Chicken Wing

That's what I'm thinking. A lot of articles I've read have vaguely dismissed the likelihood of Trump facing impeachment, if his conflicts of interest trip the emoluments clause, in light of the fact that both houses of Congress are controlled by his party and they likely won't move to get rid of him. I don't see why not. They're not loyal to him. They're loyal to the party. Pence is one of their own, he would take Trump's place and they'd all be just fine with that. They would prefer Pence anyway; he's an actual conservative, more by the book and much easier to control.

From Huffington Post: An Open Letter to 'Mr.' Trump: WTF is wrong with you!? Heh.

I cannot even begin to explain how much I absolutely motherfucking hate that. It's like visual nails on a chalkboard.

Several talking heads theorize that he "postponed" the conflict of interest press conference until "next month" to avoid discussing it all before the electoral college met.

That's another problem with the electorate's being so misinformed and uninformed: Too many people only have "headline" knowledge of an issue or topic and have very little knowledge of the "story." Meaning, they heard the broad, general description of what's going on but rarely if ever took the time or effort to actually learn any details about what exactly it is. Regarding Hillary and the emails, all they hear is the broad, general talk about the emails, usually connected to the keywords "scandal" or "corrupt" or "liar" or "investigation" and they hear them over and over and over and that's it. Those vague terms, all negative, form the entire basis of their negative opinion. It does not appear to ever occur to any of these people that they never bothered to learn just what the email talk is even about or what is supposedly so scandalous or corrupt about it and her. Most of them have no idea. They just heard it was "bad." And having that vague idea, that "headline," drilled into their brains over and over and over stuck and they became convinced of everything and, even, convinced that they came to this conclusion of their own rational volition. It's like Inception, only stupid.

I think we all need to move on from the fantasy of an electoral college blockade and accept that Herr Dump is officially going to be elected on Monday, and focus instead on what we can do to ensure that, after he officially takes office on January 20 as the most unwanted, undeserving and unqualified president in the history of the United States, he and his foaming-at-the-mouth Congress don't ruin all of our lives. We must stay alert and vigilant to what he does or threatens to do, fight to keep journalists and the media on point in their job to hold his feet to the fire and not get distracted chasing every sensational but ultimately worthless thing he says, and do our civic duty of reaching out to our own representatives, from the local level all the way up the chain, so that they do not waver in their responsibility to check his power and hold him accountable whenever he steps out of line -- which, in all likelihood, he will officially have already done the instant he takes his hand off that bible.

How about Neil Patrick Harris? I think Doogie Howser was in their high school years.

It's so plainly obvious that Trump avoids press conferences in order to avoid having to face questions that he doesn't want to/know how to answer -- so obvious that I'm honestly not sure why the talking heads, even the hardcore anti-Trump ones, are even pretending to be confused about it. That press conference about explaining his conflict of interest stuff? Never gonna happen. Never was going to happen. He pretended to plan to talk about it so the media would stop bringing it up, and, like his "promise" to release his tax returns after [insert bullshit excuse here], he will keep stalling and rescheduling and canceling until they finally give up and move on to something else. He has nothing to tell them because he has no plans on doing anything regarding his businesses that anyone with an iota of good sense would consider to be appropriate or reasonable or ethical. I honestly would not be surprised if never, ever gave a press conference ever again. The only communications he will participate in are the occasional sit-down TV interviews, where he is faced with only one person and, likely, received most if not all of the questions and topics beforehand, and, of course, his Twitter account, where his communications amount to a one-sided conversation of which he is the controller. But offering himself up to open questioning about pretty much any topic, and being forced to make up an answer on the spot? What the hell do we think this is, the presidency?

Bias, bias, bias. Everything is bias, apparently. As a journalist by trade, can I just say how deeply saddened, offended and sickened I am that so many people, entire factions of the populace, have so little regard for truth and factual information that they in fact rely on the proliferation of misinformation and lies in the media to further their agendas?

Facebook has unveiled their new plan to flag fake news.

Thing is, no one ever said the interference did affect the outcome of the election. The determination was that Russia tried to influence it, interfered with the intent of swaying the pendulum. Regardless of whether or not it did, we can't have foreign (and unfriendly) agents meddling in our elections and the matter still needs to be pursued.

So Trump should cross Michael Shannon off the potential celebrity guest list?

But I thought he didn't need any fancy shmancy celebrities.

Far, far too much of the vote came from people who understand far, far too little about what exactly they are voting for. From the examples I've been seeing and reading, the amount of people whose vote choice was based on misunderstanding, misinformation, non-information and non-reality is just devastating.

