Rapunzel

I miss Will Ferrell's impression of W on SNL. I remember the one sketch where he was asked to sum up his campaign or something in one word and he said "strategery." That still cracks me up. Now, we have a man who refers to computers and technology as "the cyber." FFS - he knows how to use Twitter, though apparently virtually never uses a computer and refers to things associated with technology as "the cyber." How embarrassing is that?

He won the right to lease the building back in 2012. It is a 60 year lease and costs him $3million per year to start, but can go up due to inflation as well as the overall success of the hotel. When he acquired the lease, he did extensive renovations on the property that cost about $200million (again, probably all borrowed from foreign banks). Given the hotel's location right on Pennsylvania Avenue, he very well could have had some political aspirations in his head when he leased it. When was the event/dinner held where Obama made fun of him that many people think really motivated him to run for office? On another note, I would love it if they did an episode of Hotel Hell or a similar type show on one of Trump's hotels. They would have to have Gordon Ramsey or some other host go in not knowing who the hotel belonged to in order to keep it completely unbiased. I would just love to see Ramsey or someone get out their black light and look for stains and their little bacteria meter and what not - it would crack me up if one of his properties was found to be completely disgusting and unsanitary. I guess by just having his name on them they pretty much are those things already though.

Trump may be forced to sell of his interest in his new DC Hotel in the Old Post Office building that he has been pimping so much. There is a clause in the lease which states that no "elected official of the Government of the United States" shall be "admitted to any share or part of this Lease." Even if he turns over his business interests to his demon spawn, that likely will not be sufficient. From the Associated Press: My areas of expertise as an attorney are primarily Contracts and International Law. I negotiate and write multi-million dollar contracts pretty much all day, every day for one of the largest companies in the world. What Drabkin says about the clause not applying because Trump signed the lease before he was elected doesn't really hold up. The clause is quite clear and not ambiguous. It does not mention anything about when someone becomes an elected official, it just flat out states that no "elected official of the Unites States" can be party to the lease. Drabkin is a procurement officer and, I don't believe, is an attorney. I started, while still in university, negotiating and writing Procurement Contracts and one of my undergrad degrees is in Supply Chain Management, which includes Procurement. In any case, Drabkin still believes Trump has to give up the hotel, but based primarily on the other conflict of interest issues. The article goes on to say: The fact that Trump actually put money into this (no doubt borrowed from foreign banks - probably Russia) and actually has an equity stake means that selling it could actually hurt a bit. That, combined with the shindig he had there for various foreign dignitaries at which he served "Trump branded champagne and sliders" (the man has class), and pretty much encouraged them all to stay there when they visited DC, makes this news even better. The article also states: Basically, the GSA needs to grow a pair and enforce the terms in its own contact/lease. If Trump wants to fight it, fine. Let him spend more money on more lawyers and add another lawsuit to the thousands he is already named in. This one, however, could actually have a major impact on him, both financially and in terms of the Presidency.

And so it begins... From USA Today: Right, I'm totally sure they will only hack computers that may have been affected by "botnets." I work for a tech company, and they have yet to mention anything about this. They have to be concerned, as apparently Google and other tech companies are, especially given the amount of confidential and proprietary data on computers used by employees. I'm an attorney and pretty much everything on my work computer is considered privileged and/or confidential. How could this just be allowed to go through? Every tech company (hell, pretty much every company) should be screaming about this given the fact they all have proprietary data, IP, confidential information, etc. that they need to protect. Of course, the government has always had this capability and who knows how liberal they've been in using it, however to now legitimize it is a bit frightening, though I'm sure Tubby loves it. I wonder how much this was affected by Trump and company, given that he is pretty much trying to put an end to the First Amendment. This is basically the first step that could lead to restricting the internet, like they do in North Korea. Wait until he and his minions are the only people allowed to Tweet. Maybe this is part of the "deal" he cut with Putin and he'll share all the data with him. You just never know with him. The part where federal agents have to make "reasonable efforts" to notify law-abiding Americans that they are being hacked is really weak. "Reasonable efforts" is a very weak term we lawyers often use in contracts - we often call them "weasel words" as the term is ambiguous and basically leaves it up for a judge to decide what constitutes "reasonable efforts" and whether or not they were actually used should something end up in court. Even though this is something Trump would most definitely be in favor of, Obama is still our President as of today. Why doesn't he do something to stop this or at least make it go through a proper hearings and a vote? If it wasn't approved, I'm sure Tubby would have it reviewed again and try to get it through, but for now why not try to stop it and make it go through the formal process?

