Donald John Trump: 2016 President-Elect

[AntiBeeSpray]

7 minutes ago, Toomuchsoap said:

Mitt looks like he's straining to move his bowels. Having to look at THAT monstrosity over my dinner, I'd be grimacing hard too.

I was thinking the same in terms of the look on Dump's face. Heck I needed some brain bleach for my eyes after seeing that picture O_o.

[KerleyQ]

2 hours ago, Finagler said:

I have a coworker who told me that Trump IS a successful business man.  When I pointed out Trump's numerous bankruptcies, he replied that filing for bankruptcy is a valid business model.   WTH am I missing?  One bankruptcy can be explained- you were young, didn't know better; numerous ones mean you are stupid and can't learn or else you are a con and out to sucker whomever you can.

And does your coworker get that filing bankruptcy is not a valid model for running the country?  I mean, if they want to argue that sucking so hard you don't make any money and get the court to order your creditors to all take pennies on the dollar is a valid "successful" business model, OK (it's not, but, sure, I'll play along here), but then that's definitely not a ringing endorsement for his business acumen to be good for the country, because the country can't do that shit.  Peter Francis Geracy can't file in some international bankruptcy court for us where China would be told "well, now, the United States has had some cash flow problems, so you get six cents on the dollar for all those bonds."  Trump trying to chapter 11 the country would crash the global economy.  And then shit would get ugly.  

1 hour ago, backformore said:

Trump is supposed to be coming to Chicago this week.  I have no idea why, people here hate him.  

I expect demonstrations outside his ugly-ass building.

I saw a headline earlier tonight that he isn't coming to Chicago.  I'm hoping it's accurate.  I don't want him here.  (Although I would enjoy the resounding rejection he'd receive here).  

[Hanahope]

It's completely Mitts choice to cozy up to Trump. Mitt has plenty of businesses, and rarely do losing presidential candidates succeed in other political elections 

Edited December 1, 2016 by Hanahope

[MulletorHater]

1 hour ago, Toomuchsoap said:

Mitt looks like he's straining to move his bowels. Having to look at THAT monstrosity over my dinner, I'd be grimacing hard too.

Heh!  And, check out how thrilled his dinner date looks.  The wall of smug is so thick that one could cut it with a dinner knife.

Mitt knows he's going to have a lot of explaining to do to those who had pinned their hopes on him.  Apparently, his balls have been set in platinum and encrusted with diamonds and are sitting in a velvet box in a drawer of Drumpf's nightstand.  

The only positive thing that thrills my cynical, cold heart is the image of Ghouliani twisting in the wind while pulling the petals off of flowers one by one:  "He loves me...he loves me not...he loves me...he loves me not..."

[Padma]

3 minutes ago, MulletorHater said:

The only positive thing that thrills my cynical, cold heart is the image of Ghouliani twisting in the wind while pulling the petals off of flowers one by one:  "He loves me...he loves me not...he loves me...he loves me not..."

Oh, if only.  Sadly, I'm so cynical that I think this is just a little "punishment" for Rudy running around two weeks ago crowing about becoming SOS. After he's proven his ability to be quiet--and been sufficiently "punished" while Trump flexes his muscles in public ("Look at all the SOS possibilities!")--I think the announcement will still be "It's Ghouliani."  Maybe Petreaus or Matteus (sp?) will get SOD.

I think Tubby is just letting everyone (including Rudy, including Mitt) know who's boss--and enjoying the public and private groveling that accompanies it.  (Funny that Yahoo didn't snap Priebus who was there to Tubby's right--but who knows? Maybe Reince wasn't given any food, just asked to sit with them and watch how the rich eat.) 

[windsprints]

Unsure which is the best thread for this - saw this on twitter re: the Carrier deal. I hope this is all over the media tomorrow.

 

 

[Toomuchsoap]

10 minutes ago, windsprints said:

Unsure which is the best thread for this - saw this on twitter re: the Carrier deal. I hope this is all over the media tomorrow.

