|
Post by hop2 on May 12, 2019 21:48:57 GMT
George Conway’s response to this.. trump.. “Think of it. I became President of the United States in one of the most hard fought and consequential elections in the history of our great nation. From long before I ever took office, I was under a sick & unlawful investigation concerning what has become known as the Russian....” “Think of it. The Russia investigation was a legitimate investigation, with a legitimate basis, into how a hostile foreign power tried to interfere with and undermine our democracy. It was in the best interests of the nation—in the interests of all Americans, no matter who ... “they voted for—that this investigation be allowed to proceed to its rightful conclusion, without improper attempts to obstruct it, if only so that we could all know what really happened and take steps to see that it never happens again. But because ...” “you are a malignant narcissist—a person with both narcissistic and antisocial personality disorders—you couldn’t view it that way. Instead of complying with your oath of office, and instead of taking stock of what was in the best interests of ... “the nation whose Constitution and laws you swore to uphold, you viewed the matter purely in terms of your own ego: You viewed the investigation as casting doubt on what you perceive as your great election victory (in which your opponent garnered ...” ”nearly three million more votes than you did), and so you took multiple steps to obstruct, and repeatedly lied about, the investigation from the outset. Even today, despite the well-founded assessments of the intelligence community, and despite the ...” ”damning evidence laid out in the Mueller report, you refuse to take what the Russians did seriously. Instead, you continue to lie, calling the investigation a “hoax” and an “attempted coup,” and you didn’t even mention Russia’s ...” ”conduct in your recent 90-minute conversation with Putin, the man who seeks to undermine our institutions. Put simply, you put your own perceptions of your self-interest above the national interest, which you seem unable to comprehend or respect. ...” ”... That is your greatest offense against the country, an offense that incorporates but vastly exceeds the statutory crimes you’ve committed. It is the ultimate high crime or misdemeanor under the Constitution, and under the Framers’ wise design, ...” ”... it is an offense for which you should pay with your office, regardless of whether you are ultimately brought to justice in the courts of law. twitter.com/realdonaldtrum…” That’s nice George, when my grandkids are learning Russian I’ll remember to thank your wife.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on May 12, 2019 21:50:04 GMT
Didn't you learn anything the first time You give me more credit than I deserve. I had to do a reverse image search to figure out who that was. (for the rest of you colonial heathens: it’s King George III, the one the Declaration of Independence was addressed to ... and he was known to be out of his frickin’-frackin’ mind) tee hee For once I did not have to google. That’s a rare thing tho
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on May 12, 2019 22:42:47 GMT
Didn't you learn anything the first time You give me more credit than I deserve. I had to do a reverse image search to figure out who that was. (for the rest of you colonial heathens: it’s King George III, the one the Declaration of Independence was addressed to ... and he was known to be out of his frickin’-frackin’ mind) tee hee Thanks to Hamilton, I knew this one.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on May 12, 2019 22:49:57 GMT
I’m seeing Hamilton in August! Until then, I’m a know-nothing!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 10:31:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2019 23:03:43 GMT
CNBC..
”*White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow on Sunday acknowledged that the Chinese do not directly pay tariffs on goods coming into the U.S., contradicting President Donald Trump's claims that China will pay for tariffs imposed by the U.S.”
*Kudlow said that "both sides will suffer on this," but argued that China will suffer significant GDP losses as export markets are hit. The blow to U.S. GDP, on the other hand, won't be substantial since the economy is "in terrific shape," he said.”
trump’s response this afternoon....
“We are right where we want to be with China. Remember, they broke the deal with us & tried to renegotiate. We will be taking in Tens of Billions of Dollars in Tariffs from China. Buyers of product can make it themselves in the USA (ideal), or buy it from non-Tariffed countries...”
”We will then spend (match or better) the money that China may no longer be spending with our Great Patriot Farmers (Agriculture), which is a small percentage of total Tariffs received, and distribute the food to starving people in nations around the world! GREAT! #MAGA”
No pithy response for his last tweet. Other then the man is nuttier than a fruit cake.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 10:31:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2019 23:07:25 GMT
And he continues...
”The Democrats new and pathetically untrue sound bite is that we are in a “Constitutional Crisis.” They and their partner, the Fake News Media, are all told to say this as loud and as often as possible. They are a sad JOKE! We may have the strongest Economy in our history, best...”
”employment numbers ever, low taxes & regulations, a rebuilt military & V.A., many great new judges, & so much more. But we have had a giant SCAM perpetrated upon our nation, a Witch Hunt, a Treasonous Hoax. That is the Constitutional Crisis & hopefully guilty people will pay!”
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 12, 2019 23:09:41 GMT
We will be taking in Tens of Billions of Dollars in Tariffs from China Yup, will make the treasury look good, and I guess more money for his wall, while WE pay the billions to cover the tariffs the sellers have to recoup! And of course the farmers will be paid from the tariffs to cover their loses when they would rather sell their crops for far more dollars!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 10:31:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2019 23:33:04 GMT
New York Times...
