|
Post by auntym on Aug 5, 2018 14:46:30 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Aug 21, 2018 16:28:45 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Sept 2, 2018 19:09:52 GMT -6
Some of you are old enough and had TV’s to remember Rona Barrett. She was a gossip columnist in Hollywood in the 70s.
Watch this video from 36 years ago to get a better perspective of where Trump is coming from. It may just change your mind a little! This Interview
gets very interesting when he tells Rona Barrett that "one person could turn this country around."
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Sept 3, 2018 13:30:34 GMT -6
www.apnews.com/d3d3f9cad04445be86cd9f641ee6fcbb/AP-FACT-CHECK:-Trump AP FACT CHECK: Trump’s imaginary wages, trade falsehoodsBy HOPE YEN and PAUL WISEMAN 9-3-2018 In this Aug. 27, 2018, photo, President Donald Trump talks on the phone with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci) WASHINGTON (AP) — It was a week of exaggeration and outright fiction for President Donald Trump as he sought to push through a trade pact with Mexico, hyped numbers on jobs and raged against Google and the Russia investigation. He wrongly describes the deal to replace the three-nation North American Free Trade Agreement as “one of the largest” and made a questionable assertion that he has unilateral authority to exclude Canada if it doesn’t agree to his terms. Speaking in advance of Labor Day, Trump also declared that workers’ wages are “going up” when they really aren’t. A look at the claims: JOBSTRUMP, boasting about low unemployment rates: “This election is about jobs. And the beauty of the jobs, people that were stuck in one job, didn’t like it, they now got six different alternatives ...They get one they like, and they are making more money. Wages are going up.” — Indiana rally Thursday. THE FACTS: Wages aren’t going up when factoring in higher consumer prices.The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that wages have declined in the past 12 months after adjusting for inflation, even with an expanding U.S. economy and strong corporate profits. CLICK TO WATCH VIDEO: www.apnews.com/d3d3f9cad04445be86cd9f641ee6fcbb/AP-FACT-CHECK:-TrumpCanadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland says the U.S. and Canada will continue to engage in trade talks, even though the two countries missed a deadline that the Trump administration had signaled less than a week ago. (Aug. 31) Due in part to higher costs for gasoline and housing, consumer prices increased 2.9 percent this summer from a year earlier, the most in six years. Adjusted for inflation, average hourly earnings for workers have fallen 0.2 percent. The Labor Department said Americans are putting in more time on the job compared to last summer to keep their earnings about the same for now. Trump’s tariff disputes could exacerbate the situation by pushing up consumer prices further, reducing people’s purchasing power. ___ TRUMP: “The fact is that African/American unemployment is now the lowest in the history of our country.” — tweet Sunday. THE FACTS: Not exactly. He omits important caveats.Black unemployment did reach a record low, 5.9 percent, in May. But that figure is volatile on a monthly basis. That rate has since risen to 6.6 percent in July. Trump is taking credit he doesn’t deserve for job growth, according to many economists who view the continued growth since the middle of 2009 as the primary explanation for the recent hiring. Meanwhile, there are multiple signs that the racial wealth gap is now worsening and the administration appears to have done little, if anything, to specifically address this challenge. The most dramatic drop in black unemployment came under President Barack Obama, when it fell from a recession high of 16.8 percent in March 2010 to 7.8 percent in January 2017. ___ TRADETRUMP: “There is no political necessity to keep Canada in the new NAFTA deal. If we don’t make a fair deal for the U.S. after decades of abuse, Canada will be out. Congress should not interfere w/ these negotiations or I will simply terminate NAFTA entirely & we will be far better off.” — tweet Saturday. THE FACTS: Not so fast. It’s questionable whether Trump can unilaterally exclude Canada from a deal to replace the three-nation NAFTA agreement, without the approval of Congress. Any such move would likely face lengthy legal and congressional challenges. Trump wants to get a trade deal finalized by Dec. 1. Several Republicans in the closely divided Senate are insisting that a revised NAFTA deal include Canada. Trump administration negotiations to keep Canada in the reimagined trade bloc are to resume this week as Washington and Ottawa try to break a deadlock over issues such as Canada’s dairy market and U.S. efforts to shield drug companies from generic competition. ___ TRUMP: “This is one of the largest trade deals ever made. Maybe the largest trade deal ever made.” — phone call Aug. 27 with Mexican President Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto. THE FACTS: Not even close. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, negotiated by the Obama administration, included the three NAFTA partners — United States, Canada and Mexico — plus Japan and eight other Pacific Rim countries. Trump withdrew the United States from the pact in his third day in office. Even the TPP shrinks in comparison to the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations. Concluded in 1994, the round created the World Trade Organization and was signed by 123 countries. The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston found the following year that the WTO’s initial membership accounted for more than 90 percent of global economic output. ___ TRUMP: “We made the deal with Mexico. ...We’re starting negotiations with Canada, pretty much immediately ... It’s going to be a — it’s a smaller segment, as you know. Mexico is a very large trading partner.” — phone call Aug. 27 with Peña Nieto. THE FACTS: Trump appears to be suggesting that Mexico is a bigger U.S. trading partner than Canada. That’s not the case. America’s two-way trade — exports plus imports — came to $680 billion with Canada last year. That’s compared to $622 billion with Mexico. ___ TRUMP: “I smile at Senators and others talking about how good free trade is for the U.S. What they don’t say is that we lose Jobs and over 800 Billion Dollars a year on really dumb Trade Deals....and these same countries Tariff us to death.” — tweet Tuesday. THE FACTS: The $800 billion is a reference to America’s trade deficit last year. But Trump exaggerates the size of the gap between what the U.S. sells and what it buys from the rest of the world. The trade deficit in goods and services came to $552 billion in 2017. The United States ran an $807 billion deficit in goods such as cars and machinery. But Trump ignored America’s $255 billion surplus in services such as education and finance. Mainstream economists also take issue with Trump’s assertion that trade deficits amount to a loss for the United States. The money didn’t just vanish. In exchange for what they spent on imports, Americans got the benefit of owning everything from made-in-China iPhones to French wine. ___
BORDER WALLTRUMP: “The wall will be paid for very easily by Mexico. It will ultimately be paid for by Mexico.” — remarks Tuesday. THE FACTS: Not according to Mexico. Immediately after Trump’s remarks, Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray tweeted to stress, once again, that his country won’t foot the bill for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Videgaray wrote that his country has been “absolutely clear” that Mexico “will NEVER pay for a wall.” ___ GOOGLEVIDEO TWEETED BY TRUMP: “For years, Google promoted President Obama’s State of the Union on its homepage. When President Trump took office, Google stopped.” — tweet Wednesday. THE FACTS: The video is incorrect as to Trump. There’s no dispute that Google promoted Obama’s State of the Union speeches from 2012 to 2016, according to webpages captured by the Wayback Machine, an internet archive site. In a statement, Google said it has not historically promoted “the first address to Congress by a new president, which is technically not a State of the Union address,” so it didn’t do so in either 2009, when Obama first took office, or 2017, Trump’s first year as president. For 2018, several web pages captured by Wayback Machine show the Google homepage advertising a livestream of Trump’s speech with the words: “Live! Watch President Trump’s State of the Union address on YouTube.” The archive site shows the webpages in Greenwich Mean Time, which is several hours ahead of the Eastern time zone in the U.S. That means the relevant images of the Google homepage promoting Trump’s prime-time Washington speech on Jan. 30 are dated one day later, on Jan. 31, Mark Graham, director of the Wayback Machine archive site, told The Associated Press. Trump’s tweet follows his accusations, made without valid evidence, that Google and other U.S. tech companies are rigging search results so that they highlight negative coverage about him. ___ RUSSIA INVESTIGATIONTRUMP: “What’s going on at @cnn is happening, to different degrees, at other networks - with @nbcnews being the worst ... When Lester Holt got caught fudging my tape on Russia, they were hurt badly!” — tweet Thursday. THE FACTS: There is no evidence of the NBC interview having been “fudged” or doctored in any way, and the White House didn’t respond to requests regarding what Trump was referring to. NBC declined to comment. In the interview, Trump referred in part to “this Russia thing” as a consideration in his decision to fire Comey. Special counsel Robert Mueller is investigating possible obstruction of justice in the Russia probe. It’s possible Trump is frustrated that other comments from the same interview may have received less attention. Minutes after he acknowledged that “this Russia thing” was on his mind when he fired Comey, Trump also acknowledged that he knew the decision to terminate him might actually prolong the investigation. In fact it did, with Mueller investigating the firing for potential obstruction. His lawyers and other supporters have contended that that sentiment is actually helpful for the president, suggesting he couldn’t have been trying to obstruct the investigation by doing something that he knew would actually draw it out longer. ___ CLINTON EMAILSTRUMP: “Report just out: ‘China hacked Hillary Clinton’s private Email Server.’ — tweet Tuesday. TRUMP: “Hillary Clinton’s Emails, many of which are Classified Information, got hacked by China. Next move better be by the FBI & DOJ or, after all of their other missteps (Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr, FISA, Dirty Dossier etc.), their credibility will be forever gone!” — tweet Wednesday. THE FACTS: Trump’s own law enforcement agencies dispute that. Trump appears to be citing a story by the right-leaning Daily Caller publication, which reported that a Chinese-owned company in Washington, D.C., area hacked Clinton’s email server. But FBI and Justice Department officials have said publicly that there was no evidence Clinton’s server was hacked by a foreign power. A June report from the Justice Department’s inspector general on the FBI’s handling of the Clinton investigation said FBI specialists did not find evidence that the server had been hacked, with one forensics agent saying he felt “fairly confident that there wasn’t an intrusion.” An FBI official said Wednesday after the Daily Caller story and Trump tweet that the “FBI has not found any evidence the servers were compromised.” Associated Press writers Eric Tucker, Josh Boak and Jill Colvin contributed to this report. www.apnews.com/d3d3f9cad04445be86cd9f641ee6fcbb/AP-FACT-CHECK:-Trump
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Sept 4, 2018 13:45:06 GMT -6
www.aol.com/article/news/2018/09/04/aides-went-behind-trumps-back-to-thwart-decisions-new-bob-woodward-book-alleges/23516801/ Aides went behind Trump's back to thwart decisions, new Bob Woodward book allegesNBC News Adam Edelman / Sep 4th 2018 Top players inside President Donald Trump's White House routinely went behind his back to thwart him — including a stunning instance in which his top economic adviser snatched a document off his desk to avoid a potentially disastrous decision on trade, according to a new book that reveals life inside the chaotic administration. The book, "Fear: Trump in the White House," by famed Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, contains astonishing anecdotes showing how little top aides and lawyers to the president trusted him to do or say the right things, or make the appropriate decisions. Some of the striking contents of the book were published by The Washington Post on Tuesday, ahead of its Sept. 11, release. They include: — Gary Cohen, who served as Trump's top economic adviser until March, "stole a letter of Trump's desk" that the president was going to sign that would have withdrawn the U.S. from a trade pact with South Korea. According to Woodward, Cohn told a colleague that Trump never noticed. — In April 2017, Trump called Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and ordered the assassination of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad after the strongman attacked his own people with chemical weapons. "Let's f---ing kill him! Let's go in. Let's kill the f---ing lot of them," Trump said, the book alleges. Mattis told Trump he would proceed with such a plan, but immediately told an aide, after getting off the phone with the president that, "We're not going to do any of that. We're going to be much more measured." He, along with Trump's national security team, then put together plans for the retaliatory airstrike that the administration eventually carried out. — John Dowd, who served as Trump's personal lawyer for matters related to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation until March, when he resigned, was so concerned that Trump would perjure himself if he submitted to an interview with Mueller's team that he put together a mock question-and-answer sessions with Trump to prove his case. The session happened In January, according to Woodward, and during it Trump contradicted himself repeatedly and eventually got angry. "This thing's a *bleep* hoax," Trump said, according to Woodward, adding that, "I don't really want to testify." — In the book, Woodward confirms NBC News reporting from April that Chief of Staff John Kelly had called Trump an "idiot" and thought of himself as someone who was personally helping to save the U.S. from disaster. Woodward also confirms NBC News reporting from April that Trump routinely mocked and impersonated H.R. McMaster, who left the White House that month. www.aol.com/article/news/2018/09/04/aides-went-behind-trumps-back-to-thwart-decisions-new-bob-woodward-book-alleges/23516801/ I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html Bob Woodward's peek behind the Trump curtain is 100% as terrifying as we feared www.cnn.com/2018/09/04/politics/woodward-trump-book/index.html?utm_source=twCNN&utm_medium=social&utm_content=2018-09-04T19%3A40%3A08&utm_term=imageStelter: Bob Woodward's book 'Fear' revives concerns about Trump's fitness money.cnn.com/2018/09/04/media/fear-book-trump-fitness/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_content=2018-09-04T20%3A10%3A06&utm_term=image&utm_source=twCNNBob Woodward’s New Trump Book Sounds Both Damning and Frightening www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/woodward-trump-book-718787/