First off, thank you for sharing your story toomuchsoap. I can't imagine how difficult your situation was and the decision must have been for you and I appreciate and understand that you did what was right for you at the time. I believe every woman should have the ability to make that same choice based on their own circumstances without any judgement. As an attorney, I am in no way blind to the fact the employers to have access to data that we wouldn't expect them to. However, if you have things properly documented and your employer tries in anyway to use info that they technically should not have access to against you, you can hang them out to dry. Most employers will not take the risk and use anything like that against an employee. At least, not given the way the laws are today - with the changing of the guard, it's hard to say. I have a very rare neurological condition and have to undergo regular, fairly involved and painful, procedures to keep it under control and to keep it from killing me. I travel around the world and am only really home about one week out of every month. I keep my condition as quiet as possible and no one that works for me has any idea. There really aren't any outwardly noticeable symptoms unless I go too long without treatment, which I can play off as something else until I can get treatment - though I usually have to get it pretty quickly. I ultimately have to go to another state or country to get specialized neurosurgeons to help correct the situation. There are very few specialists in the world that are knowledgeable of, or can even treat, my condition. I tried to have surgery in CA to give me a temporary fix at one point and the neurosurgeon botched it twice. He made the exact same error in surgery two times. I subsequently ended up almost dying, had to have a third surgery just to stabilize things, and, just as had started to recover from the botched surgeries, ended up contracting a severe infection that also almost killed me. I filed a complaint with the state medical board and the neurosurgeon involved lost his license as a result. He can no longer practice medicine anywhere ever again. As an attorney, I know that med mal laws typically favor the doctors and that there was next to no hope of recovering any money or anything (typically monetary judgements in most states aren't awarded unless you basically lose a limb or your life and even then they are capped). I didn't care about monetary damages and never filed a Civil Suit - I just wanted this man to never be able to practice again and harm someone the way he harmed me. I am still young and was very fortunate to survive, but that was after three months in the hospital and still being sent home with a central line in and having to give myself injections of antibiotics, blood thinners, saline and other things through that line 3 times a day for another month and having regular visits from a home nurse. My company is quite large (over 300,000 employees world wide), and also pretty powerful given our leadership and the fact that we are a tech company that has been around for several decades (long before it was silicon valley). If Trump tries to affect my company, or any silicon valley company, he will have difficulty. We do all band together even if we may compete in certain areas. My healthcare is changing a bit from last year but it is still a relatively good plan. I do still pay a decent amount out of pocket for my premium even with my employer picking up the majority, but that's largely because I go with a PPO (others can go with a few different HMOs if they so choose and they cost less, but I think that paying the extra out of pocket for a PPO is the best choice for me). I can only hope that nothing more will change, especially next year, due to the Trump administration. I feel for those who are using the ACA and those on Medicare. My mother is on Medicare and I have no idea what will happen with her - she has some serious health conditions and already has to pay quite a bit out of pocket (mostly on some very expensive meds) before she hits her out of pocket maximum for the year and it's a struggle for her to get her medications now until she hits that "magic number." I think everyone is worried about what could happen here - whether it's due to changes/revoking the ACA, changes or gutting or Medicare, pre-existing conditions, birth control, etc. There's just no way to know when there's someone who has shown absolutely no interest in policy at the wheel and who is making recommendations for appointments that are, at the very least, questionable. Even those who voted for him need to be concerned about what happens with healthcare. As has been stated throughout this thread, I don't know that many of them realized how much it could impact them if the ACA went away and they started to gut Medicare and Medicaid. It just really pisses me off that the guy Trump nominated for Secretary of Health and Human Services (Price) wants to actually allow employers to fire people for using birth control or for having an abortion. It seems so targeted at women, but as I mentioned in my earlier post, it should also apply to men who use condoms since that is a form of birth control. That basically leaves companies with no work force. Then I guess that means that Trump breaks his promise to bring back jobs because there really won't be many jobs that can be held in America if their job is contingent upon use of birth control.