 

 

Of course, Adam. This is is an obvious truth, but the fact is we are all still punked and fucked. Just like the environment. Just like healthcare. Just like Medicare for our family members we're now going to have to assume responsibility for. Just like Social Security our elders rely on and we thought - STUPIDLY- we'd be able to rely on to partially subsidize our old age, because we did, by god, pay into that. But no, it's all shit-canned now. WE ARE ROYALLY FUCKED.

[AntiBeeSpray]

Ok... I was just listening to some Ozzy Osborne on my ipod and thought that these lyrics from the song 'Killer of Giants' kind of fits where we're at now.

Quote

If none of us believe in war
Then can you tell me what the weapon's for
Listen to me everyone
If the button is pushed
There'll be nowhere to run

Source: https://play.google.com/music/preview/Tcqacgur4s4sktpdejlwaziq2vu?lyrics=1&utm_source=google&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=lyrics&pcampaignid=kp-lyrics

I know it deals with the Cold War, but given Drumpf, it's downright scary.

[Duke Silver]

Indiana official: Carrier deal is about federal contracts

Quote

 

“For market-based economists or analysts, this is really a version of crony capitalism, and it’s the kind of thing you really don’t want to get into or have government get into,” Barfield said. “This gets back to who … actually has the ear of the government. So you get the situation where decisions are not made in terms of their economic sense, but in terms of gaming the political system.”

 

Quote

 

Pence wasn't interested in brokering a deal as governor, he said.

“He pretty much wrote it off," Jones told POLITICO. "He met with UTC reps at one point in time, but he wrote it off entirely."

 

[candall]

53 minutes ago, Padma said:

Oh, if only.  Sadly, I'm so cynical that I think this is just a little "punishment" for Rudy running around two weeks ago crowing about becoming SOS. After he's proven his ability to be quiet--and been sufficiently "punished" while Trump flexes his muscles in public ("Look at all the SOS possibilities!")--I think the announcement will still be "It's Ghouliani."  Maybe Petreaus or Matteus (sp?) will get SOD.

I think Tubby is just letting everyone (including Rudy, including Mitt) know who's boss--and enjoying the public and private groveling that accompanies it. ...

Oh, me too.  All this tormenting Mitt, the human showpony, is just a giant 3-D Twitter distraction.

[Toomuchsoap]

27 minutes ago, Duke Silver said:

Indiana official: Carrier deal is about federal contracts

If I got Lawrence O'Donnel right tonight, 1300 jobs are still going to Mexico, and Pence-Goul just okayed a multi-  year tax deal that will pay Carrier $400 thousand per year (or an amount about that) to leave. 

Edited December 1, 2016 by Toomuchsoap

[theredhead77]

Isn't Trump going to heavily tariff or tax companies to sell their products here? So Carrier will be paying that 10fold! Yea, that's it! Sure!

[Toomuchsoap]

When are these fat male fucks in the Rust Belt going to wake from their victory swoon and realize they've all  been had?  Or was it all - really, and fundamentally after all - race politics?

[bittersweet4149]

1 hour ago, MulletorHater said:

...Mitt knows he's going to have a lot of explaining to do to those who had pinned their hopes on him.  Apparently, his balls have been set in platinum and encrusted with diamonds and are sitting in a velvet box in a drawer of Drumpf's nightstand.  

The only positive thing that thrills my cynical, cold heart is the image of Ghouliani twisting in the wind while pulling the petals off of flowers one by one:  "He loves me...he loves me not...he loves me...he loves me not..."

LOL, The Petty is strong in you, @mulletorhater. Live long and prosper.

[Padma]

Even when our PEOTUS is trying to be nice, he's embarrassing:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/11/30/pakistans-surprisingly-candid-readout-of-trumps-phone-call-with-prime-minister/?utm_term=.6d719751b286

excerpt from readout:

"Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif you have a very good reputation. You are a terrific guy. You are doing amazing work which is visible in every way. I am looking forward to see you soon. As I am talking to you Prime Minister, I feel I am talking to a person I have known for long. Your country is amazing with tremendous opportunities. Pakistanis are one of the most intelligent people....

