Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:14:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2019 17:14:52 GMT
Time for a new part... Caroline Orr.. “NEW: After initially denying it, the US Navy now admits that “a request was made to minimize the visibility of USS John S. McCain” during Trump's recent state visit to Japan.” NBC News
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:14:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2019 17:20:48 GMT
Julian Sanchez about the released transcript of the voicemail from trump’s attorney to Flynn’s attorney.
“The amazing thing about this is that the *most favorable interpretation* of it is “John Dowd was sincerely concerned that his client, the president, might indeed be a Russian asset."
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:14:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2019 17:38:14 GMT
Paul Waldman in the Washington Post...
“Is it time to talk about Donald Trump’s draft dodging?”
“During the 2004 presidential election, the disinformation campaign to discredit Democratic nominee John F. Kerry’s war service reached its vulgar nadir. Delegates to that year’s Republican convention showed up wearing band-aids with purple hearts drawn on them, to charge that the three Purple Hearts that Kerry was awarded during his service in Vietnam were for insufficiently serious injuries. Kerry’s experience showed that it wasn’t only those presidential contenders who avoided the draft by obtaining student deferments, as Bill Clinton did, who could expect their opponents and the media to make Vietnam an issue.
It was as well for George W. Bush, who avoided Vietnam as a congressman’s son by receiving a coveted spot in the so-called Champagne Unit of the Texas Air National Guard, along with other sons of prominent politicians and several members of the Dallas Cowboys.
So why have we barely ever talked about Donald Trump’s draft avoidance?
The simplest answer is that there was so much that was shocking about Trump when he ran for president in 2016 — both in his past and in the way he was acting as a candidate — that it seemed too trivial to worry about. Or perhaps the cultural wounds of the 1960s had faded a bit. But I’m pretty sure that had Trump been a Democrat, it would have been a huge issue because Republicans would have made it so.
Regardless of why it wasn’t a more prominent issue, some Democrats — especially the veterans running for president — are now calling President Trump out.
Before we get to what they’re saying and whether it’s justified — and whether we should care at all — let’s remind ourselves of how Trump avoided serving. As a college student, he had deferments until he graduated in 1968. Shortly afterward, he obtained a felicitous doctor’s note testifying to his burden of debilitating bone spurs in his heel, though later he could not remember which foot was so afflicted. “I had a doctor that gave me a letter — a very strong letter on the heels,” he said in 2016.
Yet we know that Trump was an enthusiastic athlete as a young man, pursuits that did not seem to be impeded by his supposedly tender heels. And, at the time, obtaining a dubious medical deferment was not at all uncommon for the sons of wealthy men such as Fred Trump. Given that the elder Trump would later engineer a tax scheme defrauding the federal government of hundreds of millions of dollars, it isn’t difficult to imagine him believing that the rules didn’t apply to him, and no son of his was going to go halfway around the world to trudge through the jungle and risk getting shot.
So someone else served in Donald Trump’s place, and now Democrats have decided this is worth talking about. First out of the gate was South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a veteran of the Afghanistan war, who has framed this issue not just as one of duty to country but also in terms of disability. Here’s what he said on ABC’s "This Week" on Sunday:
There is no question, I think, to any reasonable observer that the president found a way to falsify a disabled status, taking advantage of his privileged status in order to avoid serving. You have somebody who thinks it’s all right to let somebody go in his place into a deadly war and is willing to pretend to be disabled in order to do it. That is an assault on the honor of this country.
Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), who is also a veteran (Buttigieg served as a naval intelligence officer in Afghanistan; Moulton had substantial combat experience as a Marine in Iraq and was awarded a Bronze Star) has criticized the president in a similar fashion:
I don’t think that lying to get out of serving your country is patriotic. It’s not like there was just some empty seat in Vietnam. Someone had to go in his place. I’d like to meet the American hero who went in Donald Trump’s place to Vietnam. I hope he’s still alive.
So should we care? The simplest answer is that we should because this is about character. But to be honest, I find that justification less than satisfying. First, millions of Americans found ways to avoid serving in Vietnam, because they believed the war was wrong and because they didn’t want to die in a misbegotten disaster. However we view the decision they made as young men, we probably wouldn’t want to exclude all of them from high office or say that it’s proof of a deficient character even now, half a century later.
Perhaps more to the point, by now it’s clear that when it comes to character deficiencies, Trump has so many that this incident tells us nothing we didn’t already know. What’s so disturbing about the president isn’t the thing he did that millions of others also did, but the things he does that make him unique. He is corrupt, dishonest, cruel, petty, vindictive, childish and narcissistic; the man is a walking collection of character flaws without a single identifiable virtue to balance them out. So it’s difficult to get too worked up over the fact that he dodged the draft. Of course he did — if you didn’t know it already, would you have expected anything else?
Finally, though I’m sometimes hesitant to treat Republicans by standards they aren’t willing to live up in their treatment of others, I would argue that even when it comes to Donald Trump, questioning anyone’s patriotism seldom does any of us any good. Elections shouldn’t be a contest of “Who loves America more?”, because it’s a question that doesn’t get anyone closer to a good decision. It’s just a bludgeon, usually used with bad evidence and bad intentions — and it will always be used more against liberals. Far better to argue that it shouldn’t be wielded against anyone, even Donald Trump.
To be clear, I’m not saying no one should criticize Trump for what he did to avoid the draft. If you want to, go right ahead. It’s a story that illustrates his privileged upbringing, the unfair advantages he was granted throughout his life, his dishonesty, and his willingness to take advantage of others for his own ends. But then again, we already knew all that.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:14:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2019 17:44:38 GMT
linkThird Way... “Are Caucuses Dying?”. From the article.. ”Democrats have been allowing real voters to decide the party’s nominee since 1972. States and state parties can choose between holding a primary and a caucus to determine which candidate gets their delegates. Caucuses have substantially lower turnout than primaries and cater only to those who are willing and able to spend hours participating in a very public process. The results are often anti-democratic because of the high barrier to participate. They reward the most privileged and over-represent those on the political extremes. The following maps from the open Democratic nominations between 2000 and 2020 show that caucuses have been widespread for decades. However, thanks to state party and legislative leaders, the number of states using these unrepresentative contests to award their delegates has shrunk in advance of the 2020 Democratic nomination. The decline of caucuses means that if multiple candidates go the distance, the 2020 Democratic Presidential nomination is set to potentially best 2008’s record of over 36 million primary voters. What this means is that people who want to participate in the 2020 Democratic primaries will have a much easier time making their voices heard. Democratic candidates will need to appeal to a broad coalition of potential voters—liberal, progressive, moderate, White, Black, Brown, wealthy, middle-class, working-class—rather than just those who can afford to spend time at a caucus. The 2018 midterms saw a record over 20 million people vote in Democratic primaries, and that large turnout helped nominate the type of unifying, non-fringe Democrats who could deliver a House majority. The same could well be true for the 2020 primaries.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:14:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2019 18:35:30 GMT
Julian Sanchez about the released transcript of the voicemail from trump’s attorney to Flynn’s attorney. “The amazing thing about this is that the *most favorable interpretation* of it is “John Dowd was sincerely concerned that his client, the president, might indeed be a Russian asset." Just in reading the transcript of Dowd to Flynn's lawyers seemed like it was lifted from a crappy mafia movie!!!!!!! I find it incredible that Trump surrounds himself with these mafia-wannabes who sound tough and are quite stupid (like he is)!
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 1, 2019 21:48:41 GMT
I find it incredible that Trump surrounds himself with these mafia-wannabes who sound tough and are quite stupid (like he is)! You answered your own question...... Bold mine!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:14:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2019 21:57:23 GMT
linkNBC News... “Should these platforms exist at all?': One GOP senator's crusade to rein in — and rethink — big tech”From the article... ”We should have a discussion about the business model of the social media platforms as they have evolved as an ad-supported business model that is pushing addiction and rewarding addiction," Hawley said. "If we broke Facebook up into 50 Facebooks who all pursued the same business model, would our lives, our economy, our society be measurably improved?" he continued. "I don't know that they would." ”Hawley's comments echo what some tech insiders and media experts have said in recent years: Some of the internet's biggest problems begin with the ad-based business model. ”Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube "hold themselves out to their users as being free, but they're not free and they're not free at all," Hawley said. "I mean they depend on collecting personal, private, confidential information from their users without consent, on monetizing it without permission and then trying to get their users, frankly, addicted to their platforms so they can assure a sufficient base of customers to sell their ads." So what is the option? Getting rid of twitter, Facebook, Instagram? Requiring people to pay to use these services?
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 1, 2019 22:11:02 GMT
DOCTORED PHOTO but oh so well showing his essence...........
|
|
inkedup
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,837
Jun 26, 2014 5:00:26 GMT
|
Post by inkedup on Jun 1, 2019 22:29:14 GMT
linkNBC News... “Should these platforms exist at all?': One GOP senator's crusade to rein in — and rethink — big tech”From the article... ”We should have a discussion about the business model of the social media platforms as they have evolved as an ad-supported business model that is pushing addiction and rewarding addiction," Hawley said. "If we broke Facebook up into 50 Facebooks who all pursued the same business model, would our lives, our economy, our society be measurably improved?" he continued. "I don't know that they would." ”Hawley's comments echo what some tech insiders and media experts have said in recent years: Some of the internet's biggest problems begin with the ad-based business model. ”Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube "hold themselves out to their users as being free, but they're not free and they're not free at all," Hawley said. "I mean they depend on collecting personal, private, confidential information from their users without consent, on monetizing it without permission and then trying to get their users, frankly, addicted to their platforms so they can assure a sufficient base of customers to sell their ads." So what is the option? Getting rid of twitter, Facebook, Instagram? Requiring people to pay to use these services? He worries about social media addiction while opioid addiction is changing the demographics of our country. 😂😂😂 But I guess big pharma and addicts aren't as worried about Trump as the people on Twitter and Facebook, so....
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:14:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2019 23:33:52 GMT
trump...
”When you are the “Piggy Bank” Nation that foreign countries have been robbing and deceiving for years, the word TARIFF is a beautiful word indeed! Others must treat the United States fairly and with respect - We are no longer the “fools” of the past!”
I can’t decide if he really is this stupid or he is just flat out lying.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jun 2, 2019 4:24:02 GMT
Re the draft dodging: I agree with Paul Waldman. In addition to everything he said, I’m not entirely comfortable with calling anyone with a doctor’s note a liar. On the other hand ... what am I saying? This is TRUMP we’re talking about! Never mind!
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 2, 2019 5:56:23 GMT
”When you are the “Piggy Bank” Nation that foreign countries have been robbing and deceiving for years, the word TARIFF is a beautiful word indeed! Others must treat the United States fairly and with respect - We are no longer the “fools” of the past!” He's stealing from OUR 'Piggy bank' filled with the tariff dollars that we will pay.. 'Quick pass through'
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 2, 2019 6:05:27 GMT
Can't get those numbers straight!! Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump’s television defense attorney, said he was considering bringing a $17 million legal action against former special counsel Robert Mueller.Giuliani was incensed that Mueller did not come to a prosecutorial conclusion on Trump’s obstruction of justice. Mueller laid out over ten instances of such obstruction but said he was prevented from bringing charges due to a Department of Justice regulation. “It was a dereliction of duty,” Giuliani claimed. “Why do you appoint an independent counsel, a special counsel? Theoretically there’s some kind of conflict, they are supposed to make a decision,” the former New York City mayor said. Giuliani said he was considering a $17 million legal action against the special counsel. “I think I might bring a qui tam action to get that money back for the government,” he said. A qui tam action is a legal mechanism that allows a whistleblower exposing fraud to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the federal government. “What a joke. I think Mueller has made a complete fool out of himself,” Giuliani said, unironically. www.rawstory.com/2019/06/rudy-giuliani-threatens-17-million-legal-action-against-robert-mueller-during-fox-news-interview/
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jun 2, 2019 6:51:34 GMT
WTAF?! These people! You always think they can’t go any lower. And you’re always wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:14:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2019 14:42:51 GMT
Newsweek..