Exactly, Ivanka, due to the anti-nepotism laws, cannot hold an official position in her Oompa Loompa father's administration and neither can her husband as in-laws are excluded from holding positions as well. Trump, however, seems to be ignoring this for the most part, and it became pretty obvious that he was doing so when he tried to get security clearance for his demon spawn and Ivanka's spouse, Jerad (whom he seems to see as his biggest crutch at the moment). We all know Trump isn't up to the job. He has a short attention span, doesn't care about anyone other than himself, cannot even begin to cope with the amount of responsibility that this job has, is completely ignorant as to what the President's role is, doesn't know a thing about the Constitution, refuses to take the daily briefings (meaning he doesn't give a shit about what is going on in this Country or the world or any intelligence, including that which may be related to any potential threats, etc.). Further, he has no diplomatic ability whatsoever, he has his hand down Putin's pants at all times, is looking for anyway to line his own pockets, etc. Doesn't that make us all sleep better at night? Knowing an incompetent boob (I'm a woman, and apologize to all real boobs out there - including my own for referencing them in relation to this asshat), is out there with a very fragile ego, access to the nuclear codes, prone to temper tantrums, communicates via Twitter in a manner that makes him sound like a 12 year old at best, is trying to suppress the First Amendment as he clearly cannot deal with the real press and a press conference because he has the vocab of a 3rd grader (and I think I'm being generous there), cannot answer unrehearsed questions, and also, deep down, knows he is way out his depth when it comes to being President and is completely incapable of fulfilling all of the duties associated with it. Any person who has to brag about working on Thanksgiving probably shouldn't have a job that most certainly will require it. If you are the President, the job is 24/7. You work on Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's, the Fourth of July, etc. You work in the middle of the night, you interrupt your Tweets, golf game, your "vacation" at Mar-a-Lago or wherever, you stop pimping your hotels, etc. You drop everything to be President. If you can't live with that, don't take the job. This is not a life of leisure. It is, as many have said, the most stressful job in the world. It is not to be taken lightly. It cannot be done part time. You either commit or you quit. Your choice.

In addition to the insurance companies themselves needing to turn a profit, which, since they are a business, goes without saying, many HMOs in particular have an additional conflict of interest to deal with. The doctors themselves are often shareholders. Therefore, it is often in the doctor's best interests to reduce costs as they will see the benefit of that. There have been many suits brought and conflict of interest issues raised around this as it could technically prevent the doctor from recommending certain tests or the best course of treatment because it may be more expensive and cut into the HMO's (meaning the doctor's) profits. HMOs also make it nearly impossible to go "out of network" as you would likely have to pay for that close to, if not entirely, out of pocket even if you just wanted a second opinion. This is something I think the ACA may have been eventually trying to address, however it hasn't been given enough time to work out all the kinks. If the system is privatized again under the Trump administration and people either cannot get insurance at all or are forced into HMO only plans though their employer as they are almost always cheaper, they risk being subjected to substandard care and not getting all the necessary tests and treatments that would be prescribed under a PPO type plan, for example. For those that have a choice, my advice is to always pick the PPO option. It may technically cost more, but it is pre-tax income that they are taking out, so in each paycheck you shouldn't notice too much of a difference in your take home pay. Also, set up a health care spending account (it's often an option through your employer and you should probably do this regardless of which type of plan you choose - HMO, PPO, etc.). Set it up for your out of pocket maximum, or whatever you think you will spend on healthcare that year (this includes co-pays). This money is typically set aside from day 1 and the full amount is usually ready for you to use right away even though they spread it out to take a certain amount out of each paycheck pre-tax over the whole year. Once you hit your out of pocket max, under most plans, you don't have to pay anything else - including co-pays. I have no idea what Trump's suggested nominee will do here, but if you get these things locked in now, I think you'll be covered for at least the upcoming year as I don't know that they can revoke any benefits. Let's just hope that the asshole (Price) Trump has nominated for Health and Human Services Secretary doesn't go through or, in a typical Trump move, that he changes his mind. Price's whole stance on birth control, as I posted earlier, is absurd. Giving an employer the right to fire someone for using birth control is flat out ridiculous. He can take his tiny, shriveled up, joke of a penis and inflict its beliefs elsewhere. I'm an attorney for one of the largest tech companies in the world and if they were to fire every employee using birth control or prohibit insurance to those with pre-existing conditions, they'd go out of business. What an asinine idea.