On being invited to visit Pakistan by the prime minister, Mr. Trump said that he would love to come to a fantastic country, fantastic place of fantastic people. Please convey to the Pakistani people that they are amazing and all Pakistanis I have known are exceptional people, said Mr. Donald Trump."

[backformore]

42 minutes ago, Padma said:

On being invited to visit Pakistan by the prime minister, Mr. Trump said that he would love to come to a fantastic country, fantastic place of fantastic people. Please convey to the Pakistani people that they are amazing and all Pakistanis I have known are exceptional people, said Mr. Donald Trump."

Yes, well in Trumpland (sadly, the place we will all be living in soon) some things are FANTASTIC!  and other things are A DISASTER!   Until they're not.  

Sad!

[stormy]

He's got the best words.  The best words.

[Rapunzel]

And so it begins...

From USA Today:

Quote

Congress allows rule permitting mass hacking by government to take effect

WASHINGTON — In a defeat for privacy advocates, Senate leaders rebuffed a last-ditch effort by a bipartisan group of senators Wednesday to allow a vote to block a new rule that allows federal agents armed with a single search warrant to hack millions of Americans' computers or smartphones at once.

That rule will now take effect Thursday.

Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., Chris Coons, D-Del., and Steve Daines, R-Mont., took to the Senate floor to seek agreement to bring up bills to stop the rule from taking effect or at least delay it for three to six months to give Congress more time to study it. Republican Senate leaders denied the three senators' requests for a vote.

"By sitting here and doing nothing, the Senate has given consent to this expansion of government hacking and surveillance," said Wyden, who vowed to introduce a bill in the next Congress to repeal the rule. "Law-abiding Americans are going to ask ‘what were you guys thinking?' when the FBI starts hacking victims of a botnet hack. Or when a mass hack goes awry and breaks their device, or an entire hospital system and puts lives at risk."

The Justice Department, which sought the rule, says it's necessary to keep up with changes in the technology used by criminals, especially the growing use of "botnets." These are clusters of computers infected by malware that can be controlled remotely and used by hackers to steal financial data.

Under existing rules, FBI agents must go to magistrates in every judicial district where infected computers are known to be located and request warrants to hack into those machines, which may number in the thousands or even the millions and be scattered across the country. The change to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure would allow them to go to just one judge to get a warrant to access all those computers.

Congress has not held any hearings on the new rule, which was approved by the Supreme Court last spring and takes effect automatically on Dec. 1 without congressional action.

Opponents of the new rule, including Google and other big tech companies, say it would hurt crime victims twice by letting the government hack them after they've already been hit by criminal hackers. The government could potentially damage victims' computers and smartphones and destroy their data, critics say.

Federal agents must make "reasonable efforts" under the new rule to tell law-abiding Americans that their devices have been hacked by the government, but privacy advocates said that requirement is weak and victims may never be told about the intrusion.

"We can’t give unlimited power for unlimited hacking — putting Americans’ civil liberties at risk," Daines said.

Federal agents already hack into victims' computers to thwart criminals, but the government could greatly expand that power under the new rule.

Federal prosecutors say the updated rule will help them investigate criminals' increased use of botnets.

"This change would not permit indiscriminate surveillance of thousands of victim computers," wrote Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell of the Criminal Division in a blog post.

Coons said Congress is allowing the new rule to take effect without really knowing what it does.

"While the proposed changes are not necessarily bad or good, they are serious, and they present significant privacy concerns that warrant careful consideration and debate," Coons said. "It is our responsibility to do our jobs and thoroughly evaluate the merits and ramifications of the proposed changes."

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?

Edited December 1, 2016 by Rapunzel

[BBDi]

9 hours ago, AntiBeeSpray said:

Ok... I was just listening to some Ozzy Osborne on my ipod and thought that these lyrics from the song 'Killer of Giants' kind of fits where we're at now.

Source: https://play.google.com/music/preview/Tcqacgur4s4sktpdejlwaziq2vu?lyrics=1&utm_source=google&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=lyrics&pcampaignid=kp-lyrics

I know it deals with the Cold War, but given Drumpf, it's downright scary.

