless. The consensus amongst economists is that it takes about a year for an incoming presidents policies to start having an effect.
"Private enterprise" certainly isn't what makes the American economy go, its consumers that do. Without consumers purchasing goods and services the economy collapses no matter what business does. As the article I posted shows, the economy has typically done the best when it was well regulated and there is no correlation between low taxes and good economic performance. Trump has accomplished virtually nothing, he certainly has done nothing more to eliminate regulations than a few executive orders allowing companies to pollute more - virtually all regulations are still intact as they should be.
Allowing companies to dump toxic coal ash in pristine rivers citizens get their drinking water from may increase immediate profits but none of that increase will be spent on increasing pay of the company workers who would immediately spend it and pump up the economy. Instead it goes into the pockets of the upper 1% who save it and essentially remove that money from the economy. Plus research shows that any money saved by allowing companies to pollute the envrionment is lost several times over in lost productivity and health care costs due to illnesses the extra pollution causes - gutting the EPA is a fool's errand (fitting that its Trump) that saves a little in the short run and costs a very great deal in the long run.
Make no mistake about it, contrary to Wyatt/bad anonymous's delusional assertions, Trump's Executive Orders allowing companies to pollute the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat will harm the economy a great deal in the long run.
Second judge rules against latest travel ban, saying Trump’s own words show it was aimed at Muslims
A federal judge in Maryland early Wednesday issued a second halt on the latest version of President Trump’s travel ban, asserting that the president’s own comments on the campaign trail and on Twitter convinced him that the directive was akin to an unconstitutional Muslim ban.
U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang issued a somewhat less complete halt on the ban than his counterpart in Hawaii did a day earlier, blocking the administration from enforcing the directive only on those who lacked a “bona fide” relationship with a person or entity in the U.S., such as family members or some type of professional or other engagement in the United States.
[Federal judge blocks Trump’s third travel ban]
But in some ways, Chuang’s ruling was more personally cutting to Trump, as he said the president’s own words cast his latest attempt to impose a travel blockade as the “inextricable re-animation of the twice-enjoined Muslim ban.”
The third iteration of Trump’s travel ban had been set to go fully into effect early Wednesday, barring various types of travelers from Syria, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Chad, Somalia, North Korea and Venezuela. Even before Chuang’s ruling, though, a federal judge in Hawaii stopped it — at least temporarily — for all of the countries except North Korea and Venezuela.
That judge, Derrick K. Watson, blocked the administration from enforcing the measure on anyone from the six countries, not just those with a “bona fide” U.S. tie. But his ruling did not address whether Trump’s intent in imposing the directive was to discriminate against Muslims. He said the president had merely exceeded the authority Congress had given him in immigration law.
The Justice Department already had vowed to appeal Watson’s ruling, which the White House said “undercuts the President’s efforts to keep the American people safe and enforce minimum security standards for entry into the United States.” Both Watson’s temporary restraining order and Chuang’s preliminary injunction are also interim measures, meant to maintain the status quo as the parties continue to argue the case....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/second-judge-rules-against-latest-travel-ban-saying-trumps-own-words-show-it-was-aimed-at-muslims/2017/10/18/5ecdaa44-b3ed-11e7-9e58-e6288544af98_story.html
Kevin Wilshaw first became interested in Nazism as an 11-year-old. His father was “very right wing,” and he wanted to emulate him, he told Channel 4.
Since then, the British man’s life has revolved around white supremacy.
Now, after a lifetime devoted to the far-right cause, Wilshaw has renounced his hate-filled past, and revealed that he is gay and has Jewish heritage. He divulged all during an interview with Britain’s Channel 4.
“You’re a Nazi, with a Jewish background, who is gay,” said Wilshaw’s interviewer, Paraic O’Brien, evidently baffled by the contradictions.
Wilshaw joined the National Front, Britain’s far-right and fascist political party, soon after turning 18, and rose to become a prominent figure as an organizer for the party in the 1980s, according to Channel 4. He later joined the far-right British National Party.
As recently as this year, Wilshaw was speaking at extreme right events, and he was arrested in March for online race hate offenses, according to Channel 4 news.
So why the sudden shift in allegiances?
It all came down to getting a taste of his own medicine, Wilshaw said. Recently, he explained, he has been suspected of being gay, and had been subjected to abuse because of his sexuality.
“It’s a terribly selfish thing to say but it’s true,” said Wilshaw. “I saw people being abused, shouted at, spat at in the street. It’s not until it’s directed at you that you suddenly realize that it’s wrong.”...