|
|
|
Post by jcurio on Sept 4, 2018 20:51:43 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Sept 5, 2018 12:31:53 GMT -6
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45415158 Why the Woodward effect damages Trumpby Nick Bryant / www.bbc.co.uk/news/correspondents/nickbryant9-5-2018 The publication of Fear: Trump in the White House pits America's commander in chief against Washington's chronicler in chief. The credibility contest is key.I wonder how many journalists have arrived in Washington over the years dreaming of becoming the next Bob Woodward. Hoping that they'll be invited to descend into some subterranean car park, where a high-ranking contact, another "Deep Throat, mutters cryptic, and not-so cryptic instructions: "follow the money". Perhaps they've imagined being played in a movie by a Robert Redford or his female equivalent. Perhaps they have fantasised about bringing down a president. Working alongside Carl Bernstein - who came to be played, of course, by Dustin Hoffman in All the President's Men - Bob Woodward set the journalistic bar that high. His shoe leather reporting following the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate complex in June 1972 was a principal reason for the fall of Richard Nixon. Carl Bernstein went on to become a celebrity journalist: a black-tie regular on the New York cocktail circuit, a summer fixture in the Hamptons, an object of fascination for the Big Apple tabloid gossip columns. But one of the reasons why Bob Woodward has achieved such stature in the forty years since Nixon flashed that bizarre victory salute from the South Lawn of the White House as he exited the presidency is that he never sought to become Robert Redford, but remained avowedly Bob Woodward. * Five explosive quotes from Fear / www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45415151 * Trump condemns Woodward book as 'con' / www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45417959 * White House revolving door - who's gone? / www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39826934Though his books are often sensational, he is the opposite of sensationalist. He's diligent, rigorous, fastidious about the facts, and studiously ethical. There's something almost monastic about his method. Indeed, a criticism of his books is that the prose can be flat and lifeless, a reflection of his steady state emotion. The topics of Woodward's presidential studies can also sometimes be dry. His book on Bill Clinton focussed not on the drama of Monica Lewinsky or impeachment but rather discussions on the budget deficit, welfare reform and healthcare. With Obama, it wasn't the romance of America's Black Camelot, but the handling of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the quest for fiscal rectitude. One of the reasons he's taken so seriously is that he covers the serious work of government. Nor has his focus solely been the West Wing. After All the President's Men and The Final Days, his Nixonian bestsellers, came The Brethren, which studied the Supreme Court. Veil, published in 1987, looked at the secret wars of the CIA. The Commanders focused on the Pentagon during the first Gulf War. Maestro, his biography of Alan Greenspan, probed the recondite world of The Federal Reserve. Robert Redford alongside the reporter he portrayed in the film All The President's Men Though Woodward is a consummate Washington insider, there's also a sense of detachment about his work. He rarely troubles himself with the day-to-day. He doesn't become consumed by the controversy of the hour. His Twitter account registers just 93 tweets since he joined the social media platform in 2013. He tries assiduously to remain above the fray. And at a time when commentary has become so overblown, when the language of Washington debate has become so hysterical and extreme, this seventy-five year old has remained the straight man. The most vivid passages of his books usually come from the quotes of his high-level sources. That's certainly true of Fear. It's John Kelly the chief of staff, who describes the Trump White House as "Crazytown". It's James Mattis who apparently mocks the president as a 5th or 6th grader - a ten year old. Mattis has denied saying those things. Kelly says he didn't call the president an "idiot". But try winning a credibility contest against Bob Woodward, one of America's most trusted journalists. So detailed are his studies - and so well-sourced - that they've become part of the historical record. His trilogy of books on George W Bush - Bush at War, Plan of Attack and State of Denial - have not yet been bettered. The Commanders remains a classic. Long before the presidential libraries undertake their own oral history projects, chronicling the reflections, grudges and grievances of former administration officials, the key players have usually shared their thoughts with Bob Woodward. Christopher Hitchens once derided him as "the stenographer of the rich and the powerful" but it's his access that explains why the Woodward effect is so impactful; why the publication of his books become news events in their own right. The fact that newsrooms in Washington are populated by so many would-be Woodwards has a downside. The desire to topple presidents can lead to journalistic over-reach. B- and c-grade scandals are elevated and exaggerated. Whitewater during the Clinton years is a prime example of that. The "gate" suffix has become a dreary cliché, overused and under-thought. Since Watergate, a lot of political coverage has been predicated on the strong suspicion that presidents have surely committed illegal acts or are abusing their power. It's become a recurring line of attack in successive presidencies, and Washington has become more toxic and mistrustful as a result. But Woodward himself has not gone down that path. When it comes to bringing down a president, he's been there, done that and even been portrayed in the movie. This history-making journalist has become the Beltway's resident journalist/historian. Bob Woodward has become an institution. He's Washington's chronicler in chief. www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45415158
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Sept 5, 2018 16:36:10 GMT -6
www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.htmlOpinion I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump AdministrationI work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.Sept. 5, 2018 The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here. www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/reader-center/oped-questions.htmlPresident Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader. It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall. The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations. I would know. I am one of them. To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous. But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic. That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office. The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making. Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright. In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic. Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more. But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective. From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims. Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back. “There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier. The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful. It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t. The result is a two-track presidency. Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations. Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals. On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable. This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state. Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over. The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility. Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation. We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such hoannable men, but we should revere them. There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans. The writer is a senior official in the Trump administration.www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Sept 5, 2018 16:44:04 GMT -6