 

Trump is one of those draft dodgers who worships the military (unless they're Muslim of course) and would love to have some big tough military guys in his cabinet. I'm not sure how that'll square with his supposedly non-interventionalist approach. 

[Toomuchsoap]

"Non-interventionist"? How can someone who said he'd "bomb the ----   out of..." a country lay claim to a non-intervention philosophical approach to governance?

[Nysha]

2 hours ago, Rapunzel said:

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.

Basically, they're just legitimizing it after the fact, it's been going on forever. And, even if the bill had been voted down, it would still be going on. Our government has been spying on us since it started, or at least since WWI, according to all the research I did for a paper I wrote on the EINSTEIN program several years ago.

[numbnut]

On 11/19/2016 at 9:27 AM, numbnut said:

Right after the election, I kept hearing half the country voted Trump but that's so not true (I'm hearing it less now as people realize this). If 42% of eligible voters didn't vote, that leaves 58%. That 58% wasn't split evenly -- Hillary got 2 million (!) more votes than Trump while other votes went to Gary, Jill and write-ins -- so, at most, only 29% of voters want Trump and at least 71% of the country wants him out of office. That's a lot of opposition. And as his visits to cities around the world are also protested by locals, his thin skin won't be able to handle all the negativity.

Since my previous post, an additional half-million anti-Trump votes were tallied for Hillary. That's 2.5 million (and counting?). I think it's now safe to say that at least 75% of the country didn't vote T/P.

Edited December 1, 2016 by numbnut

[Chicken Wing]

Seriously. About 58% of eligible voters actually voted, and he only got 46.3% (and dropping) of that -- that's 27% of the electorate. Only one out of four voters across the country took the time to say "I want Trump."

It burns me to think how this goon just kept "winning" by no real measure that could objectively be considered "winning." For much of the primary season, he "won" by simply getting the plurality, not the majority, of the vote -- because there were 87 other candidates splitting the other 65% or so of the vote that he didn't get. And now, in the general, he didn't even win the plurality -- yet he still wins because The System. The fuck.

So, let's take stock: Herr Trump won neither a majority nor plurality of voters, lost the popular vote by over 2.5 million and counting, holds the third-worst margin of victory in presidential election history in percentage terms and all-time worst in terms of raw votes, and has the lowest favorable rating of any incoming president in history.

Yeah, that's some mandate.

[Rapunzel]

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:

Quote

"He's going to have to divest himself of the hotel," said John Sindelar, a former senior adviser to the head of the General Services Administration, the government agency that negotiated the lease three years ago. Sindelar left the agency in 2007.

Other contracting experts agreed, though not all of them. David Drabkin, once the GSA's senior procurement officer, said he thinks the clause doesn't apply to Trump because it only prohibits adding elected officials to the lease after it was signed, not banning original parties to it who subsequently get elected to office. He adds, though, that a president leasing the building is "absolutely untenable" because of other conflicts of interest issues.

The Trump Organization did not respond to emails asking for comment.

Whoever is correct, get ready for a battle over the issue.

On Wednesday, Trump tweeted that legal documents were being prepared that would "take me completely out of business operations," but made no mention of selling his ownership interest. He has previously said that he planned to have three of his adult children run his business. Contract experts say that would likely fall short of meeting the requirement for holding on to the hotel lease.

Since his election, government ethics lawyers have been urging Trump to sell his assets and put the money in a blind trust controlled by an outside party, not his children. They say that is the only sure way to avoid conflicts between his pursuit of private profit and the public good.

But aside from brow beating the president-elect, there is little critics can do. Federal conflicts of interest rule generally don't apply to the president, a fact that Trump himself has emphasized.

The D.C. hotel may prove the exception, however, because he must follow the terms of the lease.

"It's a breach of contract," said Richard Painter, chief White House ethics lawyer for George W. Bush. "He's got to get rid of the hotel."

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:

Quote

Schooner has been one of the biggest critics of the deal remaining in place, and has called for the GSA to act fast to terminate the contract. Other lawyers familiar with the contract said GSA could simply alert Trump that he is in violation of the terms, and demand that he sell his ownership interest in the contract to another party.