”Trump Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney concedes Russia interfered in 2016 election, but "didn't make a difference"
How does he know for sure? He doesn’t.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:14:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2019 14:47:14 GMT
Kyle Griffin...
”According to the pool report, Trump has arrived at Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia.
This is Trump's 191st day at a Trump golf club and 257th day at a Trump property as president.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:14:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2019 14:54:01 GMT
MSNBC...
”Acting White House chief of staff: It was "not an unreasonable thing" for someone in the White House to try to have the USS McCain moved to please President Trump”
Unbelievable.
|
|
|
Post by peano on Jun 2, 2019 14:58:19 GMT
MSNBC... ”Acting White House chief of staff: It was "not an unreasonable thing" for someone in the White House to try to have the USS McCain moved to please President Trump” Unbelievable. Correction--not unreasonable for a monarch in the 14th century...
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:14:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2019 17:02:51 GMT
trump...
”NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION, NO NOTHING! “What the Democrats are trying to do is the biggest sin in the impeachment business.” David Rivkin, Constitutional Scholar. Meantime, the Dems are getting nothing done in Congress. They are frozen stiff. Get back to work, much to do!”
Where does one start? He sure does believe in alternative facts doesn’t he.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:14:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2019 17:28:51 GMT
trump...
”I never called Meghan Markle “nasty.” Made up by the Fake News Media, and they got caught cold! Will @cnn, @nytimes and others apologize? Doubt it!”
Newsweek..
”TRUMP CLAIMS HE NEVER CALLED MEGHAN MARKLE 'NASTY,' DEMANDS APOLOGY FROM CNN, EVEN THOUGH VIDEO EXISTS”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:14:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2019 18:13:33 GMT
Kyle Griffin... ”According to the pool report, Trump has arrived at Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia. This is Trump's 191st day at a Trump golf club and 257th day at a Trump property as president.”
(I'm so annoyed to have gotten sucked into a political tete-a-tete on social media with narrow-minded in-laws...... I should know better! Definitely raised my blood pressure & saddened me to know that there are still so many of them out there with InfoWars 'facts' that they rely on!!!)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:14:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2019 19:39:02 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:14:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2019 19:53:50 GMT
trump...
”Mexico is sending a big delegation to talk about the Border. Problem is, they’ve been “talking” for 25 years. We want action, not talk. They could solve the Border Crisis in one day if they so desired. Otherwise, our companies and jobs are coming back to the USA!”
Yea right..
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:14:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2019 20:04:26 GMT
trump..
”Peggy Noonan, the simplistic writer for Trump Haters all, is stuck in the past glory of Reagan and has no idea what is happening with the Radical Left Democrats, or how vicious and desperate they are. Mueller had to correct his ridiculous statement, Peggy never understood it!”
It would appear someone noticed this in the WSJ
“Mueller’s Exit and an Impeachment Alternative”
By Peggy Noonan
“The investigation is complete, his office is closed, he returns to private life. And Robert Mueller leaves in his wake a great murk, doesn’t he?