thehill.com/homenews/media/405226-ny-times-publishes-op-ed-claiming-to-be-written-by-senior-trump-official Senior administration official blasts Trump in anonymous NYT op-edBy Avery Anapol / thehill.com/author/avery-anapol09/05/18 A person identified as a senior administration official blasted President Trump in an anonymous op-ed published by The New York Times on Wednesday, saying they were working to “thwart” President Trump’s “worst inclinations.” In the piece, titled, “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration,” the author says that while officials “want the administration to succeed,” they have had to work against Trump’s “misguided impulses” and parts of his agenda. "To be clear, ours is not the popular 'resistance' of the left," the piece reads. "We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous." “But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic,” the unidentified official wrote. The Times said in a note attached to the op-ed that the author, described as "a senior official in the Trump administration," requested their essay be published anonymously. The newspaper explained its extraordinary decision to publish a column without providing the name of the author, stating, "We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers." The newspaper said the person's identity was known to the Times and their "job would be jeopardized" by their name being disclosed. In the piece, the official denounces Trump’s “amorality” and describes his impulses as “generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.” "The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making," they wrote. The piece describes a number of instances that the author describes as part of a “two-track presidency,” saying when Trump expresses a desire to take a particular action, aides and officials around him work to do another. The official briefly praises the administration, but suggests that its successes are not because of the president. “There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more,” the piece reads. “But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.” Trump has long attacked some of the institutions in his own administration for alleged political bias, and speculated that there are people within the government working to undermine him. But the author of the Times piece pushed back on the suggestion that there is a so-called deep state. "This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state," the person continued. "It’s the work of the steady state." The official also said that Trump’s Cabinet originally speculated about invoking the 25th Amendment to deem Trump unsuited for office and remove him, but that they did not want to “precipitate a constitutional crisis.” “It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room,” the official wrote. “We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.” Updated: 4:17 p.m. thehill.com/homenews/media/405226-ny-times-publishes-op-ed-claiming-to-be-written-by-senior-trump-official
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Sept 6, 2018 14:29:22 GMT -6
www.cnn.com/2018/09/05/politics/donald-trump-mystery-op-ed/index.html?utm_source=twCNN&utm_term=link&utm_medium=social&utm_content=2018-09-06T11%3A24%3A03 13 people who might be the author of The New York Times op-edby Chris Cillizza / www.cnn.com/profiles/chris-cillizzaAnalysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large 9-6-2018 (CNN)On Wednesday afternoon, The New York Times posted an anonymous op-ed titled: "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration." The piece is remarkable. Identified only as a "senior official in the Trump administration," the piece lays out how the author -- as well as other colleagues within the administration -- are waging a semi-open campaign to keep the President from doing too much damage to the nation. "Many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations," the author writes. CNN's Chris Cillizza cuts through the political spin and tells you what you need to know. By subscribing, you agree to our privacy policy. Beyond the way the author is identified, there are very few clues about who it could be. And the description used by the Times -- "a senior official in the Trump administration" -- is broad enough to include virtually anyone in the Trump White House, a Cabinet official, undersecretary or someone on, say, the National Security Council. Beyond that, the only hint we have comes from this tweet of the op-ed, from The New York Times social team: "In an anonymous Op-Ed, a senior Trump administration official says he and others are working to frustrate the president's 'misguided impulses.'" Later, a spokeswoman for the Times said that the tweet was a mistake. "The tweet was drafted by someone who is not aware of the author's identity, including the gender, so the use of 'he' was an error," Danielle Rhoades Ha said. What we know: The guessing game of who wrote the op-ed will dominate official Washington circles for the foreseeable future. And everyone who fits the description of a "senior Trump administration official" will have to answer as to whether it was them. Another thing we know: Trump is *angry*. "TREASON?" he tweeted on Wednesday night. Below, 13 people who might be the author of the op-ed, based on what we know about the various factions, likes, dislikes, motivations and ambitions within the Trump administration. These are in no particular order. Don McGahnWe know the White House counsel is a short-timer -- planning to leave in the fall. We also know that McGahn has clashed with Trump repeatedly in the past -- refusing Trump's order to fire special counsel Robert Mueller. And McGahn has already shown a willingness to look out for the broader public good, sitting down for more than 30 hours with special counsel Robert Mueller's team to aid their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. *Dan CoatsThe Director of National Intelligence is very much a part of the long-term Washington establishment, having spent not one but two stints in the nation's capital as a senator from Indiana. Coats has also shown a tendency to veer from the Trump songbook. Informed of Trump's plans to invite Russian president Vladimir Putin for a summit in the United States this fall, Coats said "That is going to be special" -- a line that drew the ire of the President. *Kellyanne ConwayConway, a White House counselor, is someone who has survived for a very long time in the political game. And not by being dumb or not understanding which way the wind blows. Plus, there is the X-factor of her husband -- George -- whose Twitter feed regularly trolls Trump. *John KellyThe chief of staff has clashed repeatedly with the President and seems to be on borrowed time. Kelly sees his time in the job as serving his country in the only way left to him. Might he view exposing Trump in this way as a last way to be of service? *Kirstjen NielsenThe head of the Department of Homeland Security is a close ally of Kelly, who we know has a very fraught relationship with