Pressure is mounting on the agency. Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland and two Democratic lawmakers have called on it to take "concrete steps" to avoid "a clear and very real conflict" triggered as soon as Trump is sworn in next year.

The GSA declined to answer questions about its interpretation of the clause, what it might do or whether it is talking to the president elect. The agency released a statement saying that it "plans to coordinate" with the president-elect's team to "address any issues."

For Trump, the loss of the hotel would be a blow. He poured roughly $200 million into refurbishing the building. And he has an equity stake in the hotel and isn't just renting out his name, as is the case with many of his hotels around the world.

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:

Quote

Charles Tiefer, an expert in government contract law at the University of Baltimore, said the language in the contract is "unambiguous" and that Trump will clearly be in violation when becomes president. Tiefer served as the general counsel of the House of Representatives for 11 years before he began teaching and said the words are similar to ones used in rules prohibiting members of Congress from doing business with the federal government.

Painter, the former chief ethics lawyer for Bush, said the hotel is a problem for Trump in another way. If foreign diplomats stay at the hotel, as has been reported, then Trump could be seen as running afoul of the emoluments clause of the Constitution banning payments to the president from foreign governments.

Other critics have pointed out that the contract requires negotiations over those additional payments each year, and that you cannot expect a GSA employee acting in taxpayer interest to take a tough stand against members of the president's family or officials of his company to get more money for the government-owned property.

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.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Rapunzel

[BBDi]

26 minutes ago, Rapunzel said:

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 say 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 in 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.

I wonder about timing. Not sure how long this hotel has been in the works - I wonder if he built this hotel as part of his aspirations to be a player in the government, or simply never anticipated the potential conflicts?

I also wonder whether, if the GOP establishment had been more welcoming to him, if he would've just been content to be a moneyman and advisor for some other candidate?

WRT Mitt - maybe we should anonymously send him a case of lube. 

Edited December 1, 2016 by BBDi

[Rapunzel]

3 minutes ago, BBDi said:

I wonder about timing. Not sure how long this hotel has been in the works - I wonder if he built this hotel as part of his aspirations to be a player in the government, or simply never anticipated the potential conflicts?

I also wonder whether, if the GOP establishment had been more welcoming to him, if he would've just been content to be a moneyman and advisor for some other candidate?

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.

[ari333]

Case of lube made me laugh out loud for real. Thank you for that.AND let's DO IT!

I truly hate tubby rump. I cant recall ever hating any politician before... ever... I cannot stand to look at him

[stillshimpy]

On being invited to visit Pakistan by the prime minister, Mr. Trump said that he would love to come to a fantastic country, fantastic place of fantastic people. Please convey to the Pakistani people that they are amazing and all Pakistanis I have known are exceptional people, said Mr. Donald Trump."

Oh gods and monsters, please don't let this be real.  Is it real? 

Fuuuuucccccckkkkkk.  He's making George W. Bush look like an elocution expert and wordsmith. 

[MulletorHater]

One of my friends said she will be wearing this T-shirt for the next 1-4 years (how ever long the Fanta Menace and his Sith lords last).

According to her, some folks got the whole thing twisted and have taken it for granted that some people WON'T fight back when they're attacked.  Big mistake.  Not only that, folks shouldn't automatically assume that Drumpf will pay their legal fees when they get caught attacking people or defacing property either.

 

 

[ari333]

No, really how do I do the lube thing? :-)

And I want to put a big ole bow on it.

21 hours ago, stillshimpy said:

 

Oh gods and monsters, please don't let this be real.  Is it real? 

Fuuuuucccccckkkkkk.  He's making George W. Bush look like an elocution expert and wordsmith. 

His writing is deplorable. And does he know that Pakistan  is full of MUSLIMS!!!!!

And to think that I used to make fun of W saying, "Noo-que-ler" (nuclear) Ah the old days.....

As my neighbor says, "holy sweet stars and garters.... we're screwed."

By the time rump gets finished with us, this country is going to look and smell like a diaper fire.

[potatoradio]

21 minutes ago, Rapunzel said:

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

Oh, please, PLEASE let this happen! 