Even in his statement this week, presumably aimed in part at making things clearer, he spoke between the lines. What did he say, between the lines? Apparently I was too subtle for you. Apparently you are a large, balky mule in need of being hit over the head with a stick. So let me try again. I cannot bring federal charges against a sitting president because I believe it is constitutionally prohibited. And since there couldn’t be a trial, it would be unfair to leave him unable to defend himself. But someone else, according to the Constitution, can bring charges. Someone else can hold a public trial. Who? It rhymes with shmongress. Good luck, shmongressmen.
Mr. Mueller is a serious man who in a long career has earned the respect in which he is held. But he’s slipped out of public life on a banana peel, hasn’t he? He was the investigator. He led the probe. He should have advised Attorney General William Barr of his views as to whether the actions of the president merited federal charges, and let Mr. Barr take it from there.
If Justice Department guidelines had been otherwise—if federal charges could be brought against a sitting president—would Mr. Mueller have recommended them? That’s the question. Instead we get “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” Oh.
Independent counsel Ken Starr wasn’t so shy with Bill Clinton: His 1998 report outlined to Congress 11 possible grounds for impeachment.
I’m sure Mr. Mueller was trying to demonstrate probity. But it looked to me like a loss of nerve. You can have probity plus clarity, and clarity was what was needed.
The spirit of impeachment is now given a boost.
It is still a terrible idea.
It is a grave matter to overturn an election result. Why more cuttingly divide an already divided country? There is no argument that impeachment would enhance America’s position in the world, and no reason to believe it would not have some negative impact on the economy, meaning jobs. The presidential election is in 2020. What is gained from devoting the coming year to an effort that will fail in the Senate? There’s no reason to believe the public is for it. It won’t move the needle—those who like President Trump, like him; those who do not, do not; everyone already knows what they think. For Democrats it could backfire, alienating moderates and rousing those of the president’s supporters who care little for him personally but appreciate his policy achievements, such as his appointment of judges. Why rouse their wrath? If Mr. Trump is acquitted he will pose as the innocent but unstoppable victor over a witch hunt led by a liberal elite.
At this point, could Democrats even do it? Impeachment is “a heavy lift,” as Chris Matthews said on MSNBC the other day. It takes time and focus to organize it politically and legally, to get the committee chairmen on board and investigators mobilized.
And Speaker Nancy Pelosi is famously not on board. She will continue to play her careful game. “Nothing is off the table,” she said a few hours after Mr. Mueller spoke Wednesday. Democrats must investigate fully so they can find the truth and make the case. She will support hearings and subpoenas, slow and deepen the process, and, I suspect, move to impeach only if he is re-elected.
This is a way of playing for time. Progressive Democrats likely won’t be as hot for impeachment in the fall, when the 2020 contenders are taking full flight and party energy goes to helping them. Mrs. Pelosi is a practical woman.
She is always underestimated by Republicans as the Shaky Lady. She doesn’t seem shaky to me. She is running rings around Mr. Trump and her own conference.
Mr. Trump is obsessed with looking competent and in control. She actually is competent and in control. She’s held on to leadership a long time.
“She knows how to count,” they say, but it’s more than that. The young progressives in her conference who are not shy to be aggressive against others, never want to get crosswise with her. She inspires respect and fear, which is what she needs to inspire. She is said to know where everyone in her conference stands, what they need, and how to keep them or flip them. She apparently gets first-rate intel from her staff and is an epic fundraiser. She takes pleasure in the game, handles Donald Trump like a boss—she is the sole figure in Washington who seems unfazed by him—and does all this as a woman in her 70s with a public presentation that is not compelling. If she’d been born British and was a Conservative, they’d probably have Brexit by now.
History should pay more serious attention to this unique figure.
She is especially disliked by Republicans, and has been knocked in this space, for having said, during the ObamaCare debate, that Congress would have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it. I always thought it was a Washington gaffe as per Michael Kinsley, something that should never have been said because it was true. ObamaCare was a thousand-page sentiment devised by technocrats, an impulse with numbers and graphs. Few who voted for it knew or were interested in knowing how it would be executed, administered, interpreted. It was a ramshackle mess and they’d figure it out later. They seemed as surprised as anyone when it turned out if you wanted to keep your doctor you couldn’t. A lot of them lost their jobs over it in 2010. Mrs. Pelosi’s sin was not that she said it; her sin, and her party’s, was that they didn’t care. Their sentiment was more important than your reality.