”Clash Between Trump and House Democrats Poses Threat to Constitutional Order”
“WASHINGTON — President Trump’s wholesale refusal to provide information to Congress threatens to upend the delicate balance that is the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution.
Earlier administrations fought isolated skirmishes over congressional subpoenas. Mr. Trump, by contrast, has declared an all-out war on efforts by House Democrats to look into his official conduct and business dealings. And that has legal experts across the ideological spectrum warning that the president’s categorical opposition to what he sees as partisan meddling could create a constitutional crisis — an impasse that the allocation of interlocking powers and responsibilities by the framers cannot solve.
“A president who refuses to respond to congressional oversight is taking the presidency to new levels of danger,” said William P. Marshall, a law professor at the University of North Carolina. “We’re supposed to be in a system of checks and balances, and one of the biggest checks that Congress has over the executive is the power of congressional oversight.”
“Not responding to that is to literally say that you’re above the law and you’re above the Constitution,” he said. “There’s nothing in history that comes even close to that.”
”John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former official in the George W. Bush administration, said Mr. Trump’s approach was novel and dangerous.
“The thing that’s unusual is the blanket refusal,” Professor Yoo said. “It would be extraordinary if the president actually were to try to stop all congressional testimony on subpoenaed issues. That would actually be unprecedented if it were a complete ban.”
“He’s treating Congress like they’re the Chinese or a local labor union working on a Trump building,” he said.
The framers did not anticipate every problem, and they did not directly address this one. The Constitution says nothing about congressional power to investigate the executive branch. Nor does it say anything about the president’s right to keep secrets from Congress.
But the Supreme Court has said that both things are inherent in the responsibilities the Constitution gave to the executive and legislative branches. Congress must be able to obtain information to help it perform its responsibilities. But the executive branch cannot function without some ability to keep presidential deliberations secret.”
That has led to frequent conflicts. Officials in the past two administrations were held in contempt after refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas seeking particular documents. After negotiations, court proceedings and the passage of time, the Republic moved on.
This conflict is different, Professor Yoo said. “There are very extreme bargaining positions on both sides,” he said, “and there are fewer people who are interested in following institutional accommodations that have always gone on.”
The breadth of the current inquiries from House Democrats — seeking tax returns, business and investigative records, along with testimony from Attorney General William P. Barr; Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel; and Donald F. McGahn II, the former White House counsel — is far more comprehensive. And Mr. Trump’s response has been far more categorical, if his statements can be taken at face value rather than as a bargaining position.
“We’re fighting all the subpoenas,” Mr. Trump said last month. “These aren’t, like, impartial people. The Democrats are trying to win 2020.”
David Alan Sklansky, a law professor at Stanford, said the nation is moving from the minor scuffles that gave rise to contempt citations against officials in the Bush and Obama administrations to a dangerous standoff.
“There’s something different about saying, across the board, that we’re not going to comply with subpoenas sent to us by a house of Congress controlled by Democrats because they’re the enemy and we’re just not going to do it,” he said. “Our system depends on some commitment by both parties and by all public officials to continuing a constitutional order.”
It’s not a cliff that you fall off, and suddenly you’re in a constitutional crisis,” Professor Sklansky said. “It’s more like a slope, and how far down the slope you are.”
Mr. Trump is not the first president to accuse congressional investigators of partisanship. President George W. Bush did not welcome investigation of whether federal prosecutors were fired for political reasons, and President Barack Obama resisted inquiries into the botched gun trafficking case known as Operation Fast and Furious.
In a 2004 law review article, “The Limits on Congress’s Authority to Investigate the President,” Professor Marshall, who served in the Clinton White House, wrote that congressional investigations “provide a president’s opponents with considerable opportunity to engage in political mischief.”
In an interview, Professor Marshall said House Democrats should act cautiously.
“Congressional investigations obviously can be used purely as a tactic to harass or to divert a presidency from pursuing its agenda,” he said. “There has to be some sort of measured responsibility from the investigators. The Democrats have to make sure that what they’re doing really is soundly based in legitimate government reasons and not just a desire to inflict distraction on the presidency.”
Mr. Trump’s lawyers, in seeking to block a subpoena to his accounting firm, describe House Democrats as engaged in a “political war.”
“Instead of working with the president to pass bipartisan legislation that would actually benefit Americans,” the lawyers wrote in a lawsuit filed last month, “House Democrats are singularly obsessed with finding something they can use to damage the president politically. They have issued more than 100 subpoenas and requests to anyone with even the most tangential connection to the president.”
An important limit on congressional power in this area, articulated by the Supreme Court in the face of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy’s investigations of supposed communist infiltration of the government in the 1950s, was to forbid inquiries into “the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of Congress.”