According to The Hill, Trump Tweeted that he would be "holding a major news conference on December 15th" with his spawn to "discuss the fact that he would be leaving his great business in total in order to fully focus on running the country in order to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" He also states that he is not mandated to do this by law, but he feels that it is "visually important, as President, to in no way have a conflict of interest with my various businesses.." Okay, so this comes a bit late, given many of his actions as PE, and also, his wording states that he will "discuss" leaving his business interests behind. He is also quick to point out that he is under no legal obligation to do so, but it is "visually important"(meaning he doesn't believe in it at all and likely won't really do it, just give us an illusion), therefore he is trying to convince the American people that he is doing us a favor and actually focusing on being President (and continuing to Tweet obnoxious, toddler like statements that have nothing to do with running the country). He's left a lot of wiggle room in this series of Tweets - also, why did this come out in Tweets for goodness sakes? Any normal person would have put out a short press release or something. We all know Twitter is his favorite toy and apparently he cannot live without it, but this is going a bit far. In addition, turning the business over to his demon spawn is not the same as putting it in a blind trust, which he really should do. He will still have access and, since he is giving his kids security clearance, there are still definite conflict of interest issues. I think he is doing this to avoid the lease clause on his new DC hotel that states that a government official cannot be part of lease, however, him turning that over to his children does not really fix that problem. The only thing that would is putting it into a blind trust or selling his interest outright, which he should do with all of his other holdings as well. He's trying to throw people a bone here, but it's complete bullshit and doesn't mean anything or change anything. He will still be running his companies. The only way to guarantee that he focuses entirely on being President is if he puts everything in a blind trust and doesn't give his kids security clearance.

Despite Jill Stein paying $3.5 million for a recount in WI, they are not going to recount by hand. This is a problem since one of the complaints was Russia hacking the voting machines. If they don't recount by hand and use other machines (and I have no idea how these things work), but can Russia hack them again? Here's the link to the article in USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/11/29/judge-rejects-steins-request-hand-recount-wis/94644538/ Stein may appeal the decision, and her reps are hoping the clerks decide to do a hand recount anyway, especially as the judge even stated that there were good reasons to recount by hand but nothing legal to mandate it. Well, as a judge, they can mandate it, particularly given that one of the key reasons for the recount was potential hacking or interference with the electronic votes, though they claim there isn't enough proof of this. Well, to get the proof, they likely have to recount by hand FFS. Hillary's people are also apparently backing a hand recount. WI also apparently stated initially that the cost of the recount would be around $1million, then later upped the cost when individual counties started to report that it would cost them more. How on earth does $3.5million, up from the originally estimated $1million, not warrant a hand recount? They are paying over 3 times what they thought they would have to and now can't even get a hand recount? That's just bullshit. I can't help but wonder, what did Trump and his minions promised them or threatened them with? ETA: Given that now even Trump himself (however stupidly) is claiming voter fraud, isn't it in everyone's best interests to do this recount properly?

It was on Rachel Maddow's show. She had a fairly in depth discussion about Price and his viewpoints and had a number of clips of things he has said. Agree that it is horrific and I sincerely hope that most companies would never abide by this. I live in very liberal CA and work as an attorney for a large tech company that I think, along with many other silicon valley companies, will stand up to Trump and not agree to implement these policies. They are publically traded and have shareholders to answer to, first and foremost. Trump can't dictate how they do business - he can try to impose sanctions, but I don't know how successful he would be as those companies tend to stick together. Even though they may compete in some areas, there are many other areas where they have strategic partnerships and won't let a piss ant like Trump walk all over them. If he starts trying to sink our major tech companies, then he's in trouble as our economy will take a huge nose dive. He doesn't have the knowledge, the skills, or the general sense to overcome it.

I’m watching Rachel Maddow, and apparently, Trump’s recommendation for Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, wants to get rid of coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, even though this is one thing Trump himself said he would keep during his 60 Minutes interview. Price also wants to defund Planned Parenthood and, this is the one of the worst things I’ve heard, he thinks that employers should be able to fire employees who use birth control or for having an abortion, he also says that healthcare plans shouldn’t cover birth control because, according to him, not one woman in America has trouble affording contraception. What type of contraception, exactly? What about those with health conditions who are limited in the type they can use or those that use certain types of birth control to treat other medical conditions as approved by the FDA? What a complete disgrace. I am beyond disgusted at giving employers the right to fire a woman because she uses birth control or has had an abortion. Does that mean they can fire all men who use condoms or has gotten a woman pregnant and that resulted, for whatever reason, in an abortion as well? Whether or not I use birth control is of no concern to my employer. HPPA exists for a reason. And as for pre-existing conditions, I guess that would include men with ED or those who have prostate issues, etc. That means that they are going to have to start paying for those things out of pocket now.