I would pay MONEY to see Ramsey or Anthony Melchiorri (Hotel Impossible) get out their bacteria counters and spray Tubby down with a big old can of business smarts and alpha male WhoopAss. 

"TOUCH THAT, you DONKEY!"

"You want me to drop trou in this bathroom? You do know that amoebas love fake gold spray paint??? Look at this! My counter is over a million! Excuse me...a billion! Wow, you really are a billionaire, aren't you, big boy?"

I want to see Tubby cry about Ramsey or Melchiorri being "unfair" to him.

Edited December 1, 2016 by potatoradio

[Rapunzel]

6 minutes ago, ari333 said:

His writing is deplorable. And does he know that Pakistan  is full of MUSLIMS!!!!!

And to think that I used to make fun of W saying, "Noo-que-ler" (nuclear) Ah the old days.....

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?

[callmebetty]

13 minutes ago, ari333 said:

No, really how do I do the lube thing? :-)

And I want to put a big ole bow on it.

Be sure to include a shirt that reads "Squeal like a pig, oink oink- DELIVERANCE 2016"

[Padma]

5 hours ago, Rapunzel said:

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?

This is scary, awful and I don't know why its been so under the radar until now.  At first I thought the same thing as you wrote (bolded).  But wasn't this requested by Obama's Justice Department?  He didn't veto it. He wants it!  And now this law is going to hand all this state power over, not to Hillary's Justice Department, but to Tubby's to abuse at will (and we know they will).

Crazy!!!! Disgraceful.

[Rapunzel]

9 minutes ago, Padma said:

This is scary, awful and I don't know why its been so under the radar until now.  At first I thought the same thing as you wrote (bolded).  But wasn't this requested by Obama's Justice Department?  He didn't veto it. He wants it!  And now this law is going to hand all this state power over, not to Hillary's Justice Department, but to Tubby's to abuse at will (and we know they will).

Crazy!!!! Disgraceful.

Good point about Obama and the Justice Department. This makes it even more frightening. As I said, I know they've had the ability to do this all along, of course, but legitimizing it, especially without it going through all the proper channels, is even more scary, especially as Tubby will hold the keys to this new "toy" and heaven only knows how he'll use (abuse) it, as you mentioned. I can see Putin getting tons of info that could definitely be very detrimental to this country and to the rest of the world, especially if Tubby is in debt for helping him fix the election (not to mention that Tubby has likely borrowed tons from Russian banks).

Edited December 1, 2016 by Rapunzel

[Padma]

1 hour ago, Rapunzel said:

...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.

This one seems pretty clear cut. He can't keep the hotel. (As for losing $200 million, I'll believe it when I see it. He'll probably sell it for $300 million to a government trying--and succeeding--at getting in good with him and winning favors from him in the future. It's a very desirable property at present, designed and formerly owned by the President of the United States.  Also, any "loss" the bank would probably forgive in exchange for something.

Carrier--well, United Tech--gave up $65 million after all to stay here. Should be some fat contracts coming their way in exchange for that pro-Tubby bit of PR.

What about him selling it to his children?  You know this big "I'm divesting" maneuver is all about "letting my kids run it" (i.e. not divesting at all and no blind trust).

[MulletorHater]

13 hours ago, Toomuchsoap said:

When are these fat male fucks in the Rust Belt going to wake from their victory swoon and realize they've all  been had?  Or was it all - really, and fundamentally after all - race politics?

You know, I wondered about that myself.  I suspect that they'll keep making excuses for the piss-poor choice they made.  It's like the person who is repeatedly told that he is being conned but doesn't want to believe it.  The mark becomes defensive because he has become so emotionally invested in the conman that he can't see straight.  Ultimately, the mark will come to resent those who warned him of the consequences of putting his future in the hands of a crook.  And, when the inevitable happen, the mark will either get pissed off at you or go into a state of denial because he would rather die than admit that he's been had--bad.  It's a typical bait and switch con and the con has unraveled before January 20.  But, Drumpf's more ardent cult members will continue to rationalize the contradictions between his campaign rhetoric and his actions.  Until they can't anymore.