But she’s Mr. Trump’s most effective foe and he’s lucky she’s there because she’s what stands between him and impeachment.
What is the best way forward? There’s a good idea floating around Washington. It is congressional censure of the president.
The harrowing part of the Mueller report is part 2, on obstruction of justice. Reading it, you feel sure the president would have loved to subvert the investigation but wasn’t good at it and was thwarted by his staff. There are seemingly dangled pardons and threatened firings. There’s a hapless small-timeness to it, a kind of brute dumbness, and towering over it all is a grubby business deal in Moscow.
It’s unseemly.
Congressional censure would be a formal registering not of Congress’s political disapproval but its moral disapproval. It is a rarely used form of shaming. Congress has censured its own members over the years, including Sen. Joseph McCarthy in 1954—but no president since Andrew Jackson in 1834.
Republicans, who control the Senate, wouldn’t vote to remove the president, but to morally disapprove of him? They would. There’s plenty of suppressed resentment there at how he’s mortified them and lowered things.
That is the less invasive path, the less damaging to the country, the less pointlessly polarizing.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:14:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2019 23:48:40 GMT
trump...
”Democrats can’t impeach a Republican President for crimes committed by Democrats. The facts are “pouring” in. The Greatest Witch Hunt in American History! Congress, go back to work and help us at the Border, with Drug Prices and on Infrastructure.”
What facts are “pouring” in?
I think I’m getting to the point that I want the Democrats to start Impeachment proceedings just to watch his head explode.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 3, 2019 0:37:31 GMT
trump... ”Mexico is sending a big delegation to talk about the Border. Problem is, they’ve been “talking” for 25 years. We want action, not talk. They could solve the Border Crisis in one day if they so desired. Otherwise, our companies and jobs are coming back to the USA!” Sure, follow through with your next threat to shut down the whole border indefinitely. You won't be bringing anything back with no crossing.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 3, 2019 1:22:22 GMT
He is truly a disaster! And he expects a cordial welcome, which of course our friends the Brits will provide! President Trump on Sunday mocked London Mayor Sadiq Khan, stood by his comments to a British tabloid about the Duchess of Sussex and downplayed crossing a line by wading into Brexit debate as he departed for a state visit to the United Kingdom.Trump spoke with reporters outside the White House as he prepared to depart for Europe. He has caused a stir in recent days with interviews in The Sun and The Sunday Times, where he said he was unaware Meghan Markle, now the Duchess of Sussex, had made "nasty" comments about him during the 2016 campaign and offered his take on Brexit and the prime minister's race. "Well, people ask me questions," Trump said when asked if it was appropriate to weigh in on British politics. "Like you, you’re asking me a question. Don’t ask me the question if you don’t want me to talk about it." He has stood by his comments about Markle, suggesting the media was to blame for causing controversy. Asked Sunday if he wanted to apologize, Trump said he "made no bad comment." And the president took fresh aim at London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who has been an outspoken critic of Trump and his visit. Trump was asked whether he would be willing to meet with Khan while in London. “No, I don’t think much of him," he said. "I think he’s, he’s the twin of [Bill] de Blasio, except shorter.” ** thehill.com/homenews/administration/446560-trump-calls-london-mayor-sadiq-khan-bill-de-blasios-twin-exceptHe is on his way to the UK now.... And canNOT keep his mouth shut. He is also and embarrassment more so each and every day! @dottyscrapper uksue gar
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 3, 2019 1:47:23 GMT
It's true, I saw it................. A panel discussion on MSNBC took a humorous turn after a conservative from the Heritage Foundation claimed that President Donald Trump would be welcomed with open arms when he visits the U.K. this week.Appearing with host Kendis Gibson, the Heritage’s Nile Gardiner stated, “I think that everyone is acknowledging this is a very, very big trip for the United Kingdom and you are going to have some demonstrations certainly on the streets of London, as expected, I don’t think very large demonstrations, but they certainly will be protesters on the streets.” “But at the end of the day, President Trump is Britain’s closest friend and ally on the world stage,” he continued. “He is a huge supporter of Brexit. He’s somebody who deeply believes in the U.S./U.K. special relationship, and I think there are many people here in the United Kingdom who are going to pay very close attention to every word the president says.” Host Gibson was quick to undercut his point by pointing out the current American president’s approval rating in the U.K. stands at 21 percent, which seemed to throw Gardiner off his game. Hill columnist Niall Stanage had a quite different — and hilarious — take.