I'm curious to hear the trade offs as well - however, from the early reports I've heard, it won't save all 1400 jobs, but should save about 1000 of them and also that the deal may be short term. We'll have to wait and see - and I won't believe Trump's statement - I want to hear what Carrier and the people that work there say about it. Did they sell their souls to the devil to give Trump a short term win? The long term implications are really what I'm more interested in.

Interesting article. I never thought I'd even remotely tolerate anything that Gingrich said, but this little bit was kind of okay: This part, and pretty much everything else in the article that Gingrich said, not okay and basically the same kind of bullshit we hear from Newt all the time: So "very hard-line conservative warrior" is Newt-speak for being a "bigly" KKK flag waiving racist. Also, thought this was kind of funny: He's admitting Trump isn't "normal," which, of course, we all knew. He also advocates for not taking away Trump's toy, but instead for basically having the "Parental Control" features enabled.

I hope this is the case. It might help explain why there doesn't appear to be any sense of urgency whatsoever in filling all those cabinet and administrative positions. Of course, we also know he's just flat out lazy... In any case, he's going to have to find a reason to leave that makes him look like a hero so he can still be adored and still have rallies and things. Anything that makes him look a quitter or alludes to what we already know in that he isn't capable of doing the job, won't work for him at all. He and his group of deplorables are going to have to come up with a really good reason for him to voluntarily walk away and to spin something like this won't be easy.

Most think he's quite cash poor and not very liquid at all. I posted about this several pages back now. This is part of the reason he's had to rely heavily on foreign investors for his hotels and things, which likely includes taking money from Putin and Russian Banks. This would help explain why he is adamant that his tax returns not be released. In addition, he had the whole issue with the abuse of his "charity" that he has now had to come clean about. He has admitted to violating the "Self Dealings" provision when it comes to charities and used money from said charity to buy two large portraits of himself, one of which hangs at the bar and grill in one of his golf clubs. He's also used money from the charity to settle various lawsuits completely unreleated to the charity, among other things. By doing this, Trump also committed perjury. He signed off on the IRS forms and other paperwork stating that he was not doing any of these activities. Those forms are signed and must be truthful under penalty of perjury or law. He signed these knowing he violated the rules. In addition to all of his other issues, the man has admitted to being guilty of an offense for which you can be jailed. He won't be, of course, which is why his people are trying to get in front of this by admitting to it and hope that he just has to reimburse the misappropriated funds and pay some fines. In any case, how can we have this in the White House? This is trivial compared to so many other things he's already done or has said he will do, yet it is a major issue. If anyone of us cheated on our taxes or didn't pay them for close to 20 years, we would be in jail. He should have been locked up ages ago, plain and simple. I can see it now - Trump arresting boy scouts around the Country for burning flags and threatening to take away their citizenship and send them... where exactly? Antarctica? Some island somewhere? Every day I become more and more amazed at the sheer ignorance of this man and his toddler like behavior. He is so far from being Presidential that it's absurd - but that is supposedly what a lot of his people wanted. Well, Trumpsters, enjoy it when your OT, healthcare, social security, medicare, etc. are taken away, your taxes go up, your job never comes back to America, your house is foreclosed on, etc. You have no one to blame but yourselves for not educating yourselves and falling for a cheap, misogynistic, racist, homophobic, egomaniacal, con man. He sold you a bill of goods and you were too stupid to even bother to see or listen to any alternative view point or look into his damn history.

Where is he getting this from? I live in CA and haven't heard a bloody word about voter fraud - at least not done by the Dems. There was some of the usual suppression bullshit attempted by Trumpsters. Thankfully, in CA you can be a permanent mail voter, which most people I know are, so less people have to worry about being intimidated at the polls.

I thought for sure Trump would go into a period of mourning as he lost one of his great dictator-type role models...