Trump. And she has reasons of her own: Trump scolded her in a Cabinet meeting over the number of undocumented immigrants entering the country. Nielsen reportedly drafted a resignation letter but backed away. *Jeff SessionsSessions sticks out as a possibility for a simple reason: He's got motive. No one has been more publicly maligned by Trump than his attorney general. Trump has repeatedly urged Sessions to use the Justice Department for his own pet political concerns. And this week, Sessions found out that Trump has referred to him as "mentally retarded" and mocked his southern accent, according to a new book by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward. Sessions is also someone who spent two decades in the Senate prior to being named attorney general by Trump after the 2016 election. *James MattisThe defense secretary has been Trump's favorite Cabinet member. But the quotes attributed to Mattis in Woodward's book are VERY rough on Trump, though Mattis quickly denied that he ever said them. And if anyone has less to lose than Mattis -- he is a decorated military man serving his country again -- it's hard to figure out who that would be. Plus, Mattis is an ally of John Kelly (see above) and Rex Tillerson, the former secretary of state that Trump ran out on a rail. *Fiona HillHill, a Russian expert who joined the Trump administration from the Brookings Institution, a DC think tank, might have reason to so publicly clash with Trump. She is far more skeptical about Russia's motives than Trump -- and was notably left out when Trump and Putin huddled on the sides of the G20 meeting in Germany in 2017. She was a close adviser to national security adviser H.R. McMaster, who was removed from the White House. And, she was also reportedly mistaken for a clerk by Trump in one of her earliest meetings with him on Russia. *Mike PenceThe vice president is all smiles, nods and quiet, deferential loyalty in public. Which of course means that he has the perfect cover to write something like this in The New York Times. Pence is also ambitious -- and there's no question he wants to be president. But would taking such a risk as writing this scathing op-ed be a better path to the White House than just waiting Trump out? Pence's deputy chief of staff and communications director Jarrod Agen denied Thursday that Pence or anyone from their office authored the op-ed. *Nikki HaleyThe United Nations ambassador is, like Pence, one of Trump's favorites. She is also, however, someone deeply engaged on the world stage and a voice of concern when it comes to how the President views Russia and Putin. Haley, again like Pence, is ambitious and has her eye on national office. Would this service that goal? * JavankaThe combination of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump -- Javanka! -- writing this op-ed would be right out of a soap opera. But that is sort of a perfect way to describe the Trump administration, right? Ivanka Trump said she would work to make her voice heard to her father, but there's little evidence he's listened much to her or her husband. Might this be a bit of revenge? *Melania TrumpTo be clear, I don't think the first lady did this. But her willingness to send messages when she is unhappy with her husband or his administration is unmistakable. ("I really don't care. Do U?") And, if you believe this administration and Trump are governed by reality shows rules, then Melania writing the op-ed is the most reality TV thing EVER. WATCH VIDEO: www.cnn.com/2018/09/05/politics/donald-trump-mystery-op-ed/index.html?utm_source=twCNN&utm_term=link&utm_medium=social&utm_content=2018-09-06T11%3A24%3A03Here are the administration officials who deny they wrote The New York Times op-ed www.cnn.com/2018/09/06/politics/trump-officials-denials-nyt-op-ed/index.html
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Sept 6, 2018 15:39:17 GMT -6
www.apnews.com/c80d6da5e828438ebc0edd439b35e317/AP-FACT-CHECK:-TrumpAP FACT CHECK: Trump’s disloyal official is not a traitorWASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is questioning whether one of his senior officials committed treason by going public about an effort within the administration to thwart his agenda and contain his “eccentric behavior.” The answer is no. TRUMP: “TREASON?” — tweet Wednesday. THE FACTS: The official who wrote anonymously in The New York Times about the “quiet resistance” against Trump is surely disloyal to the president but not a traitor in the legal sense. Says the Constitution: “”Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Note the “only.” Treason is extremely narrowly defined, both in the founding document and in federal law. QUIZ: Which of these acts — real or theoretical — are treasonous? —a U.S. official taking payoffs from China to advance its interests. —the Cold War case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were executed for giving atomic secrets to Russia. —the FBI official known as Deep Throat who undermined Richard Nixon’s presidency with his Watergate revelations. —government contractor Edward Snowden’s leak of classified documents. —protesters burning the flag and a public figure in effigy outside the White House. ANSWER: None. Treason occurs when a U.S. citizen, or a non-citizen on U.S. territory, wages war against the country or provides material support — not just sympathy — to a declared enemy of the United States. The Rosenbergs were convicted of espionage, not treason, because the U.S. and Russia were not officially at war. No one has been convicted of treason since the aftermath of World War II, few have been through history and no one has been executed for that crime, says Carlton F.W. Larson, a University of California law professor who has a book coming on treason. In 2006, the Bush administration brought a treason indictment against Adam Gadahn, an American who authorities say became an operative and spokesman for al-Qaida abroad. The Obama administration said he was killed in a 2015 counterterrorism operation in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. Treason is addressed in the Constitution as part of an effort by the framers to prevent the government from using it as a reason to suppress political speech, said J. Richard Broughton, associate dean at University of Detroit Mercy and a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association. The wording was derived from England’s treason statutes, but narrowed to exclude cases involving alleged disloyalty to the king . Congress has little if any power to change the definition and the executive branch can only bring charges in extremely limited cases. Trump’s opponents have used “treason” loosely as the special counsel investigates contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, and it is thrown around widely in the public discourse by all sides. Trump has been accused of it, for being cozy with Russia, Hillary Clinton for being sloppy with her emails as secretary of state and the late Sen. John McCain for various episodes of not getting with the program. Trump is using the word loosely now. AP FACT CHECK: apnews.com/tag/APFactCheck#___ www.apnews.com/c80d6da5e828438ebc0edd439b35e317/AP-FACT-CHECK:-Trumputm_medium=AP_Politics
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Sept 8, 2018 11:18:06 GMT -6
www.apnews.com/826dd4cf9c9b4277b82430a198c11989?utm_medium=AP_Politics&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&__twitter_impression=trueAP FACT CHECK: Trump’s wrong on economy and treasonBy HOPE YEN 9-8-2018 WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump inaccurately claimed the strongest economic record ever as he capped a week featuring varied misrepresentations from the White House and in hearings for his Supreme Court nominee.