In refusing to turn over Mr. Trump’s tax returns and in suits seeking to stop private businesses from providing records concerning the president’s business activities, Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, and Mr. Trump’s lawyers have said there was no “legitimate legislative purpose” for the requests, notwithstanding a federal law concerning the returns and questions about whether Mr. Trump has violated constitutional restrictions on doing business with foreign entities.
Raymond W. Smock, who served as historian of the House from 1983 to 1995, said it was one thing for Mr. Trump to assert a privilege and another for him to presume to decide what was a legitimate legislative purpose. “That is part of the arrogance the Trump administration is exhibiting all up and down the line,” Mr. Smock said.
In a 1927 decision arising from the Teapot Dome scandal, concerning government corruption, the Supreme Court said that congressional inquiries were “an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.” To enact sensible laws, and to carry out their other responsibilities, the Supreme Court said, lawmakers must have access to information.
Congress’s power to punish refusals to cooperate is a more complicated matter. In theory, it can take matters into its own hands, instructing the sergeant-at-arms to take witnesses into custody until they agree to testify. That method has not been used since 1935.
It could ask the Justice Department to pursue contempt proceedings, but earlier administrations have refused to cooperate in disputes involving executive branch officials, and the current one would no doubt follow suit.
The House can go to court on its own, and probably will, but the resulting proceedings are likely to be lengthy. If history is a reliable guide, the administration is likely to lose confrontations over congressional subpoenas, though is not clear that the Trump administration would comply with any eventual court order.
There is a fourth alternative, one that serves two goals, said Michael Conway, who served as counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during impeachment proceedings against President Richard M. Nixon. Were the House to open impeachment proceedings against Mr. Trump, its right to gather information would be strengthened, Mr. Conway said. And refusal to cooperate with such inquiries, he added, could itself be an impeachable offense.
Indeed, one article of impeachment against Mr. Nixon arose from his refusal to comply with such a congressional subpoena. He resigned rather than face what appeared to be certain impeachment and removal.
Mr. Conway said current lawmakers should consider that historical analogy.
“In Watergate, Congress acted by finding that interfering with the impeachment inquiry was in fact itself an impeachable offense,” Mr. Conway said. “Short of that, I don’t think Congress is going to be able to get these subpoenas enforced in any timely way.”
In a 1974 report, the Judiciary Committee drew a similar conclusion. “Unless the defiance of the committee’s subpoenas under these circumstances is considered grounds for impeachment,” the report said, “it is difficult to conceive of any president acknowledging that he is obligated to supply the relevant evidence necessary for Congress to exercise its constitutional responsibility in an impeachment proceeding.”
Congressional investigations have more than one goal, Professor Marshall said.
“The value of congressional oversight is not only that it might uncover previous wrongdoing,” he said. “It is also that it serves as a deterrence going forward. A White House free of congressional oversight will likely behave far differently than one that knows it can be the subject of congressional investigations.”
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 12, 2019 23:34:30 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 10:31:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2019 23:47:14 GMT
Man has a point.
Newsweek...
“ROBERT GATES RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT AGE, 'INTELLECTUAL ACUITY' OF SEPTUAGENARIANS TRUMP, BIDEN, SANDERS”
“Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates questioned the "intellectual acuity" of the three men in their seventies dominating the 2020 election discussion: Donald Trump, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders.
Gates, who served under both former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, told CBS News' Face the Nation in an interview aired Sunday that older men in their mid-to-late 70s don't have the "kind of energy" needed to take on the office of the presidency.
Trump became the oldest first-term president when he was sworn in at the age of 70. If elected to a second term, he would be 74 at the time of inauguration. Biden is currently 76, and would be a 78-year-old first-term president, if elected. Sanders is the eldest of the group, at 77. By the next inauguration in January 2021, the senator from Vermont will be 79 years old.
On Sunday, Gates doubled down on comments he made about Biden in his 2014 memoir, saying that while he is "impossible not to like," the former VP and six-term senator has also been wrong on "every" foreign policy and national security issue in his 40-year career. Gates said it is "problematic" the country has placed a trio of septuagenarians atop the 2020 field of candidates.
At 75, Gates said he understands the limitations that come with age.
"I think I'm pretty busy and pretty active but I think having a president who is somebody our age or older, in the case of senator Sanders, I think it's problematic," he explained.
"I think that you don't have the kind of energy that I think is required to be president, I'm not sure you have the intellectual acuity that you might have had in your 60s," Gates added. "It's just a personal view. For me, the thought of taking on those resposbilities at this point in my life would be pretty daunting."
Gates, who said he identifies as a member of the Republican Party, said he has "no idea" who he'll vote for in 2020, citing how long it is until the actual election. "I gave up predicting the future after leaving the CIA," Gates said, adding that he is "disappointed Republicans don't stand up [to Trump] more often for traditional Republican values" including fiscal discipline, internationalism, and trade.