Agree with this. My other worry is that, since Trump clearly does not think or behave like a normal person and is prone to going along with whomever he is speaking with at the time combined with his need to be loved, adored, etc., that, in his warped mind these conversations are legitimizing him, his actions, his choices for various posts, and his "win." Even if Obama seems to get something through to him in a half hour talk or whatever, Trump will forget about it the second KellyAnn or Bannon or Pence or his demon spawn or whomever else tells him something different. The man has no attention span, he incapable of critical thinking, logic or reason, he is extremely myopic in his viewpoint and can't see the long term damage being done, and he doesn't know enough to see that these are problems. He cares about lining his pockets, period. I can see him tweeting that, because he and Obama had a decent conversation, that Obama approves of everything Trump is doing and that there should be no recount and that Trump won fair and square and that Obama believes Trump will be a great President. I'm not, of course, saying that Obama believes any of this, just stating how Trump could view and twist just one comment in his warped little mind. We've seen it happen a million times. Obama is trying to play a long game with a man who can't comprehend a short game or any sort of game. It's risky and I understand that Obama is in a bit of a tough spot at the moment and that he is trying to do what he believes is best for the country right now, but he has to know his opponent, and Trump is too unstable and it is too hard to tell how he will react to this. ETA: Look at how stupid he was by posting that tweet about how he would have won the popular vote if not for all the "illegal votes." Does he not realize that that, combined with him claiming very early on that the election was rigged anyway and that he would only accept the results if he won (and let's not even talk about the likelihood that Russia was involved here), make him delegitimize the election and the results even more? He is bringing more attention to it and causing more questions and harming himself by calling the results even more into question.

Nearly every other country in the world goes by popular vote. Who wins is not "controlled" by the most populous areas per se. The popular vote ensures everyone's vote counts equally, regardless of whether or not they are Dems or Republicans or where they live. The entire country elects the President, not just a few key states, which can happen with the EC. Once the President is in power, how is it exactly that these larger states would "control" the government? If the election is based on the popular vote, the American people as a whole elected the President with all of their votes counting, regardless of where they live, and those in CA have no more power than those in NE, for example. The President would govern as usual, the House and the Senate would operate as usual. The big difference is that everyone's vote will have counted if we go to a popular vote system. To say that everyone's vote counts now, under the EC, is a lie. The EC is antiquated and archaic and was put in place when white males who owned land were the only people allowed to vote. In case people haven't noticed, a lot has changed since then. Every vote should count and if we keep moving ahead with the EC, it means it doesn't and it's a slap in the face to those who stand in line for hours to vote and those who fought so everyone eligible could vote, knowing that everything is up to some bullshit antiquated system anyway. In addition, if the EC votes by state are set by population, in many states those counts are no longer correct. CA, for example, should technically have more than 55 EC votes based on its population today. The people made it clear who they wanted President with the popular vote. We were robbed, in large part, due to the EC, which means many people were essentially robbed of having a voice and say in who becomes President all because they live in a certain state. Popular voting works pretty much everywhere else - there is no reason it can't work here as well. That's really the only fair way to elect a President. That way it doesn't favor red states vs. blue states, it's just based on the entire country as a whole and no state is given more weight over another. It doesn't matter where you live if you go on popular vote - the population of the US is what it is. Whatever errors the Dems made in this election, the EC contributed to this because, without it, Hillary would be our President Elect. Instead, we get some monster with no moral compass and who has no interest other than lining his own pockets. The man is not even a true Republican and that party knows it. I'm glad this recount is happening and that Hillary and many of the Dems are supporting it (I'm trying not to get my hopes up too high, but at least the Dems are fighting back thanks to help from Jill Stein). To think that we could have had Russia select our President for us is just way too scary. Even if the recount doesn't change anything, Russia still played a huge role by hacking the e-mails and the DNC. Why did they only do this to the Dems and not hack Trump and the Republicans as well? I don't want a President who likely owes piles of money to Putin and Russian banks and who has business interests with foreign governments and refuses to separate the two. It's just dangerous all the way around.

And guess who owns stock in the pipeline and companies that will benefit from it? That's right - Agent Orange. His holdings aren't huge, but he still stands to profit if it goes through. Let's just add this to the list of conflicts of interest that he has and, if it falls to him to try to help resolve the situation, we can pretty much guess what will happen - he'll do what's best for him and line his pockets.