"Hi everybody! It's Priya again. Just want to remind you how stupid I am!!"
Oh, we know. We know.
"Its hilarious that you think people should take the opinion of an ignorant partisan boob like you over a renowned ivy league professor."
nah, I'm asking anyone to take the opinion of an ignorant boob like myself (although compared to Priya, I'm an Einstein and not very partisan)
still, the idea that there is a consensus of economists on something is ignorant, and a tactic that Obama used and was denounced by Nobel prize winning economists (few ivy league economics professors win Nobel prizes, btw, and there are currently no "renowned" ones)
"Since its inception, the Obama administration engaged in the deceptive routine of claiming that "economists," "every economist" or a "consensus" among economists is in lockstep agreement over whatever policy prescription the White House happens to be peddling at the moment.
It began with the stimulus, when President Barack Obama misleadingly asserted that "economists from across the political spectrum agree that if we don't act swiftly and boldly, we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double-digit unemployment and the American dream slipping further and further out of reach." Swiftly and boldly, perhaps, but not in the same way. The Cato Institute found 200 economists, three of them Nobel laureates—James Buchanan, Edward Prescott and Vernon Smith—who disagreed that all economists supported the president's stimulus plan.
Then there's Nobel laureate Thomas J. Sargent, who in 2010 took the White House to task for its incorrect assertions about economists' views of the stimulus bill's likely effects: "President Obama should have been told that there are respectable reasons for doubting that fiscal stimulus packages promote prosperity and (told) that there are serious economic researchers who remain unconvinced."
And after the stimulus failed to come close to achieving the rosy predictions set by the president's own Council of Economic Advisers, Obama attacked critics, ratcheting up the rhetoric to claim that "every economist"—yes, every—"from the left and the right, has said, because of the Recovery Act, what we've started to see is at least a couple of million jobs that have either been created or would have been lost."
Obama's chief economist Jason Furman wrote on his blog this week that the stimulus saved or created an average of 1.6 million jobs a year through the end of 2012. That piece of, um, data, like many contentions made by economists with an agenda, is nearly impossible to prove or disprove—and it should be nearly impossible to believe, because it comes from a White House shop that trumpeted pie-in-the-sky forecasts about recovery to begin with."
"The only thing you need to know about brilliant anonymous's previous post is that his philosophy is:
"There are many situations where its appropriate to lie"."
I'm not going to waste a bunch of time on Priya's multi-rants today, but let's address this for a second
this is a lie by Priya accomplished by misleading with omission of context
I've said that lying is not WRONG if it is not done to harm others
that's not saying it's wise, just not morally wrong
and, yes, there are many commonplace situations where this applies
like when Priya's partner is asked "does this make me look fat?"
Priya actually agrees with me about the morality of lying
Priya has often asserted that something is only wrong if it hurts someone
and, if a lie doesn't hurt someone, it doesn't
so, Priya is lying if Priya says that Priya thinks all lies are wrong
WASHINGTON - U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning. Watch the hearing live here.
The hearing is set to begin at 10:00 a.m., EST, from Washington D.C.
Be sure to let us know when Obama gets called to testify about anything questionable that occurred during his administration.
< crickets commence chirping >
Obama wasn't attorney general. Both of his attorney generals were involved in scandals.
President Trump noted that former FBI Director James B. Comey lied to protect Hillary Clinton, after the agency released new documents on the investigation.
“Wow, FBI confirms report that James Comey drafted letter exonerating Crooked Hillary Clinton long before investigation was complete. Many..” he tweeted, and then continued, “…people not interviewed, including Clinton herself. Comey stated under oath that he didn’t do this-obviously a fix? Where is Justice Dept?”
Mr. Trump was commenting on a FBI document release on Monday that showed Mr. Comey began drafting a letter exonerating Mrs. Clinton prior to the conclusion of the investigation, and before even speaking to her about the matter.
“As it has turned out, James Comey lied and leaked and totally protected Hillary Clinton. He was the best thing that ever happened to her!” the president tweeted.
It turns out the Obama administration knew the Russians were engaged in bribery, kickbacks and extortion in order to gain control of US atomic resources — yet still OK’d that 2010 deal to give Moscow control of one-fifth of America’s uranium. This reeks.
Peter Schweizer got onto part of the scandal in his 2015 book, “Clinton Cash”: the gifts of $145 million to the Clinton Foundation, and the $500,000 fee to Bill for a single speech, by individuals involved in a deal that required Hillary Clinton’s approval.