A look at recent rhetoric and how it compares with the facts: ECONOMYTRUMP: “The Economy is booming like never before, Jobs are at Historic Highs.” — tweet Thursday. THE FACTS: The economy, though healthy, has been in better shape at many times in the past. Growth reached 4.2 percent at an annual rate in the second quarter. That’s the best in the past four years. So far, the economy is growing at a modest rate compared with previous economic expansions. In the late 1990s, growth topped 4 percent for four straight years, from 1997 through 2000. In the 1980s expansion, growth even reached 7.2 percent in 1984. The unemployment rate of 3.9 percent is strong but it’s not at the best point ever. It is near an 18-year low. The all-time low came in 1953, when unemployment fell to 2.5 percent during the Korean War. Meanwhile, a greater percentage of Americans held jobs in 2000 than now. ___ ‘FAKE NEWS’ MEDIATRUMP: “Isn’t it a shame that someone can write an article or book, totally make up stories and form a picture of a person that is literally the exact opposite of the fact, and get away with it without retribution or cost. Don’t know why Washington politicians don’t change libel laws?” — tweet Wednesday. TRUMP, addressing GOP Sens. John Thune and Mike Rounds of South Dakota: “We have lousy libel laws... ‘Hey Mike and John, could you do me a favor? Create some libel laws, that when people say stuff bad about you, you can sue them and if you’re right, you win.’” — remarks Friday at fundraising event in South Dakota. THE FACTS: He misstates libel law in claiming that someone can “totally make up stories” or freely write “fake news” without penalty. Under defamation laws, people can bring a lawsuit for slander or libel if they believe someone’s statements have injured their reputation. For public officials such as Trump, they must meet a higher legal bar than ordinary people due to First Amendment guarantees of a free press and show the statements were made with “actual malice.” That means a publication is at risk by acting with reckless disregard for the truth. Trump often pledges to make it easier for people to sue for defamation, typically after the publication of books or news articles that present an unflattering portrait of the White House. But he has little influence to change the laws. Libel laws are set at the state level, which the president and Congress do not have authority to change. Any attempt to loosen the laws would likely run afoul of the First Amendment, barring a successful Supreme Court challenge or constitutional amendment. ___ TREASONTRUMP, questioning whether one of his senior officials acted illegally about an administration effort to thwart his agenda: “TREASON?” — tweet Wednesday. THE FACTS: Not treason. The official who wrote anonymously in The New York Times about the “quiet resistance” against Trump is surely disloyal to the president but not a traitor in the legal sense. Treason occurs when a U.S. citizen, or a noncitizen on U.S. territory, wages war against the country or provides material support, not just sympathy, to a declared enemy of the United States. For instance, in the Cold War case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were executed for giving atomic secrets to Russia, the Rosenbergs were convicted of espionage, not treason, because the U.S. and Russia were not officially at war. No one has been convicted of treason since the aftermath of World War II, few have been through history and no one has been executed for that crime, says Carlton F.W. Larson, a University of California law professor who has a book coming on treason. In 2006, the Bush administration brought a treason indictment against Adam Gadahn, an American who authorities say became an operative and spokesman for al-Qaida abroad. The Obama administration said he was killed in a 2015 counterterrorism operation in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. Treason is addressed in the Constitution as part of an effort by the framers to prevent the government from using it as a reason to suppress political speech, said J. Richard Broughton, associate dean at University of Detroit Mercy and a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association. Congress has little if any power to change the definition and the executive branch can only bring charges in extremely limited cases. Trump’s opponents have used “treason” loosely as the special counsel investigates contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, and it is thrown around widely in the public discourse by all sides. Trump is using the word loosely now. ___
KAVANAUGH HEARINGSDEMOCRATIC SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR of Minnesota, asking about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s views on the scope of a president’s executive power: “I’m asking about your position that you stated in this law review article that a president should be not subject to investigations while in office. You’re only saying that they should be subject to investigation as part of an impeachment (proceeding by Congress) and that there’s no other investigation that could occur? Is that fair?” — Senate hearing Wednesday. KAVANAUGH: “No. ... On criminal investigation and prosecution, I did not take a position on the constitutionality. Period.” THE FACTS: His claim is highly questionable, based on his past writings. In a 2009 Minnesota Law Review article, Kavanaugh cast doubt on whether a president should be subject to what he described as “time-consuming” criminal investigations, cautioning that it could distract the nation’s chief executive from doing the job. He wrote in a footnote that “a serious constitutional question exists regarding whether a President can be criminally indicted and tried while in office.” A decade earlier, Kavanaugh wrote that the Constitution seems to dictate that “congressional investigation must take place in lieu of criminal investigation when the President is the subject of investigation, and that criminal prosecution can occur only after the President has left office.” Special counsel Robert Mueller has been investigating whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia during the 2016 campaign to tip the election in his favor, and whether Trump obstructed justice such as by firing FBI director James Comey. ___ DEMOCRATIC SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN of California: “In the 1950s and 60s, the two decades before Roe, deaths from illegal abortions in this country ran between 200,000 and 1.2 million. That’s according to the Guttmacher Institute.” — Senate hearing Wednesday. THE FACTS: That’s wrong, and she corrected herself Friday. Known deaths from illegal abortion were much smaller. The California senator conflated the estimated number of women who had an illegal abortion with the number who died from it, according to the research she cites. The Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights, cites estimates in a 2003 report that 200,000 to 1.2 million illegal abortions were performed in the 1950s and 1960s in the U.S. The report says the number of deaths from illegal abortion dropped from just under 1,700 in 1940 to just over 300 by 1950 and a little under 200 by 1965. The Supreme Court established a constitutional right to abortion in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. ___ RUSSIA INVESTIGATIONTRUMP ATTORNEY RUDY GIULIANI, citing a “60 day run-up to 2018 elections”: “If Mueller wants to show he’s not partisan, then issue a report on collusion and obstruction. They will show President Trump did nothing wrong.” — tweet Aug. 25. THE FACTS: He’s wrong in suggesting there is a 60-day cutoff date before the Nov. 6 midterm elections, which came Friday, for Mueller to wrap up the Russia investigation. Trump and his allies including Giulani often cite a Justice Department policy on the issue. But in fact, no written policy setting a deadline exists and Mueller can continue the probe and issue new indictments. He also has no time constraints regarding finishing or releasing the findings of his investigation. The only thing that’s changed is that Labor Day kicked off high election season in the battle for control of the House and Senate. So any action by Mueller between now and the Nov. 6 voting risks being seen as an effort to affect the outcome. The Justice Department does have guidelines about investigations in advance of an election, which have been interpreted over the past decade to mean that investigators, if possible, should avoid taking specific actions — such as indicting candidates or raiding their office — in the run-up to an election. “Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party,” one such memo from 2012 states. But the policy does not impose a specific cutoff date for investigations before an election. ___ Associated Press writers Christopher Rugaber, Josh Boak, Cal Woodward, Eric Tucker and Laurie Kellman contributed to this report. ___ Find AP Fact Checks at apne.ws/2kbx8bdwww.apnews.com/826dd4cf9c9b4277b82430a198c11989?utm_medium=AP_Politics&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&__twitter_impression=true