“Well, I mean the expectations certainly are not welcome for President Trump by the British population at large,” he explained before puckishly adding, “To risk repurposing a phrase from Billy Connoly: Mr. Trump is about as welcome as a fart in a space suit in Britain. He’s deeply unpopular there.” ** www.rawstory.com/2019/06/conservative-left-humiliated-and-stumbling-after-msnbc-panel-laughs-off-his-claim-trump-is-popular-in-the-uk/**
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:14:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2019 3:33:52 GMT
Jon Cryer...
”Wow, @realdonaldtrump
Isn’t this crazy?
Barack Obama is getting a standing ovation at a public event full of average joes.
Not some rally full of self-selected zombified cultists.
But a random gathering of people who didn’t even know he was gonna be there.
Wow.”
At the Warriors game.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:14:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2019 3:44:57 GMT
trump..
”BIG NEWS! As I promised two weeks ago, the first shipment of LNG has just left the Cameron LNG Export Facility in Louisiana. Not only have thousands of JOBS been created in USA, we’re shipping freedom and opportunity abroad!”
Reality - Thanks President Obama
from The US Department of Energy.
“Energy Department Conditionally Authorizes Cameron LNG to Export Liquefied Natural Gas”
2-11-2014.
“WASHINGTON – The Energy Department announced today that it has conditionally authorized Cameron LNG, LLC (Cameron) to export domestically produced liquefied natural gas (LNG) to countries that do not have a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the United States from the Cameron LNG Terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. The Cameron application was next in the order of precedence after the Energy Department conditionally authorized additional volume from Freeport’s proposed LNG facility in November 2013. Subject to environmental review and final regulatory approval, the facility is conditionally authorized to export at a rate of up to the equivalent of 1.7 billion standard cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of natural gas, for a period of 20 years.
The development of U.S. natural gas resources is having a transformative impact on the U.S. energy landscape, helping to improve our energy security while spurring economic development and job creation around the country. This increase in domestic natural gas production is expected to continue, with the Energy Information Administration forecasting a record production rate of 72.02 Bcf/d in 2014.
Federal law generally requires approval of natural gas exports to countries that have an FTA with the United States. For countries that do not have an FTA with the United States, the Natural Gas Act directs the Department of Energy to grant export authorizations unless the Department finds that the proposed exports “will not be consistent with the public interest.”
The Energy Department conducted an extensive, careful review of the application to export LNG from the Cameron LNG Terminal. Among other factors, the Department considered the economic, energy security, and environmental impacts - as well as public comments for and against the application and nearly 200,000 public comments related to the associated analysis of the cumulative impacts of increased LNG exports – and determined that exports from the terminal at a rate of up to 1.7 Bcf/d for a period of 20 years was not inconsistent with the public interest.
The full conditional authorization can be found HERE.
The Path Forward on LNG Export Applications
The Energy Department will continue to process the applications currently pending on a case-by-case basis, in the order of precedence previously detailed. During this time, the Department will continue to monitor any market developments and assess their impact in subsequent public interest determinations as further information becomes available.
|
|