Gates said old age is "a question people ought to address. He noted Ronald Reagan, who he labeled a "great president," was 73 years old when he was elected to a second term.
In the wide-ranging interview broadcast Sunday morning, Gates tackled a series of issues and said Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation is "not case closed."
In regard to China, Gates said the real problem is the "structural imbalance" in the way the two countries work with each other, and he commended the Trump administration for trying to take on the issue.
"The Chinese place restrictions on joint ventures on foreign investment, require turnover of technology, they steal intellectual property," Gates lamented. He said Trump is -- and should -- demand reciprocity in trade negotiations with China and accused them of "cheating" the international community.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 10:31:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2019 23:55:36 GMT
Reuters...
“Exclusive: Presidential hopeful Biden looking for ‘middle ground’ climate policy”
“WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden is crafting a climate change policy he hopes will appeal to both environmentalists and the blue-collar voters who elected Donald Trump, according to two sources, carving out a middle ground approach that will likely face heavy resistance from green activists.
The backbone of the policy will likely include the United States re-joining the Paris Climate Agreement and preserving U.S. regulations on emissions and vehicle fuel efficiency that Trump has sought to undo, according to one of the sources, Heather Zichal, who is part of a team advising Biden on climate change. She previously advised President Barack Obama.
The second source, a former energy department official advising Biden's campaign who asked not to be named, said the policy could also be supportive of nuclear energy and fossil fuel options like natural gas and carbon capture technology, which limit emissions from coal plants and other industrial facilities.
A spokesman for Biden’s campaign, TJ Ducklo, declined to comment on Biden’s emerging climate policy or his advisers, but said Biden takes climate change seriously. “Joe Biden has called climate change an ‘existential threat,’ and as Vice President was instrumental in orchestrating the Paris Climate Accord," Ducklo said in an emailed statement.
On Twitter, Biden echoed the statement and said he plans to unveil policies that reflect the urgency of climate change.
"I'll have more specifics on how America can lead on climate in the coming weeks," he said.
The approach, which has not been previously reported, will set Biden apart from many of his Democratic rivals for the White House who have embraced much tougher climate agendas, like the Green New Deal calling for an end to U.S. fossil fuels use within 10 years. That could make Biden, vice president under Obama, a target of environmental groups and youth activists ahead of next year’s primary elections.
"I respect where they (activist groups) are coming from," Zichal said. "What we learned from the Obama administration is unless we find middle ground on these issues, we risk not having any policies."
More than half of the crowded field of Democratic contenders, including Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, Cory Booker, Jay Inslee and Pete Buttigieg have backed the Green New Deal, and many have also called for a moratorium on drilling on federal land.
Sanders and Inslee on Friday criticized the measured approach that Biden may take.
Inslee praised the Obama-Biden administration for its climate legacy but said "the times and science have changed. We cannot simply go back to the past; we need a bold climate plan for our future."
On Twitter, Sanders said there is "no middle ground when it comes to climate policy."
Biden has yet to comment publicly on the Green New Deal, and has said little about climate change in his campaign stops.
Referring to the outlines of Biden's policy, Varshini Prakash, the director of the Sunrise Movement, which has been pushing candidates to endorse the Green New Deal, said: “We are ready and willing to call out the insufficiency of policies like that."
Republicans, labor unions, and some Democrats have panned the Green New Deal as unfeasible in a country that has become the world’s top oil and gas producer, and remains a major fossil fuel consumer. The costs of ending the fossil fuel economy and transitioning to clean fuels could soar into the trillions of dollars, and would take decades, they say.Blocking or reversing the Trump administration's rollback of over 70 Obama-era climate rules and initiatives, such as the Clean Power Plan, auto efficiency standards, oil and gas methane emissions limits, and the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement could form the foundation of the strategy, she said.
She and the other adviser said Biden's climate policy was still being formed and the campaign's approach could change.
OBAMA-ERA EXPERTS
Trump’s successful bid for the White House in 2016 hinged in part on his promise to create blue-collar jobs in oil, mining and manufacturing by rolling back regulations he argued were overly burdensome to business.
In contrast, then-Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton saw her support dip after she said her aggressive clean energy agenda would “put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business,” underscoring the impact environmental policy can have on an election.
Biden’s middle ground approach to environmental policy could put him in a better position than his rivals to take on Trump if it accommodates blue-collar voters. But he must first battle for his party’s nomination by seeking the votes of people who see global warming as a priority.
A recent CNN poll showed that climate change is the top issue for Democratic voters.
Zichal said she is gathering policy advice on Biden’s behalf from experts including former Obama Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Frank Verrastro, head of the energy and national security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Moniz, who declined to comment, co-wrote an op-ed published by CNBC in March with a Bush administration official calling for a "Green Real Deal," an alternative to the Green New Deal that calls for increased energy efficiency, nuclear energy and carbon capture and storage technology to drive down emissions alongside renewable energy. He has said achieving a zero-carbon target by 2030 is impossible.
Zichal said Biden hopes to be able to use his climate policy to bridge the gap between younger and more progressive Democrats who want bold action on global warming, and the working-class demographic that fear losing jobs as the economy shifts away from fossil fuels.
"He will build a new climate coalition," she said. "Unions and environmentalists are searching for common ground. We can’t drive a common agenda unless we work together."
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 10:31:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2019 0:17:07 GMT
And the rant continues...
”Despite two years and millions of dollars spent, the Democrats are acting like crazed lunatics ever since the results of the Mueller Report were made public. But they knew there was NOTHING even before the Report was started. It is all a big Hoax, the biggest in American history!”
“Ever since the Mueller Report showed No Collusion & No Obstruction, the Dems have been working overtime to damage me and the Republican Party by issuing over 80 demands for documents and testimonies, and with NO REASON. That’s all they want to do - don’t care about anything else!”
”When the Mueller Report came out showing NO Collusion with Russia (of course), it was supposed to be over, back to work for the people. But the Dems have gone “nuts,” and it has actually gotten worse! Hope the Republicans win back the House in 2020, or little will get done!”
“The “Constitutional Crisis” is the Democrats refusing to work. Let them start by fixing the mess that their Immigration Laws have caused at the Southern Border.”
“China is DREAMING that Sleepy Joe Biden, or any of the others, gets elected in 2020. They LOVE ripping off America!”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 10:31:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2019 1:49:44 GMT
trump, yet again..
”Even Director James Clapper admits that the FBI actions against the Trump Presidential Campaign do in fact meet the definition of spying, perhaps FBI Director Christopher Wray will be the next to do so.” @loudobbs”
And here is the rest of the story from Real Clear Politics.
“Clapper On Papadopoulos Claims: Spying "Is A Term I Don't Particularly Like," "Not A Term Of Art"
Friday on CNN's "The Situation Room" with Wolf Blitzer, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper responded to the New York Times reporting that "undercover FBI investigators" met with Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos during the 2016 election.
Papadopoulos, now the author of the book "Deep State Target: How I Got Caught in the Crosshairs of the Plot to Bring Down President Trump, told FOX News on Sunday that he believes the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies, including those of the UK and Australia, used undercover agents to try to entrap him, using honey-pots, front companies, and wiretaps to catch him in a perjury trap. He pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with one of those people and served 11 days in prison last year.
"Was it spying?" CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Clapper Friday. "I guess it meets the dictionary definition of surveillance or spying, a term I don't particularly like."
"I will say that using undercover agents is a standard and legitimate technique that is widely used in investigations," Clapper replied.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN: The president praised "The New York Times" for a front page story that there was an undercover FBI investigator who met with a Trump campaign official, George Papadopoulos. The president views this as spying. The attorney general says this is being looked at. Do you think the Justice Department inspector general will find anything inappropriate on the part of the FBI or the U.S. intelligence community as far as this is concerned?
FMR. DNI JAMES CLAPPER: Well, I don't know. but I will say that using undercover agents is a standard and legitimate technique that is widely used in investigations. That technique has been used to thwart a lot of counterterrorism plots in this country. So I'm sure -- I mean, there are protocols and standards for using an agent and I'm sure that's the case here. trump and his buddy dobbs seem to be ignoring this kind of important detail.
WOLF BLITZER: So you're saying this was not done lightly?
CLAPPER: No. It is never done lightly.
BLITZER: Was it spying?
JAMES CLAPPER: Well, yeah, I guess it meets the dictionary definition of surveillance or spying, a term I don't particularly like. It's not a term of art used by intelligence people. It has a negative connotation of a rogue operation, out of control, not in compliance with the law, and that's not the case at all.”
|
|
lbrock44
Junior Member
Posts: 73
Jun 29, 2014 2:56:24 GMT
|
Post by lbrock44 on May 13, 2019 3:54:09 GMT
OMG. Historians are never, ever going to run out of things to say about this dude. A thousand years from now (assuming we survive the next century), they’ll be scratching their heads and writing books about him. He is out of his frickin’-frackin’ mind.Didn't you learn anything the first time Almost 250 years later and we are back to having King George as our dictator. Only worse.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 10:31:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2019 4:28:47 GMT
MSNBC...
”MULVANEY: Because they are not entitled to see them by law. By the way, they know, especially on this one, they know they're never going to get these documents. This is a pure show-pony-type of situation. They know the legal reasons they can get those documents --
GARRETT: Legitimate legislative function.
MULVANEY: Right. And they're not even close to that... They're just doing this to make the president look bad. They don't care. This is not about information about the president. Keep in mind, all of the president's financial holdings, by law, are disclosed. Want to know what the president owns? Want to know how he makes money? All of that stuff is, by law, I have to fill out my form by the end of next week. So does he. This is just about trying to embarrass the president.