I agree. I had a hard time reading about it which is why I posted about it here. I would have thought Obama would have waited a little bit before asking her to concede, or at least have a face to face with her to go over the pros and cons of waiting until all the votes were counted. I mentioned early on in the campaign that the "When they go low, we go high" slogan, while a good motto to live by and, generally a good way to deal with bullies, may have hurt the campaign here as well. As much as I love the Obamas and as much as I think he is a great President and did a lot of great things, especially when you consider the nightmare he walked into in 2008, I think there is a time when you have to go a little low. Campaigning against a dirtbag like Trump who pulled in Russia, who threw out the rule book, who outright lied and cheated his way to the Presidency, is one of those times. You do not have to drag it into the gutter, but the man has so many flaws, so many issues and so many things that could have been used against him in fairly powerful ways. If things like that were brought up enough by the Dems (the abuse of his "charity," the hacking of the e-mails and the DNC by Russia and why Trump wasn't also hacked, Comey's involvement, Trump claiming not to know Putin, Trump's conflict of interest issues regarding his personal business, how he ran that personal business and the 6 times he filed for bankruptcy and the trickle down effect that had on the laborers that he refused to pay, the sexual abuse, the ties to the KKK, his relentless, petty, Twitter tantrums filled with lies, his hypersensitivity, his inability to handle himself in a manner fit to be a human being, let alone be President, etc.), perhaps things would have been different and the MSM would have given things like this more coverage if it were pushed more by the Dems. They seemed to really want to stick with the "When they go low, we go high," however, and they likely didn't want to appear hypocritical and, again, overall it's a good motto to live by - it just isn't very effective against a misogynistic, lying, hypocritical, bigoted, homophobic, demented, sociopathic racist like Trump. At least we have a small bit of hope left in this recount, but again, I'm not holding out a lot of hope. I am glad to see we're doing something about it and that Hillary and her people have decided to support it, though it's unclear whether or not Obama supports it. It's relatively new and I don't think I've seen a statement from him on it, but with everything that has gone on in this election and the fact that so many things have been so unprecedented, the chance that the voting machines were hacked or interfered with in some way by Russia is not beyond the realm of possibility. If they even determine that the counts were off but still favored Trump but that there was, indeed, tampering, that would say an awful lot and the Republicans would be more motivated to try to get Trump out. The man has admitted to breaking the law regarding his "charity" and committing perjury - if votes were tampered with on top of that, how can they justify keeping him around? He is going to drag them all down with him if they don't step up and kick his corrupt, orange, lying, cheating ass out of there.

According to various news sources (real ones), apparently Obama was the one that urged Hillary to concede on Election Night. Her campaign urged her to wait until all the votes were counted and that is what Hillary intended to do originally, however, Obama called her when he saw how MI, PA and WI came in and “urged her to concede.” It seems a bit unlike him, so I wonder why he wouldn’t have agreed with her to wait a while longer. Some claim that this is part of the “go high” strategy and to basically make a graceful exit and not look like a sore loser. In any case, I don’t think waiting another day or so would have hurt anything – especially given that was suspicion that Russia had interfered. Hell, people speculated Russia would tamper with the votes even before the voting started. From The Hill: In any case, as we now know, Jill Stein has raised the money to get recounts in MI, PA and WI, which are states that may have been tampered with. Stein knows that this isn’t going to improve her chances, so it seems she is basically doing this to help Hillary and also perhaps to help prevent any future tampering from taking place as Russia’s involvement in this election, along with that of Comey, was unusual. Trump's all to cozy relationship with Russia is odd, as is the fact that it is believed he won't releases his taxes, in part, because he's borrowed money from Russia. Intelligence Agencies know that Russia hacked the e-mails and the DNC, they definitely could have hacked voting machines and the fact that they only hacked the e-mails on one side of the campaign is truly suspect and also, some of the MSNBC shows have mentioned that the Trump camp appeared to have advance knowledge of when the news on the e-mails was going to be leaked and also likely knew there was nothing damning on them. Hillary lost by about 10k votes in MI and, in the disputed states, there were apparent discrepancies between counties that voted electronically vs. those that used paper ballots. A win by so few votes in a state by Trump, especially when he lost the popular vote so "bigly" and the gap continues to grow there, should definitely warrant a recount and additional investigation. Also, according to Clinton's campaign counsel, it appears they are now going to get behind the recount as well. This should be interesting. I can only hope that that Orange Blob of Goo is told he actually lost and that the whole world knows he cheated. How likely it is, I don't know, but many things that have happened this election have been truly unprecedented. If there were ever a time for something like this to happen and to have the recount reverse the outcome, this would be it. I won't get my hopes up too high, but at least they're now doing something about it.