Most Ponzi schemes come to an end because a few of the marks start becoming suspicious when those promised high returns start drying up.  They become even more suspicious when they demand their money back and it isn't returned immediately--if at all.  That's when the questions belatedly start and they go to the authorities.  Wouldn't it be nice if, for instance, those who vehemently opposed Obamacare start to ask themselves why is it okay for their congresspeople to have gold standard health insurance coverage that our tax dollars pay for?  Why is that acceptable while, they, themselves, are broke, busted, disgusted and one hospital bill away from bankruptcy?    

Did these voters also not notice the Wall Street elite that Drumpf has tapped to rob and pillage run the treasury?  They are the Billionaire Boys Club, some of who did quite a number on the poor and working class.  Oh, and this question isn't just directed at those Rust Belt citizens either.  I'm also looking at the purists who only wanted Bernie Sanders, didn't get him, and in a snit, sat their entitled asses at home on Election Day.  

Welcome to the oligarchy, suckas!  We've seen this movie before and it never ends well.

[theredhead77]

On 11/30/2016 at 9:11 AM, stillshimpy said:

There are exceptions, though, Lindsay Graham has doubled down and in a move I never would have called: a sitting Republican has earned my respect and gratitude....for actually paying attention to his duty to the country.   

I'm going to get the specifics then walk-the-walk and call his office to thank him. I expect to see some flying bacon and a snowball fight in hell after.

I hate Trump even more for making me respect Lindsay fucking Graham on something.

[Padma]

7 minutes ago, MulletorHater said:

...Did these voters also not notice the Wall Street elite that Drumpf has tapped to rob and pillage run the treasury?  They are the Billionaire Boys Club, some of who did quite a number on the poor and working class.  Oh, and this question isn't just directed at those Rust Belt citizens either.  I'm also looking at the purists who only wanted Bernie Sanders, didn't get him, and in a snit, sat their entitled asses at home on Election Day.  

Welcome to the oligarchy, suckas!  We've seen this movie before and it never ends well.

Has anyone seen Sarandon interviewed? I'd love to know how she feels now, putting billionaires in charge of our country, expanding income inequality, taking benefits earned by decades of struggle away from the poor and the middle class, killing civil liberties off, one by one.

How do you like YOUR Tubby president now, Sue? He won, basically, by 107,000 uninformed, misinformed votes.

ETA: By the way that read-out of Trump's convo with the president of Pakistan was released by Pakistan. I'm certain that their president's command of English is far superior to Tubby's and that they are as appalled as we are.  They may have thought he was dumbing it down for foreigners, though. Wrong! (alec Baldwin voice) They will soon learn that they will have to dumb it down for him.   (Loved the reminder that he has the best words! That Tubbyism always cracks me up! He's such a child!)

Edited December 1, 2016 by Padma

[stillshimpy]

Susan Sarandon is a jackass with few, if any, redeeming qualities at this stage in her life.  She wanted to 'bring on the revolution' ...which she will doubtless regard from some entirely safe remove, having done her damage and too old to have to live with the consequences for all that long. 

[sistermagpie]

Just now, Padma said:

Has anyone seen Sarandon interviewed? I'd love to know how she feels now, putting billionaires in charge of our country, expanding income inequality, taking benefits earned by decades of struggle away from the poor and the middle class, killing civil liberties off, one by one.

I believe she encouraged people to be nice to Trump voters with a hug fest and try to work with Trump. And Debra Messing called her out on it. (Oh, NOW you want to compromise?) Apparently the revolution doesn't look so good now.

She's also been defensive about taking any blame since her vote didn't change her blue state etc., but others pointed out that she still went on tv encouraging other people to do that.

[Rapunzel]

7 minutes ago, Padma said:

Has anyone seen Sarandon interviewed? I'd love to know how she feels now, putting billionaires in charge of our country, expanding income inequality, taking benefits earned by decades of struggle away from the poor and the middle class, killing civil liberties off, one by one.

How do you like YOUR Tubby president now, Sue? He won, basically, by 107,000 uninformed, misinformed votes.