GARRETT: What's embarrassing about his tax records?
MULVANEY: That's what they want to know.
GARRETT: But what is it?
MULVANEY: I don't know because I've never seen
GARRETT: Is there something embarrassing about his tax records?
MULVANEY: I have no idea and I don't care.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 10:31:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2019 13:24:37 GMT
Kyle Griffin...
”China will raise tariffs on $60 billion in U.S. goods in retaliation for Trump's decision to hike duties on Chinese goods.
The duties in large part target the U.S. agriculture industry, which has already suffered from Trump's trade war with China.”
Happy Monday!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 10:31:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2019 13:28:05 GMT
On trump’s tariffs ....
Tea Pain..
”Congratulations to the American consumer! You get to finance Trump's penis-measurin' contest.”
😀
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 10:31:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2019 13:30:23 GMT
The long connected tentacles of our Attorney General
a thread
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 10:31:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2019 13:42:37 GMT
More good news for this Monday
MSNBC..
”DEVELOPING: Dow falls almost 500 points Monday, as China retaliates by slapping tariffs on $60B in US goods.”
|
|
|
Post by peano on May 13, 2019 13:49:46 GMT
Read this in WaPo today and I'm perplexed by Tlaib's meaning. Can anyone tell me their interpretation of what she means when she refers to a "calming feeling": House Republican leaders took aim at Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) on Sunday for a podcast interview in which she discussed her support for a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In an interview on Yahoo News’s “Skullduggery” podcast published Saturday, Tlaib was asked about her position on the issue. The freshman lawmaker began her response by noting that the United States commemorated Holocaust Remembrance Day two weeks ago. She then discussed her Palestinian ancestors and the founding of the state of Israel, saying she was “humbled by the fact that it was my ancestors that had to suffer” to create a safe haven for the Jewish people. “There’s, you know, there’s a kind of a calming feeling, I always tell folks, when I think of the Holocaust and the tragedy of the Holocaust, and the fact that it was my ancestors — Palestinians — who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence, in many ways, had been wiped out. . . . I mean, just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post-the Holocaust, post-the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time,” Tlaib said. She added that the events of the past have informed her views on how to approach a solution to the conflict. “I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that [safe haven], in many ways,” Tlaib said. “But they did it in a way that took their human dignity away, right? And it was forced on them. And so, when I think about one-state, I think about the fact that, why couldn’t we do it in a better way?” Tlaib’s comments were picked up by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, which published an article with the headline, “Tlaib Says She Is Humbled Her Ancestors Provided ‘Safe Haven’ for Jews After Holocaust.” But two of the top House Republicans on Sunday criticized her use of the phrase “calming feeling,” falsely accusing her of using the phrase to describe her views about the Holocaust itself. “There is no justification for the twisted and disgusting comments made by Rashida Tlaib just days after the annual Day of Holocaust Remembrance,” House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) said in a statement. “More than six million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust; there is nothing ‘calming’ about that fact.” Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.), the No. 3 Republican in the House, issued a statement describing Tlaib’s remarks as “sickening.” “I call on Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer to finally take action against Representative Tlaib and other members of the Democratic caucus who are spreading vile anti-Semitism,” she said, referring to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). “All of us, regardless of party, must stand as Americans against the evil of anti-Semitism. If the Democratic leadership continues to stand by in silence, they are enabling the spread of evil.” On Sunday night, Tlaib tweeted: “Policing my words, twisting & turning them to ignite vile attacks on me will not work. All of you who are trying to silence me will fail miserably. I will never allow you to take my words out of context to push your racist and hateful agenda. The truth will always win.” Denzel McCampbell, Tlaib’s spokesman, condemned Cheney’s statement as “dangerous.” Cheney was the first GOP leader to criticize Tlaib on Sunday. “Once again, Republican leaders and right-wing extremists are spreading outright lies to incite hate,” McCampbell said in a statement. “Congresswoman Liz Cheney should be ashamed of herself for using the tragedy of the Holocaust in a transparent attempt to score political points. Her behavior cheapens our public discourse and is an insult to the Jewish community and the millions of Americans who stand opposed to the hatred being spread by Donald Trump’s Republican Party.” McCampbell also maintained that Tlaib “did not in any way praise the Holocaust, nor did she say the Holocaust itself brought a calming feeling to her.” “In fact, she repeatedly called the Holocaust a tragedy and a horrific persecution of Jewish people,” he said. The episode marks the second time in recent weeks Republicans have seized on out-of-context remarks by a freshman Democratic lawmaker. Last month, Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Tex.) criticized Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) for the way she phrased a reference to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Other Republicans followed suit, including President Trump, who tweeted a video that showed snippets of Omar’s comments interspersed with footage of the twin towers burning.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 10:31:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2019 14:11:32 GMT
Monday morning trump..
”Bernie Sanders, “The Economy is doing well, and I’m sure I don’t have to give Trump any credit - I’m sure he’ll take all the credit that he wants.” Wrong Bernie, the Economy is doing GREAT, and would have CRASHED if my opponent (and yours), Crooked Hillary Clinton, had ever won!”
Notice he isn’t tweeting about the big drop in the stock market brought on by his actions.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 10:31:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2019 14:35:35 GMT
I read Tialb’s comments and I really don’t know where was heading with them.
But thing I’m certain about. This guy really doesn’t understand what she means with her comments.
trump..
”Democrat Rep. Tlaib is being slammed for her horrible and highly insensitive statement on the Holocaust. She obviously has tremendous hatred of Israel and the Jewish people. Can you imagine what would happen if I ever said what she said, and says?”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 10:31:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2019 14:35:41 GMT
Read this in WaPo today and I'm perplexed by Tlaib's meaning. Can anyone tell me their interpretation of what she means when she refers to a "calming feeling": House Republican leaders took aim at Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) on Sunday for a podcast interview in which she discussed her support for a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In an interview on Yahoo News’s “Skullduggery” podcast published Saturday, Tlaib was asked about her position on the issue. The freshman lawmaker began her response by noting that the United States commemorated Holocaust Remembrance Day two weeks ago. She then discussed her Palestinian ancestors and the founding of the state of Israel, saying she was “humbled by the fact that it was my ancestors that had to suffer” to create a safe haven for the Jewish people. “There’s, you know, there’s a kind of a calming feeling, I always tell folks, when I think of the Holocaust and the tragedy of the Holocaust, and the fact that it was my ancestors — Palestinians — who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence, in many ways, had been wiped out. . . . I mean, just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post-the Holocaust, post-the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time,” Tlaib said. She added that the events of the past have informed her views on how to approach a solution to the conflict. “I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that [safe haven], in many ways,” Tlaib said. “But they did it in a way that took their human dignity away, right? And it was forced on them. And so, when I think about one-state, I think about the fact that, why couldn’t we do it in a better way?” On Sunday night, Tlaib tweeted: “Policing my words, twisting & turning them to ignite vile attacks on me will not work. All of you who are trying to silence me will fail miserably. I will never allow you to take my words out of context to push your racist and hateful agenda. The truth will always win.” She's not referring to the Holocaust at all. She describing her emotions, the fact that she is not furious,angry,enraged, whatever word you want to use to describe the opposite of acting calmly at what happened to her ancestors.I'm assuming she's of Palestinian heritage. Lets face it they were given a raw deal and she's proud of the fact that they helped to give a safe haven to the Jewish community. Yet, they ( her ancestors) lost everything, but she doesn't feel anger at what happened she'd rather dwell on the good that they did by the sacrifices they made at the time and not on the fact that they lost so much. She's also questioning that there must be a better way of solving the situation they find themselves in now ( for both countries) which will be more equal to the needs of both countries and that one side doesn't sacrifice so much to the benefit of the other. That is what I think she meant anyhow. But I constantly shake my head how others interpret things, often to their own agenda IMO.
|
|
|
Post by peano on May 13, 2019 14:49:58 GMT
I read Tialb’s comments and I really don’t know where was heading with them. But thing I’m certain about. This guy really doesn’t understand what she means with her comments. trump.. ”Democrat Rep. Tlaib is being slammed for her horrible and highly insensitive statement on the Holocaust. She obviously has tremendous hatred of Israel and the Jewish people. Can you imagine what would happen if I ever said what she said, and says?” Since everything that comes out of his mouth is gibberish, I don't even listen to him any more. But I don't understand if Tlaib's comments were calculated irony, or possibly the most horribly worded statement of all time, or...?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 10:31:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2019 15:02:04 GMT
David Axelrod...
“.@realdonaldtrump and his team feel they are playing a winning hand with China, and China DOES need to be confronted. But long term, by pulling out of the TPP, shredding our alliances and ceding leadership around the world, Trump has been a gift to China.”
“And if I am the Chinese, I calculate just how much pain a president who is focused on re-election will be willing to inflict on American farmers (especially in the midwest) and consumers.”
|
|
amom23
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,408
Jun 27, 2014 12:39:18 GMT
|
Post by amom23 on May 13, 2019 15:12:28 GMT
David Axelrod... “.@realdonaldtrump and his team feel they are playing a winning hand with China, and China DOES need to be confronted. But long term, by pulling out of the TPP, shredding our alliances and ceding leadership around the world, Trump has been a gift to China.” “And if I am the Chinese, I calculate just how much pain a president who is focused on re-election will be willing to inflict on American farmers (especially in the midwest) and consumers.”
But that's just it Trump doesn't give a crap about American farmers or anyone else for that matter. It's all about himself and always will be. Why anybody is still supporting him boggles my mind.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 10:31:57 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2019 15:28:12 GMT
Of course David Axelrod had to add one more tweet to the other two I posted above..