Exactly. Some women also have health conditions which affects which types of birth control they can use, and, as thredhead77 mentioned above, certain forms of birth control are used, and FDA approved, to treat other conditions. My doctor already warned me that, even though I have insurance through my company, the cost of birth control is likely to go up and, therefore, it could affect my co-pay or out of pocket expense. I am limited in what I can use due to a rare, neurological condition, and I have to go back to the Mayo Clinic back in my home state of MN (I live in CA now), to be evaluated regularly for my condition and to ensure that I get proper treatment. I had to see specialist there when it came to determining which type of birth control was best for me given the complications associated with my condition and various other factors. Every woman, however, should have a right to choose what method she wants to use. They shouldn't be forced into one over another. If Trump and his administration want to make it more difficult for people to have access to birth control I just don't think that's right given that, as has been mentioned, certain types help with other conditions. I agree with the quote above in that if they suggested that the cost of Viagra or Cialis or something be increased, they wouldn't stand for it. Same thing with their hair loss medications or whatever. It's such a double standard and one has to look at the full picture, which Trump and his people are not. Trump is extremely myopic in his "plans" and has no sense of what can happen on a macro level. He is so bogged down in minutia or things that don't really matter, like SNL making fun of him, that he is missing the long term impacts here. He's even missing the short and medium term impacts. The man can't see beyond the next day or two if we're lucky. Even then, he changes his mind. He's a complete fish out of water and deep down, he knows it. He knows he has no business being President and he knows he can't even decide when to go to the bathroom without getting advice from KellyAnn, Ivanka, Jared, Pence, etc. He's freaking clueless, short sighted, racist, misogynistic, homophobic, bigoted, cannot commit to anything, and is prone to throwing temper tantrums like a 5 year old. All of these things make him a danger to himself and others - and the others in this case means essentially the rest of the world. We can only hope he self destructs before he can do too much damage to everyone else.

Since he's admitted to violating the "Self Dealings" laws when it comes to his "charity" and committed perjury in the process, it's a shame the IRS can't step in and put a freeze on all of that money and any other liquid assets he may have until he pays back the "charity" what he stole from it and also pays any additional fines that he will incur. This is preferable to jail time, which, technically, he could be sentenced to for the perjury issue. I know it won't happen, but I would love to see the look on his face if it did. Also, since he served friggin' sliders at his new hotel for the foreign dignitaries, as well as "Trump branded Champaign (read "cheap as fuck and tasted like sweaty socks but found someway to write it off for $100s/bottle), I have a feeling his inauguration is going to be another, rather tacky, affair. He'll probably set up a taco bar and serve taco bowls and KFC or something and then charge us, the taxpayers, $100/bucket of KFC. Seeing the Thanksgiving Menu at Mar-a-Lago was interesting, and excessive, but contained kind of a mish-mash of stuff that didn't really go together and a lot of dishes that haven't been popular since the 80s/90s. Nothing really classy on there at all, though it was higher end than "sliders." Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against sliders, however if I were invited to an event like the one he threw at the hotel, I would have expected something a bit more classy and high end. Just goes to show you that money doesn't buy class - but we all already knew that given his tacky, faux gold, obscene, over the top palace. He's stuck in the 80s to top it all off - I'm surprised he doesn't wear a gold tie everywhere he goes.

Yeah, I hate this. This is not "above and beyond." This is expected when you are President - you will work 24/7. Also, how many others worked yesterday? The police, EMTs, firefighters, doctors, nurses, many in retail, people at restaurants and grocery stores, many people who work for multi-national companies and work with countries who don't celebrate Thanksgiving, etc. I had to work for a while yesterday on a critical contract negotiation with a company in Europe. I can't remember the last time I've been able to actually take a full vacation day and not have to do at least some work - but as an attorney for one of the largest tech companies in the world, sometimes you don't have a choice. My job is no where near as critical as being President - he has lives depending on him - yet I'm still expected to deal with critical issues as, not doing some things that are time sensitive and could cost money or lead to a lawsuit, which could put people out of work, etc. The chances of that happening are slim, in my case, but as with every job, you accept the responsibilities that go along with it - even that means putting in some time on a Holiday or while you are on vacation. As part of the group of people that employs the President, I expect him to work whenever and wherever it is called for. I don't care if it's 3am and he spent a "hard day" at the office napping on the sofa in the Oval Office or out on the golf course with Putin or working on his own, private businesses. He signed up for this and that means 24/7 - no breaks, nothing. If those in other roles can and have to do it, why can't he? His lazy ass can't even be bothered to read briefings FFS.