|
|
|
Post by jcurio on Sept 8, 2018 11:35:53 GMT -6
DEMOCRATIC SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN of California: “In the 1950s and 60s, the two decades before Roe, deaths from illegal abortions in this country ran between 200,000 and 1.2 million. That’s according to the Guttmacher Institute.” — Senate hearing Wednesday. THE FACTS: That’s wrong, and she corrected herself Friday. Known deaths from illegal abortion were much smaller. The California senator conflated the estimated number of women who had an illegal abortion with the number who died from it, according to the research she cites. The Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights, cites estimates in a 2003 report that 200,000 to 1.2 million illegal abortions were performed in the 1950s and 1960s in the U.S. The report says the number of deaths from illegal abortion dropped from just under 1,700 in 1940 to just over 300 by 1950 and a little under 200 by 1965. The Supreme Court established a constitutional right to abortion in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. Read more: theedgeofreality.proboards.com/thread/6102/running-office?page=17#ixzz5QX5LG8ol********* THIS, is what I have “heard” all my life. That the “quality” (to women's health) of abortions has improved since legalization..... Obviously, more UNTRUTHS. Said in a particular way; even. 😖
|
|
|
Post by jcurio on Sept 8, 2018 12:02:07 GMT -6
Under defamation laws, people can bring a lawsuit for slander or libel if they believe someone’s statements have injured their reputation. For public officials such as Trump, they must meet a higher legal bar than ordinary people due to First Amendment guarantees of a free press and show the statements were made with “actual malice.” That means a publication is at risk by acting with reckless disregard for the truth. Read more: theedgeofreality.proboards.com/thread/6102/running-office?page=17#ixzz5QX77p2L0********* So, someone please tell me “what is used”, besides “actual malice”?? Are we saying that someones’ opinion, even in print, is NOT subject to other people’s opinion? “Malice” with words, can’t be proven? Oh sure. Let’s put this right up there with “wishy-washy incite to violence/incite to riot” 🙄. It’s all about INTENT, right? Or do people just want to freely express themselves, in the moment, without any repercussions..... Especially when you don’t feel like anyone is listening to you.... Also, is it “libel” , IF you are repeating (in print) something that you HEARD someone else saying? We can make this all as ridiculous as it sounds. What are the FACTS looking like to the rest of the world? To the next generation? 😖
|
|
|
Post by jcurio on Sept 8, 2018 12:08:02 GMT -6
Never mind all the other legalities..... I’m framing this under the “right to know my accuser” Bleh
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Sept 8, 2018 12:52:59 GMT -6
projects.thestar.com/donald-trump-fact-check/index.htmlDonald Trump has said 2436 false things as U.S. presidentBy Daniel Dale, Washington Bureau Chief / www.thestar.com/authors.dale_daniel.htmlThe Star is keeping track of every false claim U.S. President Donald Trump has made since his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2017. Why? Historians say there has never been such a constant liar in the Oval Office. We think dishonesty should be challenged. We think inaccurate information should be corrected. And we think the sheer frequency of Trump’s inaccuracy is a central story of his presidency. If Trump is a serial liar, why call this a list of “false claims,” not lies? You can read our detailed explanation here. The short answer is that we can’t be sure that each and every one was intentional. In some cases, he may have been confused or igannant. What we know, objectively, is that he was not telling the truth. Last updated: Aug 29, 2018 CLICK TO SEE LIST: projects.thestar.com/donald-trump-fact-check/index.html
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Oct 6, 2018 9:41:22 GMT -6
Joe Scarborough Verified account @joenbc Don’t yell at senators, don’t shout at people in restaurants, don’t rage on about past votes.
1. REGISTER 2. VOTE 3. GET YOUR FRIENDS TO VOTE
You want to change Washington?
You get your chance in 32 days.
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Oct 9, 2018 8:16:07 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by jcurio on Oct 12, 2018 23:12:40 GMT -6
Welllll, if we are going to laugh; I just don’t know where to put this: www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna919501(Surely they aren’t questioning her long term memory. Maybe she should have retired 1st; though......)
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Oct 13, 2018 8:16:30 GMT -6
What's her point?! I'm pretty sure I was a "weird dude" in the 3rd grade!
|
|
|
Post by jcurio on Oct 13, 2018 13:24:20 GMT -6
EXACTLY.
3rd grade teachers have the word on every body
🤣
|
|
|
Post by jcurio on Oct 13, 2018 13:25:14 GMT -6
* must have been a slow news day
|
|
|
Post by jcurio on Oct 13, 2018 13:27:02 GMT -6
How old was Jeffrey Dahmer when his dad worked for DuPont??
🙄🤔🤫
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Oct 31, 2018 12:28:20 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by plutronus on Nov 1, 2018 0:37:51 GMT -6
Wow! A bunch of great photos. I love that guy!! I'm voting for him again. And I don't give a hoot that President Trump shoots from the hip either, without checking his facts first, (doesn't mean he's a liar, but the donkeycrats make him out to be) un-like all those other professional political criminals with their wireless earbuds receiving transmissions from the politically correct speech managers just out of public or camera view. You have no idea who they are? Because its not their talking or thinking, but a team of professional speech managers. That's how stupid the public is.
Yep.
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Nov 1, 2018 12:49:20 GMT -6
Election Special 2018 Preview | Our Cartoon President | SHOWTIME
SHOWTIME Published on Nov 1, 2018 Our Cartoon President prepares us for all that is to come in the Election Special 2018 Preview. Our Cartoon President Election Special 2018 premieres Sunday, November 4 at 10:30pm ET/PT.
SHOWTIME Published on Aug 24, 2018 As Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen are found guilty on criminal counts, Our Cartoon President and his closest confidants strategize about the best way to respond to the turmoil. Catch all the drama, emotion, and suspense now! All episodes available now, only on Showtime.
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Nov 1, 2018 13:00:39 GMT -6
VOTE 'EM OUT
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Nov 1, 2018 21:40:20 GMT -6
Disney heiress Abigail Disney is here to tell you exactly what the 1% did with Trump's Tax Cuts ★ Are You Registered to Vote? verify.vote.org
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Nov 2, 2018 15:05:35 GMT -6
And she's complaining about extra money ?
Did she complain when Iran was sent millions ?
What about the cost of illegal immigration ?
What about unfair trade deals with China ?
