Defiant wrote:
To the extent we've seen a Democratic response to Trump (and it's early days yet), the only Democrat who's response I like has been Reid, who's, sadly, on his way out.
I like Jerry Brown's. Did someone already link that here? These threads and my facebook feed are all feeding into the same firehose.
Well, I meant on the federal level.
The thing about him saying California launching it's own satellites is, wouldn't that just give Republicans ammunition to cut it off at the federal level, if the states can step in and do it?
Defiant wrote:
To the extent we've seen a Democratic response to Trump (and it's early days yet), the only Democrat who's response I like has been Reid, who's, sadly, on his way out.
I like Jerry Brown's. Did someone already link that here? These threads and my facebook feed are all feeding into the same firehose.
Well, I meant on the federal level.
The thing about him saying California launching it's own satellites is, wouldn't that just give Republicans ammunition to cut it off at the federal level, if the states can step in and do it?
Being driven by ideology, they don't need reasons. I like Brown's attitude that scientists gonna science regardless of the Republican war on reality.
He didn't make their list, but I'd consider a write-in for Pruitt as the EPA head. A climate change denier in that position could do some lasting damage.
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
That’s the name of a new website that posts some, er, sharp criticisms of the president-elect and appears to invite demand letters. It will be interesting to see whether it gets some.
Of course, I wouldn’t advise the site author (whom I don’t know personally) to post any false assertions of fact about Donald Trump; if he knows that the assertions are false or are likely false, that might indeed expose him to liability. Usually, presidents and other high-level political officeholders don’t sue for libel even when the law allows them to...
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
Another 3AM tweet by Donald:
Not sure any legal experts would classify it as "illegal", and, IIRC, Brazile wasn't the head of the DNC, and only gave a single question, but other than that yes, that's correct. But then, didn't the same thing happen on the Trump side? Glass houses, and all that.
Defiant wrote:Another 3AM tweet by Donald:
Not sure any legal experts would classify it as "illegal", and, IIRC, Brazile wasn't the head of the DNC, and only gave a single question, but other than that yes, that's correct. But then, didn't the same thing happen on the Trump side? Glass houses, and all that.
She was the head of the DNC, haven taken over from Debbie Wasserman-Shultz. And I think it turned out to be more than one question. Don't remember the same thing happening on the Trump side.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
I'm not sure what Trump's rhetoric is. Is he saying cyberattacks are for the greater good because they promote transparency? Is he promoting vigilanteism? Or is he alluding the cyberattack is the same as something else that he's not spelling out?
Maybe Trevor Noah is right? Maybe we just need to start asking him for clarification on everything?
“One of the questions directed to HRC tomorrow is from a woman with a rash,” Brazile wrote on March 5. On March 12, she wrote (hilariously, considering that these would be hacked and revealed to the world) “from time to time I get the questions in advance,” and shared a very specific-looking question about the death penalty that might be asked at a candidate forum.
As The Fix's Aaron Blake wrote in the fall, neither of Brazile's leaks offered the verbatim questions that Clinton would get. But her leaks, justifiably, were scandalous. She had used her role with CNN to pipe questions back to her friends at the Democratic front-runner's campaign, while a competitive primary against Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was underway. She revealed none of this on the air. CNN, again justifiably, fired her.
Yet in talking about this clear-cut scandal, Trump has frequently left the impression that Brazile's leaks hurt him. He's also described Brazile as the “DNC chair" -- a job she did not hold until five months after the emails to Palmieri. (Ironically, she became DNC chair after stolen DNC emails sunk the already-embattled Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).) In the final days of the campaign, as Brazile's CNN career ended, Trump would tell his audiences of yet more malfeasance in Clintonworld.
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
Defiant wrote:Another 3AM tweet by Donald:
Not sure any legal experts would classify it as "illegal", and, IIRC, Brazile wasn't the head of the DNC, and only gave a single question, but other than that yes, that's correct. But then, didn't the same thing happen on the Trump side? Glass houses, and all that.