I hadn't heard that she voted for Trump. Damn it, I liked her as an actress. Now I don't know that I can look at her again.

[callmebetty]

Just now, Rapunzel said:

I hadn't heard that she voted for Trump. Damn it, I liked her as an actress. Now I don't know that I can look at her again.

No she was at first a Bernie supporter than threw in for Jill Stein . 

[stillshimpy]

2 minutes ago, callmebetty said:

No she was at first a Bernie supporter than threw in for Jill Stein . 

And so much worse, actively campaigned against Hillary in her TV appearances because....and I am not fucking making this up....Hillary Clinton didn't do what Susan Sarandon told her to do.  

Things like, "I told her, don't go into Iraq! But they went in anyway..."   I swear, I think her arteries must be clogged and compromising her ability to hold a coherent thought.  She didn't want Hillary elected because of things that....Hillary didn't actually have sole control over, but which happened to be against the wishes of Susan Sarandon.  So she was for Bernie, adamantly (and idiotically) against Hillary and she shot.her.fucking.mouth.off.everywhere. 

I have actual rage against her.  

[Rapunzel]

2 minutes ago, callmebetty said:

No she was at first a Bernie supporter than threw in for Jill Stein . 

Thanks for the clarification, callmebetty. It makes me able to tolerate a tiny bit more, mainly since at least Jill Stein raised the money for the recount in WI, MI and PA, but still...

[Ocean Chick]

Quote

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.

Yes, but can he "sell" his lease to his deplorable kids?  I'm sure he's looking into the legality of that whilst we speak, the troll.

[Rapunzel]

2 minutes ago, stillshimpy said:

And so much worse, actively campaigned against Hillary in her TV appearances because....and I am not fucking making this up....Hillary Clinton didn't do what Susan Sarandon told her to do.  

Things like, "I told her, don't go into Iraq! But they went in anyway..."   I swear, I think her arteries must be clogged and compromising her ability to hold a coherent thought.  She didn't want Hillary elected because of things that....Hillary didn't actually have sole control over, but which happened to be against the wishes of Susan Sarandon.  So she was for Bernie, adamantly (and idiotically) against Hillary and she shot.her.fucking.mouth.off.everywhere. 

I have actual rage against her.  

Wow - I had no idea Susan Sarandon did all of that... I tend not to pay much attention to celbs in general even though I live in Southern CA, but this is pretty bad. I definitely don't think I can look at her or watch one of her movies - at least not for a good long while and not one where she has the lead role.

[SoSueMe]

Well this is just more scariness, however predictable. A CNN discussion with Trump supporters this morning. Alysin Camerota can't even believe it.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/12/01/cnn-anchor-stunned-trump-supporter-newday.cnn

[callmebetty]

I keep hearing that we are going to have hear a speech from PE once he gets I think Chicago .  What the hell could he possibly be talking about.

Totally wrong, he's in Indiana at the Carrier plant.

Edited December 1, 2016 by callmebetty
Update

[stillshimpy]

3 minutes ago, Rapunzel said:

Wow - I had no idea Susan Sarandon did all of that... I tend not to pay much attention to celbs in general even though I live in Southern CA, but this is pretty bad. I definitely don't think I can look at her or watch one of her movies - at least not for a good long while and not one where she has the lead role.

 

I usually avoid celebrity viewpoints  -- and that was before I moved to SoCal in May -- fame isn't actually a mark of anything meritorious.  She's a talented actor but truly, why anyone listens to anyone on real issues when their vocation is "I pretend, for a living! Don't you think that makes for a stellar reality base?  No?  How about my extreme wealth and privilege forever insulating me from any of the daft fucking notions that cross my withered brain and leave my mouth?" is beyond me.  

She just kept popping up in my feed, speaking from her ivory tower, that she pretends is a platform for social justice....and the fool obviously didn't think Trump could win and she could have her hippie-cred intact as having been the person who backed anti-establishment Bernie and booed at bank-driven-Hillary and.....have I mentioned the rage, yet?  

 

Because I don't think I'm over it yet.  There are clues.  Signs.  Occasional burning smells.