But now The Hill reports that the FBI in 2009 had collected substantial evidence — eyewitnesses backed by documents — of money-laundering, blackmail and bribery by Russian nuclear officials, all aimed at growing “Vladimir Putin’s atomic-energy business inside the United States” in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
The bureau even flagged the routing of millions from Russian nuclear officials to cutouts and on to Clinton Inc.
Hillary Clinton, again, sat on a key government body that had to approve the deal — though she now claims she had no role in a deal with profound national security implications, and during the campaign called the payments a coincidence.
The Obama administration — anxious to “reset” US-Russian relations — kept it all under wraps, refusing to tell even top congressional intelligence figures.
And when the Obamaites in 2014 filed low-level criminal charges against a single individual over what the FBI found, they did so with little public fanfare.
“The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns,” one veteran of the case told The Hill.
Yet the administration let Moscow move ahead — publicly insisting that there were no national security worries — and no evidence of Russian interference, despite many lawmakers’ concern at the time.
There’s more: Until September 2013, the FBI director was Robert Mueller — who’s now the special counsel probing Russian meddling in the 2016 election. It’s hard to see how he can be trusted in that job unless he explains what he knew about this Obama-era cover-up.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/17/fox-news-poll-roy-moore-doug-jones-neck-and-neck-in-alabama-senate-race.html
Republican Roy Moore, the anti-Republican establishment candidate, is tied at 42 percent apiece with Democrat Doug Jones in the U.S. Senate race in deep-red Alabama.
A Fox News Poll also finds that among just the 53 percent of Alabama registered voters who are extremely or very interested in the race, Jones has a one-point edge over Moore (46-45 percent).
The special election to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is December 12.
The competitiveness of the race is striking. Donald Trump won Alabama by 28 points in 2016, yet the Steve Bannon-backed Moore defeated the president’s favored candidate, incumbent Luther Strange, in the GOP primary.
“This race exemplifies the difficulty the Republican Party has now,” says Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who conducts the Fox News Poll with Democrat Chris Anderson.
“There is an element of the party that has had it with the establishment, had it with politics as usual, had it with political correctness. The fissure within the party means divisive primaries, controversial candidates, and hard choices for GOP voters once the general election rolls around.”
Jones is helped by greater party loyalty, and hesitancy among Moore’s own backers.
The poll, released Tuesday, shows 42 percent of Moore’s supporters have some reservations about their candidate. For Jones, that number is 28 percent...
Hi everybody! It's Priya again. Just want to remind you how stupid I am!
Yesterday, I said:
"Its not a controversial statement that it takes about a year for an incoming presidents policies to start having an effect on the economy. The economy isn't a sports car that can turn on a dime, its like an ocean freighter that takes many miles to turnaround. That's a generally accepted idea amongst economists that you would have read in many places as I have"
Now, that I've looked this up on the internet, it turns out there is no consensus amongst economists.
Come to think of it, I didn't read this. Some friend of mine in the nuthouse I reside told it to me. But, come to think of it, I think he's nuts. That's why he's in here.
Never mind.
hahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
Amongst the flurry of demands that Harvey Weinstein be extinguished from the liberal memory, Democrats keep turning up at institutions and award ceremonies named after serial exploiters of women. The other day John Kerry took a break from the denunciations of the bloated mogul to pick up an honor from the “Edward Kennedy Institute.” Barack Obama sent his fraternal greetings to the august gathering. Needless to say, memories of Teddy Kennedy’s exploitation of waitresses and campaign volunteers didn’t figure into the high proceedings.
Teddy had the seduction techniques of Harvey Weinstein down pat, though perhaps he refrained from Weinstein’s practice of giving women the privilege of watching him bathe. And let’s not discount the impression JFK’s interactions with Marilyn Monroe may have had on a young Harvey. But don’t count on any liberal celebrities and pols, in solidarity with the memory of that ruined starlet, to cease their pilgrimages to the JFK presidential library, with its half-constructed Teddy wing.
John Kerry, reflecting on his career at the Edward Kennedy Institute’s awards ceremony, didn’t mention his old running mate John Edwards, whose zeal for the female empowerment of videographers and the like surely impressed Weinstein.