She was the head of the DNC, haven taken over from Debbie Wasserman-Shultz. And I think it turned out to be more than one question. Don't remember the same thing happening on the Trump side.
LordMortis wrote:I'm not sure what Trump's rhetoric is. Is he saying cyberattacks are for the greater good because they promote transparency? Is he promoting vigilanteism? Or is he alluding the cyberattack is the same as something else that he's not spelling out?
Maybe Trevor Noah is right? Maybe we just need to start asking him for clarification on everything?
It's clear you're just not good enough at Cyber to understand.
Donald Trump is the biggest popular vote loser in history to ever to call himself President-Elect. In spite of the fact that he has no mandate, he will attempt to use his congressional majority to reshape America in his own racist, authoritarian, and corrupt image. If progressives are going to stop this, we must stand indivisibly opposed to Trump and the members of Congress who would do his bidding. Together, we have the power to resist - and we have the power to win.
We know this because we’ve seen it before. The authors of this guide are former congressional staffers who witnessed the rise of the Tea Party. We saw these activists take on a popular president with a mandate for change and a supermajority in Congress. We saw them organize locally and convince their own members of Congress to reject President Obama’s agenda. Their ideas were wrong, cruel, and tinged with racism - and they won.
We believe that protecting our values and neighbors will require mounting a similar resistance to the Trump agenda -- but a resistance built on the values of inclusion, tolerance, and fairness. Trump is not popular. He does not have a mandate. He does not have large congressional margins. If a small minority in the Tea Party can stop President Barack Obama, then we the majority can stop a petty tyrant named Trump.
To this end, the following chapters offer a step-by-step guide for individuals, groups, and organizations looking to replicate the Tea Party’s success in getting Congress to listen to a small, vocal, dedicated group of constituents. The guide is intended to be equally useful for stiffening Democratic spines and weakening pro-Trump Republican resolve.
We believe that the next four years depend on citizens across the country standing indivisible against the Trump agenda. We believe that buying into false promises or accepting partial concessions will only further empower Trump to victimize our fellow citizens. We hope that this guide will provide those who share that belief useful tools to make Congress listen.
As recommended by that guy who used to be on that space show...
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
BTW, thanks to the realdonaldcontext extension I have, I can see that there have been other times when the Chinese seized American military property, like the spy plane in 2001, when viewing the tweet.
Max Peck wrote:More inspiring words from the alt-President-Elect: "We should tell China that we don't want the drone they stole back.- let them keep it!"
Or as Patrick Trump famously said, "Give me liberty.....or not. Up to you."
I spent 90% of the money I made on women, booze, and drugs. The other 10% I just pissed away.
“I am a no on John Bolton for ANY position in the State [Department] and will work to defeat his nomination to any post,”the Kentucky Republican tweeted on Sunday.
Paul sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and has the power to stop the committee from recommending Bolton, if Democrats unanimously join in to block him. Other prominent libertarian outlets, including leaders with Young Americans for Liberty, have been quick to back him up.
In a recent interview, Paul — who endorsed Trump during the campaign as he dealt with his own reelection — told POLITICO that he remains supportive of Trump and his campaign promises, and he has gone out of his way to praise other nominations.
But he argued that nominating Bolton for a top slot at State would contradict a number of positions Trump took as a candidate, including opposition to the Iraq War, something Trump initially supported but made a point during the race to paint as a bad idea. Bolton — who himself is a longtime critic of Paul’s more hands-off approach to foreign policy — has also called for bombing Iran and has since been unapologetic about his support for the war in Iraq. That’s been a key sticking point with Paul.
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
Politico (which still sucks) has a fantastic story about Trump's private security force. It really frames (an untold story here) that by throwing off Presidential norms Trump is building a "Corporate Presidency" built around his brand. Running transition meetings out of Trump Tower. Private security as his police force. The victory tour. The loyalist generals and his Council of Plutocrats. This man is showing signs that he is not only will bring change but will warp this institution like no one else has. We will have to see where this goes but as Evan McMullin and others keep pointing out - there are troubling signs already.
I haven't seen it in the R&P threads yet (maybe it is), but the SNL open from the weekend actually kind of made my stomach twist while I watched it towards the end. Given the way he acts, it seemed too real and not enough satire.
Black Lives Matter
2021-01-20: The first good night's sleep I had in 4 years.
2025-01-20: The nightmares continue.
Paingod wrote:I haven't seen it in the R&P threads yet (maybe it is), but the SNL open from the weekend actually kind of made my stomach twist while I watched it towards the end. Given the way he acts, it seemed too real and not enough satire.
Yeah, they pretty much nailed the Trumputin Puppet narrative.
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
Paingod wrote:I haven't seen it in the R&P threads yet (maybe it is), but the SNL open from the weekend actually kind of made my stomach twist while I watched it towards the end. Given the way he acts, it seemed too real and not enough satire.
Yeah, they pretty much nailed the Trumputin Puppet narrative.
Paingod wrote:I haven't seen it in the R&P threads yet (maybe it is), but the SNL open from the weekend actually kind of made my stomach twist while I watched it towards the end. Given the way he acts, it seemed too real and not enough satire.
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
The Electors meet in their state and vote for President and Vice President on separate ballots. The electors record their votes on six “Certificates of Vote,” which are paired with the six remaining Certificates of Ascertainment.
The electors sign, seal, and certify six sets of electoral votes. A set of electoral votes consists of one Certificate of Ascertainment and one Certificate of Vote. These are distributed immediately as follows:
one set to the President of the Senate (the Vice President) for the official count of the electoral votes in January;
two packages to the Secretary of State in the state where the electors met—one is an archival set that becomes part of the public record of the Secretary of State's office and the other is a reserve set that is subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes;
two packages to the Archivist—one is an archival set that becomes part of the permanent collection at the National Archives and Records Administration and the other is a reserve set that is subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes; and
one set to the presiding judge in the district where the Electors met—this is also a reserve set that is subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes.
December 28, 2016
Electoral votes (the Certificates of Vote) must be received by the President of the Senate and the Archivist no later than nine days after the meeting of the electors. States face no legal penalty for failure to comply.
If votes are lost or delayed, the Archivist may take extraordinary measures to retrieve duplicate originals.
On or Before January 3, 2017
The Archivist and/or representatives from the Office of the Federal Register meet with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House in late December or early January. This is, in part, a ceremonial occasion. Informal meetings may take place earlier.
January 6, 2017
The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes. Congress may pass a law to change this date.
The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the Electoral College vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States.
If a State submits conflicting sets of electoral votes to Congress, the two Houses acting concurrently may accept or reject the votes. If they do not concur, the votes of the electors certified by the Governor of the State on the Certificate of Ascertainment would be counted in Congress.
If no Presidential candidate wins 270 or more electoral votes, a majority, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides for the House of Representatives to decide the Presidential election. If necessary the House would elect the President by majority vote, choosing from the three candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by state, with each state having one vote.
If no Vice Presidential candidate wins 270 or more electoral votes, a majority, the 12th Amendment provides for the Senate to elect the Vice President. If necessary, the Senate would elect the Vice President by majority vote, choosing from the two candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by state, with each Senator having one vote.
If any objections to the Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and one Senator. If objections are presented, the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out in federal law.
El Guapo wrote:I know the electoral college is voting today - when do they extinguish the last hope of a free people by releasing the results?
I've heard after the first 25 states Trump is cruising.
Anti-Trumpers better start ing.
If Trump were on this board, he'd tweet your ass into oblivion for that insult. He won ALL the damn states! He doesn't have proof...but he won ALL the damn states!
ing.