“One of the problems with @donaldtrump is that everything to him is a reality show. He thinks about how things play in the moment, not the end game.”
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 13, 2019 15:48:59 GMT
Trump doubles down on China tariffs, saying there is 'no reason' for US consumers to pay themBY OWEN DAUGHERTY - 05/13/19 07:31 AM EDT President Trump on Monday argued in a series of tweets that China will bear the brunt of the new tariffs his administration is imposing on the country, a day after one of his top economic advisers said both the U.S. and China would be hurt by the economic fight. Trump wrote in the tweets that there was no "reason" for U.S. consumers to pay the tariffs, arguing in part that people in the United States could avoid paying the tariffs by buying products produced in other countries or in the United States. "Their is no reason for the U.S. Consumer to pay the Tariffs, which take effect on China today,” Trump wrote in one of the posts on Twitter. In a second tweet, he said a consumer could "buy the product inside the USA (the best idea)." He said companies would leave China for other countries, such as Vietnam, to avoid the tariffs. ** Trump’s comments come just a day after his top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, in an interview on "Fox News Sunday" said both China and U.S. consumers would be hurt by the tariffs. "In fact, both sides will pay in these things, and of course it depends," Kudlow responded after host Chris Wallace pressed him on how importers of Chinese products hit by tariffs will pay those tariffs. Most economists agree that the costs of the tariffs will be paid by U.S. consumers in the form of higher prices on imported products from China. ** thehill.com/homenews/administration/443339-trump-defends-comments-on-who-pays-tariffs-after-top-aidesI say again the Treasury will be filled with his tariffs so he can say see how I saved you dollars! But what happens to his idea if we could stop buying everything from China? And how are the farmers crops supposed to be bought by us?
|
|
|
Post by LavenderLayoutLady on May 13, 2019 15:58:07 GMT
Hell, I'm surprised that McDonald's $1 Value Menu isn't sponsoring our public school lunch programs already! 😢
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on May 13, 2019 16:27:33 GMT
Read this in WaPo today and I'm perplexed by Tlaib's meaning. Can anyone tell me their interpretation of what she means when she refers to a "calming feeling": House Republican leaders took aim at Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) on Sunday for a podcast interview in which she discussed her support for a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In an interview on Yahoo News’s “Skullduggery” podcast published Saturday, Tlaib was asked about her position on the issue. The freshman lawmaker began her response by noting that the United States commemorated Holocaust Remembrance Day two weeks ago. She then discussed her Palestinian ancestors and the founding of the state of Israel, saying she was “humbled by the fact that it was my ancestors that had to suffer” to create a safe haven for the Jewish people. “There’s, you know, there’s a kind of a calming feeling, I always tell folks, when I think of the Holocaust and the tragedy of the Holocaust, and the fact that it was my ancestors — Palestinians — who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence, in many ways, had been wiped out. . . . I mean, just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post-the Holocaust, post-the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time,” Tlaib said. She added that the events of the past have informed her views on how to approach a solution to the conflict. “I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that [safe haven], in many ways,” Tlaib said. “But they did it in a way that took their human dignity away, right? And it was forced on them. And so, when I think about one-state, I think about the fact that, why couldn’t we do it in a better way?” On Sunday night, Tlaib tweeted: “Policing my words, twisting & turning them to ignite vile attacks on me will not work. All of you who are trying to silence me will fail miserably. I will never allow you to take my words out of context to push your racist and hateful agenda. The truth will always win.” She's not referring to the Holocaust at all. She describing her emotions, the fact that she is not furious,angry,enraged, whatever word you want to use to describe the opposite of acting calmly at what happened to her ancestors.I'm assuming she's of Palestinian heritage. Lets face it they were given a raw deal and she's proud of the fact that they helped to give a safe haven to the Jewish community. Yet, they ( her ancestors) lost everything, but she doesn't feel anger at what happened she'd rather dwell on the good that they did by the sacrifices they made at the time and not on the fact that they lost so much. She's also questioning that there must be a better way of solving the situation they find themselves in now ( for both countries) which will be more equal to the needs of both countries and that one side doesn't sacrifice so much to the benefit of the other. That is what I think she meant anyhow. But I constantly shake my head how others interpret things, often to their own agenda IMO. I see what you are saying about her statement. I did not get that tone at all from the written transcription. Maybe her point is communicated poorly. I agree she is not ‘calm’ about the holocaust but her statement has bitter tone to it. Perhaps if heard it’s not as bitter sounding? If she’s going to say things publicly she needs to learn to word them better. Still what happened in Israel was a civil war both sides residing there at the time, and it’s still a poor statement to make about a civil war. It was/is a poorly worded statement with a side of righteous bitterness. ( valid bitterness ) I do hope that a better solution to can be crafted though. That is probably the most unresolved civil war in history. Donnie isn’t going to fixit in any way helpful though.
|
|