Octopus Overlords

Chaz wrote:Remember when the Trump and GOP campaigns were up in arms about foreign dignitaries getting a meeting with Clinton after making a donation to the Clinton Foundation, and that was terrible because this was Clinton somehow using her position to enrich herself in a sideways fashion? Turns out it's way easier to do that if you're President, because then you can just cut out the middleman!

Smoove_B wrote:

El Guapo wrote:The thing is that all this stuff doesn't require direct communications. Like, it is also very credible that Trump didn't ask on the call, but that the President of Argentina was like "shit, I need to make sure that I have a good relationship with Trump - better get that hotel approved."

Exactly! Even if nothing was actually said, it still looks bad. It's the same with foreign dignitaries staying at Trump's hotel in Washington D.C. because they don't want to offend the President. Even if he never actually said to them, "Hey, I can give you a really good rate on a room - really good - amazing" it still looks sketchy as hell.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Smoove_B wrote:

El Guapo wrote:The thing is that all this stuff doesn't require direct communications. Like, it is also very credible that Trump didn't ask on the call, but that the President of Argentina was like "shit, I need to make sure that I have a good relationship with Trump - better get that hotel approved."

Exactly! Even if nothing was actually said, it still looks bad. It's the same with foreign dignitaries staying at Trump's hotel in Washington D.C. because they don't want to offend the President. Even if he never actually said to them, "Hey, I can give you a really good rate on a room - really good - amazing" it still looks sketchy as hell.

But it's all in a blind trust. Blind!

El Guapo wrote:

Chaz wrote:Remember when the Trump and GOP campaigns were up in arms about foreign dignitaries getting a meeting with Clinton after making a donation to the Clinton Foundation, and that was terrible because this was Clinton somehow using her position to enrich herself in a sideways fashion? Turns out it's way easier to do that if you're President, because then you can just cut out the middleman!

Let no one doubt the power of a press narrative - as a group they went into the election with this image of Clinton as the ethically challenged candidate, and hell if they were going to change their copy during the campaign.

Rip wrote:That is precious. The press I have seen were for too busy trying to push the Trump is Hitler narrative to have time for any Clinton narratives beyond she isn't Trump and has to win or the world as we know it is doomed. You know the same narrative you guys are still chasing with reckless abandon.

LordMortis wrote:

Rip wrote:That is precious. The press I have seen were for too busy trying to push the Trump is Hitler narrative to have time for any Clinton narratives beyond she isn't Trump and has to win or the world as we know it is doomed. You know the same narrative you guys are still chasing with reckless abandon.

I missed this press, though I did see the press showing how white nationalist were supporting Trump and he was not backing down on them. It was not their only focus on him, though. They were much more infatuated with "what did say now?" no matter what it was about.

Rip wrote:So where is the widespread press narrative that Clinton was a crook selling her office for money? It certainly wasn't on any MSM, unless you guys are actually going to start calling the likes of Breitbart and Drudge the press which would be a huge departure from your own narratives.

Rip wrote:So where is the widespread press narrative that Clinton was a crook selling her office for money?

El Guapo wrote:

Jeff V wrote:

tgb wrote:

Holman wrote:

tgb wrote:Earlier this evening I bet my boss $100 that Trump won't make it a year without impeachment hearings at least starting.

Should I collect now?

Only the House can bring impeachment proceedings.

Trump could trade the whole CIA to Putin in a real-estate deal, and Jason Chaffetz would file a diplomatic request to ask if the files mention Whitewater.

I suspect the conventional R's in the House would be just as happy, if not happier, to see Pence in the Oval Office.

For starters, impeachment does not remove the sitting president, so Pence won't necessarily gain from the exercise. Second, I doubt that R's will be tired of being dragged down the shithole after just a year of Drumpf. Give it 2 years and a the prospect of a flipping both houses of congress, then maybe. I'd rather think it's something the D's might pursue when congress does flip in 2 years.

Congress is not going to flip in two years. The post-2010 gerrymandering puts the House almost out of reach by the democrats, and almost all of the competitive races in the senate in 2018 have a democratic incumbent (since the democrats won all the races in the 2006 democratic wave, then held onto most of them in 2012 because the Republicans screwed up the key races).

Rip wrote:In other words El Guapo was talking out his anus.

Kraken wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

Jeff V wrote:

tgb wrote:

Holman wrote:

tgb wrote:Earlier this evening I bet my boss $100 that Trump won't make it a year without impeachment hearings at least starting.

Should I collect now?

Only the House can bring impeachment proceedings.

Trump could trade the whole CIA to Putin in a real-estate deal, and Jason Chaffetz would file a diplomatic request to ask if the files mention Whitewater.