How about uranium going to Russia ?
Please !!!
Yes. Vote people !!!
chill out cliff...she's not running for office...she's just informing you of where your tax dollars go...
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Nov 3, 2018 17:57:17 GMT -6
www.cnn.com/2018/10/27/politics/us-midterm-election-explainer-intl-trnd/index.html?utm_term=image&utm_medium=social&utm_content=2018-11-03T21%3A00%3A10&utm_source=twCNN The non-American's guide to the midterm elections (And a refresher for the rest of you)By Doug Criss, CNN / www.cnn.com/profiles/doug-criss-profile Sat October 27, 2018 (CNN)Millions of voters will go to the polls across the US on Tuesday, but they won't be picking a president. The impact of the midterm elections, however, could be almost as significant. President Donald Trump isn't on the ballot, but the results will be a referendum on the polarizing US leader, his policies and the Republican politicians who have tied their fortunes to his. President Trump could have more power or less in Washington by the end of Election Day. The elections are on November 6, but lots of people will have already voted by then because early voting is a thing in the US, where about 40% of ballots were cast before Election Day in 2016.
Here's everything you need to know about the US midterm elections.What are the US midterm elections? Why so much interest in an election that doesn't involve picking a president? Which political parties are involved? What are some of the top issues in this election? What does this mean for the rest of the world? What are the possible scenarios? What are some of the marquee races? And will history be made? What happens immediately after the midterms? THE BASICS
What are the US midterm elections?You're familiar with US presidential elections, which are held every four years and are the most closely watched political contests in the world. But another slew of elections -- House and Senate races, governors' races -- are held smack in the middle of the President's term, hence the word "midterms." All 435 seats in the House of Representatives will be voted on during the midterms, because members run every two years. Thirty-five seats in the 100-member Senate (members serve six-year terms) are on the ballot this year as well. So are the governorships in 36 states. Why so much interest in an election that doesn't involve picking a president?There's a lot at stake for President Trump. The party that ends up in control of Congress can make the President's life a breeze or a nightmare during the last two years of his term. Which political parties are involved?Officially, a bunch of them, but really in America, every election comes down to a battle royale between just two parties: the Democrats and the Republicans. For much of its history, the US has had two dominant parties that compete for the White House and seats in Congress. This is primarily because in American elections, it's winner-takes-all for each seat. In a few countries with parliamentary systems, political parties win seats if they get a certain proportion of the overall vote and can even strike deals to cobble together coalition governments. Not so here. And if you've ever wondered why Republicans have an elephant symbol and Democrats have a donkey, here's why: political cartoons. Political cartoonist Thomas Nast popularized elephants as symbols for the GOP way back in 1874, when he used the jumbo-sized animal to depict the GOP vote in a drawing in Harper's Weekly. Democrat Andrew Jackson started using a donkey in his presidential campaign ads in 1828, after his critics started calling him a "jackass" for his populist views. Years later, Nast drew a donkey in another political cartoon and, voila, a Democratic symbol was born. What are some of the top issues in this election?Health care, the economy and immigration. That trio of issues -- in that order -- is what's on voters minds as they head to the polls, according to this CNN survey from earlier this year. Immigration, just like it was in 2016, is an especially big driver for Republican voters. They have responded positively to President Trump's calls for immigration crackdowns and his desire to build a wall on the southern US border. What does this mean for the rest of the world?The results of the midterms will likely change how President Trump is perceived by other world leaders. A strong showing for Republicans would give the impression that Trump has a firm grip on his country, making the President and his "America First" agenda look reaffirmed on the world stage. Trump would more forcefully push for changes in how the US deals with EU and NATO allies. And he might challenge the Chinese more forcefully on economic trade issues or territorial disputes in the South China Sea. If the Democrats take the House, the Senate or both, Trump would look a lot weaker. His administration could be virtually paralyzed by all the investigations the Democrats are expected to bring if they regain power. Trump's counterparts in other world capitals, from Moscow to Paris, would be emboldened to further their own self-interests at the expense of the American President preoccupied with problems at home. THE SCENARIOSThis election is a referendum on the current occupant of the White House. Depending on what voters decide to do with Congress, Trump may approach the last two years of his current term with the wind at his back or headwinds to his face. So what happens if ... ... the Republicans win the House and Senate?Trump would be emboldened. He would say, once again, that he and his party proved the pollsters wrong. The threat of new House or Senate investigations into members of his administration would be greatly reduced. Trump and his party would push hard for more items on their wish list: money for the border wall; completely dismantling Obamacare and perhaps a second tax cut. And a GOP-controlled Senate would confirm more conservative judges to the federal bench -- which may end up being Trump's biggest legacy. ... the Democrats win the House and Senate?This would be the nightmare scenario for Trump. The Democrats would take full advantage of the "checks and balances" of the Constitution. A Democratic Senate might force Trump to nominate more middle-of-the-road judges, and his "Make America Great Again" agenda would be dead in the water in the House. ... the Democrats win the House and the Republicans keep the Senate?This legislative mix is considered the most likely result of the midterms. But there are still areas where the two sides could get things done together. A lot of House Democrats represent districts that are close to Trump's position on trade, so some political deals could get done there. Trump's proposed replacement for NAFTA, which Congress is likely to vote on next year, will be a good test of this under a split scenario. THE IMPACT
What are some of the marquee races? And will history be made?There's a record number of women running this year, so there's a good chance they could make historic gains on election night. And three gubernatorial races could put a trio of African-American candidates in the governor's mansions of three states for the first time. Democrat Ben Jealous faces an uphill battle against incumbent GOP Gov. Larry Hogan in Maryland, but Democrats Stacey Abrams (in Georgia against Republican bob Kemp) and Andrew Gillum (in Florida against Republican Ron DeSantis) are in competitive contests. What happens immediately after the midterms?After the election, there will be a so-called lame duck session in Congress, which starts in mid-November. Those lawmakers will deal with some pretty big issues -- mainly with a showdown (and possible government shutdown) over funding for Trump's proposed border wall. The new Congress convenes in January. www.cnn.com/2018/10/27/politics/us-midterm-election-explainer-intl-trnd/index.html?utm_term=image&utm_medium=social&utm_content=2018-11-03T21%3A00%3A10&utm_source=twCNN
|
|