This. I do not get this mentality that so many voters seemed to have, of voting for someone based on the assumption that they won't do what they said. When did we get to that point of non-logic? (Probably around the same time that the standard of proof became acceptance of baseless facts until they are proven false.) Maybe I'm just weird with all my highfalutin thinking and using ma brain and whatnot, but typically we should be moved to vote for a candidate based on the assumption that they will do what they say, and if they win, hope that they actually follow through with X and Y. What kind of nonsense world makes people vote for someone on the assumption that they don't mean what they say, and if they win, hope that they don't actually follow through on X and Y? "I don't like the mean and distasteful things you say, I don't care for the positions you stand for and I disagree with what you claim you're going to do, so I'm going to vote for you on the basis that, maybe, just maybe, you don't actually mean any of it and won't actually do anything." Um. Yeah. So, if you disagree with what a person says, don't like what they stand for and do not wish to happen the things they say they will make happen, then, um, why the ever-loving fuck did you vote for them???

Wow, we were just talking about him, too. Alan Thicke died of a heart attack today, 69 years old.

Small victories: Kasich vetoed the heartbeat bill (though he signed the 20-week one).

Looks like people aren't entirely blind to the potential for corruption that is the Trump Dumpsterfire: A new poll from Morning Consult/Politico shows that 80% of voters believe that Trump's business interests will influence his decision-making in office -- though there are partisan differences on whether that's a good or bad thing. Also, 60% say he should end his interests in companies that have federal contracts, and 50% believe he should put his assets in a blind trust. Still, less than 40% believe he should be required to sell.

Yeah, mostly the talk was all steeped in hypotheticals and speculation, but Kurt's brilliant article illustrates that it's not only more than just a boogeyman that the opposition keeps trotting out to scare people -- it's actually really happening, and this is where and why it's happening, and these are the problems it causes, and this is why we should care about these problems, etc.

And no one will ever find proof that Russia's interference is why Trump won the election. I don't believe anyone is actually trying to claim that, or deny that he won the election by the voters' own volition and the results certify that. The issue is that Russia was behind the hacking of damaging emails about Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, and the conjecture is that they did it to damage her image and sway public opinion to Trump. No one can ever prove that the release of these hacked emails was the reason people chose to vote for Donald Trump unless they polled every single person who voted and asked them. But the fact remains that every voter voted for the person they wanted to vote because they wanted to vote for them for whatever reason they wanted, and every voter is entitled to vote for whomever they want for whatever reason, and the vote is what it is and the results are what they are. But it does not discount the importance of getting to the bottom of Russia's interference and determine if they were, actually, infiltrating our data and releasing private information with the intent of trying to influence the race.

Yep. I've long wondered if Trump's habit of constantly interjecting his own sentences and speaking almost entirely in asides was due to his being woefully inarticulate or part of some kind of salesman trick to distract people from what he's saying and the fact that he invariably isn't actually saying anything at all. Or if he's brain damaged. One of those.

For real, how sad is the state of this country's collective intelligence if an article that runs more than two paragraphs long and actually covers complex geopolitical issues in an intellectual way -- sometimes with multi-syllabic words! -- is now the equivalent of mumbo-jumbo? Jesus H.

But why should she, or any woman, anywhere, at any point, try to "look more vibrant"? Humpty Trumpty's hair is regularly made fun of because it's a ridiculous-looking thing that may or may not even be hair, and he's a bit on the hefty side though I personally wouldn't call him "tubby" -- but I don't recall anyone ever actually questioning why he doesn't care to do something better with his hair or lose a few pounds in order to make himself look more presentable. Let's please not pretend the same would occur if a woman dared regularly appear in public with unkempt hair and a portly frame. This is the sad reality that we very sadly still live in: A man is judged by his character and accomplishments, as he and everyone ought to be, but a woman first and foremost catches people's attention by the fact that she isn't wearing makeup.

I'll give this for Kellyanne Conartist: She's committed. She never, ever wavers from the act. Her job is to be the spokesperson, the mouthpiece, for whatever or whoever she's being paid to plug, and damn, does she stick to the script. Of course, that makes her word worth absolutely jack shit, since anyone with half a brain cell knows she's only saying these things, taking these arguments, being there at all, because it's her job. Her conviction is only as strong as the paper on which her contract is written. Sometimes it actually makes me nauseous to watch her talk whenever she's on whatever show. I seriously doubt she believes half of the excrement spewing seemingly uncontrollably from her mouth, and then I almost feel sorry for her before I remember that, as far as I know, no one forced her to sell her soul to be a conduit for the Holy Fucktard.

That press conference El Crazy was going to have this Thursday to address his business conflicts? Reportedly postponed to January.