I suspect the conventional R's in the House would be just as happy, if not happier, to see Pence in the Oval Office.

For starters, impeachment does not remove the sitting president, so Pence won't necessarily gain from the exercise. Second, I doubt that R's will be tired of being dragged down the shithole after just a year of Drumpf. Give it 2 years and a the prospect of a flipping both houses of congress, then maybe. I'd rather think it's something the D's might pursue when congress does flip in 2 years.

Congress is not going to flip in two years. The post-2010 gerrymandering puts the House almost out of reach by the democrats, and almost all of the competitive races in the senate in 2018 have a democratic incumbent (since the democrats won all the races in the 2006 democratic wave, then held onto most of them in 2012 because the Republicans screwed up the key races).

Yeah, I'm getting annoyed with smug liberals in my facebook stable predicting a D congress in 2018. The math is against it. As you noted, the House is just a lost cause and unworthy of discussion. The D's are defending 23 senate seats to the R's 8 seats, and the R seats are all in safe red states. It would take some epic screwups to prevent the R's from expanding their majority. And yet I keep seeing "just you wait until 2018, boyo."

El Guapo wrote: BUT it's not looking good at the moment.

In a potentially controversial choice, Trump intends to nominate billionaire philanthropist Betsy DeVos for education secretary, people familiar with the selection said, turning to a conservative activist who has forcefully pushed for private school voucher programs. Her nomination is expected to face strong opposition from public school advocates, who oppose her efforts to funnel taxpayer dollars from public to private and religious schools.

Skinypupy wrote:BTW, didn't Donald say he was going to close ED?

DeVos, 58, has not said much about the Common Core, the set of math and reading guidelines adopted by most states. But she has ties to several pro-Common Core organizations, including as a member of the board of the Foundation for Excellence in Education...

Jeff V wrote:May I remind you that "epic screwups" is the prevailing forecast for the next 2 years?

If things go down the crapper like most economists believe it will,

El Guapo wrote:
In the Senate the democrats should have at least a decent shot at Nevada, and possibly at Arizona. But that's really it - it's really hard to see a third potential pickup (which is what they'd need for the Senate majority), even assuming that they hold onto to all of their seats.

That said, Trump's an enormous wild card (for better and for worse), so it's *possible* that he screws things up so badly so fast that he puts a lot of races in play (and the democrats will be able to make the "you need to put a check on Trump" argument in 2018). BUT it's not looking good at the moment.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Donald Trump wrote:The president can’t have a conflict of interest.

The Meal wrote:Wait -- the Amway DeVos family? *That* should go over well...

Zarathud wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Donald Trump wrote:The president can’t have a conflict of interest.

Already added to the sig.

Unbelievable.

Smoove_B wrote:Ties to an organization that supports Common Core? Something tells me she's not going to make it.

DeVos, 58, has not said much about the Common Core, the set of math and reading guidelines adopted by most states. But she has ties to several pro-Common Core organizations, including as a member of the board of the Foundation for Excellence in Education...

Smoove_B wrote:Ties to an organization that supports Common Core? Something tells me she's not going to make it.

DeVos, 58, has not said much about the Common Core, the set of math and reading guidelines adopted by most states. But she has ties to several pro-Common Core organizations, including as a member of the board of the Foundation for Excellence in Education...

geezer wrote:

Rip wrote:In other words El Guapo was talking out his anus.

S T F U

LA Times, Politico, WAPO and NYT coverage.

What are you looking for? Mainstream media coverage asserting that she's guilty, and also BENGHAZI!!! or something?

Not writing that doesn't mean they're biased. It means they're not reporting fake news and bad conclusions.

The Meal wrote:Wait -- the Amway DeVos family? *That* should go over well...

House Republicans are currently in the process of making lists of regulations that fall within their time frame and could potentially be repealed early next year. One of the major ones they’re eyeing is Obama’s overtime rule that requires companies to pay time-and-a-half to employees who make under roughly $47,000.

The rule is set to go into effect Dec. 1 and will be a top priority for Republicans to reverse, multiple sources said.

“We have heard over the past year that it would have truly dramatically bad effects, not just on employers but on employees across the country,” said Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.), a former labor lawyer. He said the University of Alabama expects the rule will cost the institution $14 million a year, which will likely be passed on to students via higher tuition.

And “I can give you the names of a ton of private-sector businesses who will either have to eat that cost or pass that cost on to their customers,” Byrne said.

Rip wrote: The point is not a single major media outlet had a narrative that Hillary was crooked.

And it’s not just that; at the same time, the Drumpf administration and congressional Republicans are getting ready to move on their highest priorities, cutting taxes for the wealthy, scrapping oversight on Wall Street, and lightening regulations on big corporations.