Before Hillary fell and broke her toe in England the other day, she had an even more unsteady moment on the topic of “women coming forward” — switching in seconds from extolling Weinstein’s accusers to shaming her husband’s, what with their “past” and “litigated” complaints. Her hypocritical gall reached new heights in the interviews. One moment, she was seconding the need to believe and revere accusers; in the next, she was dismissing her husband’s accusers as losers whining about ancient misconduct.
Proving that words matter more than criminal deeds for the Democrats, Hillary whipped herself into a state of towering indignation over the sexual predator who has tarnished the “oval office” — referring not to her husband, who treated the oval office as his casting couch, but to Donald Trump for his banter with Billy Bush, comments that don’t constitute an endorsement of sexual assault even if the worst construction is put on them. Trump was talking about consensual behavior; he used the word “letting.” No judge would ever allow such a remark to be presented to a jury as an admission of sexual assault, as Hillary, who considers herself such an expert on “litigated” matters, surely knows. No matter; she continues to cite it as irrefutable proof of wickedness.
Michelle Goldberg, writing for the New York Times, says “the movie business is corrupt and depraved,” but “Trump’s party is worse.” As if to punctuate that adherence to conservatism constitutes greater misconduct than sexual assault, she continues:
Now that Weinstein has been exposed, conservatives are jeering that Hollywood has lost the right to lecture anyone about sexism. “Liberals love to be so sanctimonious, holier than thou, but they’re really hypocrites,” said Fox’s Sean Hannity on October 10. Perhaps, but Trump supporters acting shocked by sexual harassment are in no position to complain about hypocrisy…. Betraying the principle of gender equality is bad. Rejecting it is worse.
In other words, the rapists of the Democratic Party are still superior to conservatives. Hence, according to the Times’ skewed scorecard, Mike Pence, who refuses to dine with women privately out of a sense of propriety, has a more defective character than Clinton’s.
Goldberg, desperate to absolve the Democrats of the taint of Weinstein, works hard to inflate the misdeeds of figures such as Roger Ailes and equate criticism of feminist policies with misogyny. Fox News was “like his personal sadomasochistic brothel,” she writes. (Ailes was accused of asking subordinates out and making leering comments, but he wasn’t accused of sexual assault. There is a long way from his asking Megyn Kelly to twirl to the “sadomasochistic brothel” of Goldberg’s imagination.)
All is better now on the liberal side, she declares, now that Weinstein’s “impunity has come to an end” and he has been stripped of all his power:
He has lost his job and been expelled from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. France has taken steps to strip him of his Legion of Honor Award, the country’s highest civilian distinction. He is being repudiated for violating progressive ideals about sexual consent, workers’ rights and the fundamental equality of men and women.
Imagine her writing that last sentence about a long line of sexual goats in the Democratic Party. Or calling for the Edward Kennedy Institute to be renamed. Or demanding that Bill Clinton’s honorary doctorates be taken away from him. It would never happen. And it never will happen. The obituarists of Harvey Weinstein will keep the progressive memory of Bill and Teddy alive forever.
Kaivan Shroff @KaivanShroff
Trump told widow of Sgt. Johnson, "he knew what he signed up for.” That’s far more disrespectful to our troops than kneeling during anthem.
9:49 PM - Oct 17, 2017
God @TheGoodGodAbove
Today Trump told the widow of a slain US sergeant that “he knew what he signed up for.”
That's like the soldier equivalent of "She asked for it.”
Something Trump is comfortable saying to victims.
11:02 PM - Oct 17, 2017
History will record that the Islamic State caliphate—a bizarre pseudo-state founded on illusory goals, created by a global horde of jihadis, and enforced with perverted viciousness—was created by Obama's incompetence and survived for nine months after Trump was inaugurated. The fall of Raqqa, the nominal isis capital, was proclaimed on Tuesday by the U.S.-backed militia that spearheaded the offensive, a coalition of Kurdish and Arab militias advised by U.S. Special Forces. Mopping-up operations were still going on (especially around the Raqqa stadium, which isis fighters had converted into an arms depot and prison), but the liberation of Raqqa marked the symbolic demise of the Islamic State’s rule.
Most Americans No longer Believe You Need To Believe In A God To Be Good
The Pew Research Center has found that more Americans than ever before believe that you don’t need to believe in God to be moral and have good values.
In 2011, only 49% of Americans believed you could be good without God. That number has since risen to 56%. More than half. That’s not insignificant.
And while you’d expect the number to rise as we witness the growth of the “Nones,” these numbers also reflect the changing opinions of religious people who are having a harder time maintaining the lie that religion is what makes somebody moral.
In fact, says Pew, with one (very slight and statistically meaningless) exception, every single religious demographic is more likely today to say you don’t need God to be good than they did six years ago.
I think [much like the case with gays] a large part of that change can be attributed to non-religious people coming out as such, making it harder for people who know them personally to equate godlessness with evil. All the more reason to keep pushing for atheists to identify themselves publicly whenever possible.
I don't think there are many atheists in the closet
that's because atheism is willful rather than rational and those who ascribe to it want the attention
A lawyer filed a bar grievance this week accusing former FBI Director James Comey of lying to Congress and destroying potential evidence in the Clinton email scandal, in a process that should end up costing him his law license.
Ty Clevenger filed the grievance in New York, where Mr. Comey was a former U.S. attorney and is licensed to practice law.
Mr. Clevenger said Mr. Comey’s testimony to Congress that he did not predetermine the outcome of the FBI’s probe into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is belied by revelations this week that he in fact started drafting an exoneration months before even speaking with Mrs. Clinton.
“Insofar as Mr. Comey gave materially false testimony to Congress, it appears that he violated Rules 1.0(w), 3.3(a)(1), and 8.4 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct,” Mr. Clevenger wrote.
He also asked to renew grievances in New York against former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, saying Mr. Comey’s claim that she tried to pressure him to downplay the Clinton probe should subject her to scrutiny.
The state grievance committee had deferred an investigation in January, saying there were ongoing probes by Congress and they would await the outcome.
Mr. Clevenger said this week that those probes appear to be over, so the time is ripe to renew the investigation.
Mr. Clevenger is also challenging the bar membership of Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers, and has won a court order in Maryland demanding the grievance committee there conduct an investigation into David E. Kendall, Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson over allegations they destroyed evidence in the email probe
With all these Heterosexuals behaving badly, it time we voted some gay people into office so we don't have to deal with all this crap.
they're running for everything here in Maryland
there's some fool gay running for governor here
except for Dana Beyer, they usually win
that's why Montgomery County is going downhill
before the gay curriculum, we were one of the richest counties in America with great schools
"A lawyer filed a bar grievance this week..."
Stephen Dinan called him a "crusading" lawyer at https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/18/lawyer-files-have-comey-disbarred/
Too loaded a word for the plagiarizing poster perhaps.
as I've said before, I only include facts when I excerpt from news sites
spreading someone's editorial opinion is not my obligation
I never implied that it was a direct quote from anyone
as Bernard Goldberg, formerly of CBS News, pointed out years ago, the media tries to inject bias by description
for example, a liberal lawyer is a "lawyer" - a conservative lawyer is a "right-wing advocate"
the media has sold America out and you need to be vigilant in resisting the subjectivity
few people disagree that the media makes up crap about Trump
this out today:
President Trump regularly accuses much of the U.S. media of fabricating reports about him, and it appears that only about a third of Americans disagree
A recent Politico/Morning Consult poll revealed only 37 percent of the nearly 2,000 registered voters surveyed from October 12 to 16 think news outlets don't make up Trump-related stories.
Trump has made “fake news” one of his key issues, accusing the bulk of major media outlets, print and broadcast alike, of telling tall tales.
Recent comments on the subject include his Tuesday tweet, “So much Fake News being put in dying magazines and newspapers. Only place worse may be @NBCNews, @CBSNews, @ABC and @CNN. Fiction writers!”
Days prior and following the NBC report that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had called Trump a “moron,” the president said via Twitter, “People are just now starting to find out how dishonest and disgusting (FakeNews) @NBCNews is. Viewers beware. May be worse than even @CNN!”
“The Fake News Is going all out in order to demean and denigrate! Such hatred!” Trump said in another tweet.
Trump winning
Total viewership during the first six weeks of the NFL season is down 7.5 percent compared to the first six weeks of last year’s season, reports ESPN.
Last year, an average of 16.2 million people watched games during the first six weeks. This year, only an average of 15 million people watched games for the same time frame, according to new metrics from Nielsen and reported by ESPN.
The NFL did not respond to ESPN’s request for comment.
According to ESPN, Credit Suisse lowered its price targets on both Fox and CBS stock because of NFL rating declines.
“If ratings don’t improve materially, we see a potential headwind to domestic advertising revenues,” the investment bank’s analyst Omar Sheikh wrote of Fox last week, according to ESPN.
Sheikh estimated on Monday that third-quarter revenue would be off by three percent for CBS, versus the previously projected one percent. This is because of “soft ratings for both the summer programming and for the start of the NFL season.”
Last year, the NFL claimed that the viewership decline was due in part to competition with the presidential election coverage. ESPN reports that viewership was better for the second half of the season, though it still finished down eight percent compared to 2015.
This season, the fight between President Donald Trump and the widespread player protests during the national anthem is adding to viewership numbers, ESPN reports.
In 2005, the foundation run by Judge Roy Moore, now the Republican nominee for a Senate seat in Alabama, accepted a $1,000 donation from a group founded by Willis Carto, a white supremacist, Nazi supporter and World War II vet who famously said he regretted fighting for the U.S instead of Germany.
The Foundation to Defend the First Amendment is one of several nonprofit groups Carto used to shuffle money around to his anti-Semitic and racist conspiracy publications, to fund Holocaust deniers, and, apparently, to donate to Moore’s nonprofit. The Carto-founded group touts its support for Moore and his Foundation for Moral Law on its web site. The contribution to Moore’s group stands out as one of just a handful it has made to organizations not explicitly involved in Holocaust denial.
The people who run the Foundation to Defend the First Amendment have an ideology that is, “Total Nazi; and notice I didn’t say neo-Nazi,” Todd Blodgett, the former head of the white supremacist record label Resistance Records — and later an FBI informant.
Add to Trump's restoration of the judiciary as protector of the Constitution and his freeing the economy from Obama's regulatory stranglehold, he has now defeated ISIS.
Not bad for nine months. It's a horrible time to say you vote Democrat.
When President Donald Trump boasts, the nation rolls its collective eyes. From his first moments in office, Americans on both sides of the political aisle understood that his claims of triumph usually had little to do with the facts. That was true of the talk about record attendance at his inauguration and continues to also be true about his claims of passing more legislation or getting more done than all of his predecessors. The controversies engendered by Trump’s bragging or false statements (such as those he recently made about other presidents consoling the survivors of American combat troops killed in battle) have become the obsessive concern of his critics as well as of fans who brand the president’s debunkers as purveyors of “fake news” or merely take delight in his trolling of his liberal opponents. But when it comes to one of Trump’s boasts, it’s hard for even his sternest detractors to gainsay him. Try as they might to deny it, even the efforts of the New York Times to discount his assertion rings false. ISIS was still largely undefeated and in control of much of the territory of Iraq and Syria when Trump was sworn in before a non-record setting crowd. But only nine months into his administration, the Islamic State’s hold on these countries has dwindled, and after the liberation this week of Raqqa, Syria, capital of the Islamists’ caliphate, it’s fair to say that the group is being routed after years in which it held its own against coalition forces.
The facts about the campaign against ISIS are clear-cut. When Trump took office, the U.S. had been mired in a discouraging stalemate in the fight against a group that Obama had initially dismissed as the “JV” terrorist team and therefore unworthy of his attention. Obama had little appetite for another Middle East war after he pulled U.S. forces out of Iraq. Having claimed that he had ended or wound down America’s wars, it took more than a year for him to admit that his Iraq bugout and refusal to intervene in the Syrian civil war — even to enforce his “red line” over Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons — had created a vacuum that ISIS filled. That reluctance seemed to carry over into U.S. efforts during the two years following Obama’s 2014 pledge to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the terrorist group as coalition forces made little headway against the enemy. Did Trump entirely reinvent the war against ISIS? No, he didn’t. But try as they might to deprive Trump of credit, there’s no way to pretend that the coalition didn’t have better success with those plans this year than they had in the previous two. In January, ISIS controlled 23,300 square miles. Today it holds onto about 9,300 square miles. Trump’s role in the transformation is not insignificant. It is unfair to U.S. and coalition troops to claim, as Trump does, that they didn’t “fight to win” until he arrived in the Oval Office. But as the Times admits, there was one significant difference. In the spring, Trump loosened the rules of engagement to allow commanders in the field more authority in day-to-day decisions about fighting the enemy. Under Obama, the White House micromanaged the conflict in a manner that calls to mind the way President Lyndon Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara fought the Vietnam War with similar dismal results. Trump loosened the rules of engagement to allow commanders in the field more authority in day-to-day decisions about fighting the enemy. ISIS is being defeated on Trump’s watch and, at least in part, because of decisions he has made. There will be plenty that happens during his presidency for which he will deserve to be blamed but, his boasts notwithstanding, this victory also belongs to him.
Post a Comment
<< Home