Imagine you’re one of those folks who went to Drumpf rallies and thrilled to his promises to take America back from the establishment, who felt your heart stir as he promised to torture prisoners, who got your “Drumpf That Bitch” T-shirt, who was overjoyed to finally have a candidate who tells it like it is. What are you thinking as you watch this?

If you have any sense, you’re coming to the realization that it was all a scam. You got played. While you were chanting “Lock her up!” he was laughing at you for being so gullible. While you were dreaming about how you’d have an advocate in the Oval Office, he was dreaming about how he could use it to make himself richer. He hasn’t even taken office yet and everything he told you is already being revealed as a lie.

tgb wrote:

Rip wrote: The point is not a single major media outlet had a narrative that Hillary was crooked.

Considering that neither the DOJ or the FBI considered her "crooked", for the media to pursue that narrative would have been libelous.

Rip wrote:

geezer wrote:

Rip wrote:In other words El Guapo was talking out his anus.

S T F U

LA Times, Politico, WAPO and NYT coverage.

What are you looking for? Mainstream media coverage asserting that she's guilty, and also BENGHAZI!!! or something?

Not writing that doesn't mean they're biased. It means they're not reporting fake news and bad conclusions.

First a number of those are opinion pieces. Opinion pieces does not a news source narrative make. Second, that is four articles. I can show you four in one day on each of them that suggested Trump was a maniac and Hillary must win or doom was coming.

I'm not speaking to whether they were biased. Although they obviously are and in more than one case admittedly so. The point is not a single major media outlet had a narrative that Hillary was crooked. Politicians sure, people sure, but the major media outlets, not a chance. They were every single one in the tank for Hillary. To think otherwise is just not being honest with yourself.

Rip wrote:Opinion pieces does not a news source narrative make.

Rip wrote:The point is not a single major media outlet had a narrative that Hillary was crooked. Politicians sure, people sure, but the major media outlets, not a chance. They were every single one in the tank for Hillary. To think otherwise is just not being honest with yourself.

Pyperkub wrote:

tgb wrote:

Rip wrote: The point is not a single major media outlet had a narrative that Hillary was crooked.

Considering that neither the DOJ or the FBI considered her "crooked", for the media to pursue that narrative would have been libelous.

Officially. Lots of agents apparently bought into it.

malchior wrote:WaPo wonders when the outrage machine will turn on him

And it’s not just that; at the same time, the Drumpf administration and congressional Republicans are getting ready to move on their highest priorities, cutting taxes for the wealthy, scrapping oversight on Wall Street, and lightening regulations on big corporations.

Imagine you’re one of those folks who went to Drumpf rallies and thrilled to his promises to take America back from the establishment, who felt your heart stir as he promised to torture prisoners, who got your “Drumpf That Bitch” T-shirt, who was overjoyed to finally have a candidate who tells it like it is. What are you thinking as you watch this?

If you have any sense, you’re coming to the realization that it was all a scam. You got played. While you were chanting “Lock her up!” he was laughing at you for being so gullible. While you were dreaming about how you’d have an advocate in the Oval Office, he was dreaming about how he could use it to make himself richer. He hasn’t even taken office yet and everything he told you is already being revealed as a lie.

My guess? Never. They won't turn on him.

President-elect Donald Trump will soon be able to appoint a new director of the agency auditing his taxes, a potential political minefield after his writeoffs and his refusal to release his returns were repeatedly questioned in the campaign.

The president is barred from directing how the IRS treats specific taxpayers, but lawyers say there’s nothing to stop Trump from appointing an IRS chief who will go easy on him while scrutinizing his political enemies.

...

Meanwhile, Trump will be the first president in recent memory to enter office under audit and the first since Gerald Ford not to have released his returns. The ongoing audit of Trump’s returns will likely take on new importance and sensitivity, tax lawyers said. No one wants to mess up an audit of the president-elect’s returns, which by most accounts are extremely complex given his far-flung commercial ventures.

“Legally, the fact that he’s been elected president has no bearing on the rules,” Rizek said. “But as a practical matter, the agents, the commissioners of the different divisions, the field officers, work for the commissioner, and it’s going to be pretty likely that that audit is going to get higher level review before they make adjustments.”

tgb wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:

tgb wrote:

Rip wrote: The point is not a single major media outlet had a narrative that Hillary was crooked.

Considering that neither the DOJ or the FBI considered her "crooked", for the media to pursue that narrative would have been libelous.

Officially. Lots of agents apparently bought into it.

Officially is all that really matters, isn't it?

LordMortis wrote: