Donald John Trump: 2016 President-Elect

[KerleyQ]

18 minutes ago, AntiBeeSpray said:

I have no words. Just no, Time.

The Flint Whistleblowers sure, but Drumpf or Putin, hell no.

And Farage, too?  Jesus, Time.  No.  

[ruby24]

They should give it to Hillary with the title splashed across the front, "The People's President"- based on her getting more votes than any white man in history yet being denied the office to the guy who got less votes.

It would be awesome and totally provocative, would sell more copies of the issue than any ever.

[AntiBeeSpray]

13 minutes ago, KerleyQ said:

And Farage, too?  Jesus, Time.  No.  

Word. It gave me the chills.

Wondering if he'll try to ban songs he doesn't like.

Like 'Imagine' by John Lennon or 'Love Train' by the O'Jays.

I could see him doing that. Same with literature he doesn't like.

[ari333]

Here's some shallow. Lucky that Ivanka looks like Ivana. Poor Tiffany looks like rump. Bless her heart.

Biden thinks he may run in 2020? I wish he hadn't waited.

I'm very scared and have never said that before. rump is pure awful, but Pence is the same or worse.

I don't want to wish for a meteor

[ari333]

22 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

They should give it to Hillary with the title splashed across the front, "The People's President"- based on her getting more votes than any white man in history yet being denied the office to the guy who got less votes.

It would be awesome and totally provocative, would sell more copies of the issue than any ever.

Oh, please, this should totally happen and I would dance.

[MulletorHater]

On 12/5/2016 at 0:25 PM, SoSueMe said:

It lends a little credence to the rumors,....or Melania will use any excuse to keep some distance between herself and the orange one.

I don't see why; she knowingly signed up for this.  I have no sympathy for either her or the jump-off she replaced.  Both of these women knew exactly what they were getting when they chose to lay up with someone else's huzzzzbinn.  They both knew they were getting a liar and a cheat, as well as a POS narcissist who obviously didn't give a shit about his family, his wife's humiliation or the children who were in tears because they were being teased at school.

Now, fast forward a few years later, and Melania wants to act brand new.  I feel bad for Barron because he didn't ask to be born and he certainly didn't pick the parents he was "blessed" with.  I have no doubt that the Orange Orangutan is as happy as a pig in slop that his wife and youngest child are staying put in the Empire State.  How many objections did he realistically make, and was it his idea all along?  He didn't want them here in D.C. to begin with.  Without them underfoot, he knows he can act a bigger fool than he already is.  I'm sure he's already gleefully thinking about all the extra tail he can buy and all the gusto kitty-cats he can grab without enduring Melania's Bond villainness glare.

I propose though that rather than slapping New York's citizens or the US taxpayers with the tab to house and protect Emperor and Empress Orangefinger, and their child, that he foot the bill himself.  Or, have his supporters raise the funds to keep them safe.

[KerleyQ]

Putin and Assange are still playing games in other countries

How do we, as a country, just close our eyes and ears and just pretend there isn't something sinister going on here?  How do our electors look at the information available - the popular vote, the shenanigans that are alleged to have taken place in multiple swing states, and the combined forces of Putin/Assange interfering in our process - and just shrug and cast their vote for Putin's stooge?  We're about to set a very dangerous precedent here, both in terms of our democratic process and in terms of the stability and safety of the world.  Putin is making a great effort to install leaders in various countries (to wit, mostly our usual allies) who are willing to look the other way when he advances into other countries to claim them for his own empire. At what point do Trump and the rest of Putin's chosen leaders think he will have had enough?  Do they think their countries will be safe from his reach?  Do they think he won't eventually look at his recreated USSR (because, let's face it, that's what his ultimate goal is) and decide that he needs to ensure that countries like the US, Britain, France, Germany, and Italy can't eventually decide to push for a break up of that bloc?  And bonus question for Trump and the rest: Do you really think he'll allow you to be seen as his equal in his new world order?  You will be his friend until you're no longer useful, then you're his problem.  

[Lunata]

36 minutes ago, millennium said:

What I find troubling is how easily the media has acquiesced into accepting tweets as a legitimate form of communication for a President or the President On Deck.

Trump has yet to give a press conference since being elected, preferring instead to express his agenda and intentions directly to the public through Twitter.   That means he doesn't have to answer any questions from the press, even though obviously the press has a LOT of questions.   It's like giving testimony before a court without facing cross-examination.

But rather than call out the inherent shortcomings and risks of this arrangement, rather than repeat just how extraordinary and unacceptable the situation is,  the press has instead been fawning over his every Tweet, almost insanely happy to grab at any crumb that falls from his table.   They devote hours and hours of air time trying to parse what each 140-character message could mean.   Don't they get what's happening?   They're gleefully aiding him in systematically delegitimizing and destroying  the role of the press in a democratic society.   

Why not ignore the Tweets -- or at the very least stop over-hyping them -- in an effort to reinforce the importance of the press and re-establish the traditional mode of communication between a President and the public?

Along this line of thinking I want to take this a step further. I want to know why CNN continues to retain people like Jeffrey Lord, Kaleigh Mcenany, Andre Bauer and Scottie Nells Hughes? The election is over and I for one had said 'thank God I don't have to see them anymore'. Here we are a month later and they're still here. All these surrogates are doing nothing but refuting charges of fake stories drummed up by fake websites and in fact will argue that there has been just as many hoax stories about Trump as well. I see nothing good about this type of reporting and I'm beginning to feel the same as Trump supporters that view CNN as a Democratic sympathizer  just as Fox News is not even disguising that they are a totally slanted Trump platform. The networks get ratings by promoting this type of news broadcasting and that's the point. We used to watch because we wanted to see Kaleigh Mcenany proven wrong, or watch as Angela Rye or Ana Navarro eviscerated Scottie Nells Hughes. We may have believed that we were seeing firsthand that these Trump surrogates were obviously wrong, that Trump supporters would too. But it didn't work that way. Having these same Trump surrogates every night on CNN doesn't resolve any dispute or disagreement because everyone is committed to believing what they have believed for a year. It only serves to enable CNN to get ratings and pay the big salaries for Don Lemon, Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper and other anchors.

I want to see CNN return to being a valid, unbiased news agency. When they report International news, they have an expert to add insight like International correspondent Clarissa Ward and Chief National Security correspondent Jim Sciutto. These are people that add to a story and enlighten us. The others are nothing but white noise to me now and I don't hear it. I've been getting more and more of my news from MSNBC or BBC than CNN lately. I've really reached my limit of the obvious commercial way they're pandering news to us now, it's sensationalism for selfish purposes. JUST GIVE ME NEWS DAMMIT!

[fishcakes]

1 hour ago, AntiBeeSpray said:

I have no words. Just no, Time.

The Flint Whistleblowers sure, but Drumpf or Putin, hell no.

It's not necessarily an honor. Time's Person of the Year has always been about who's been most influential in the past year, regardless of whether or not he (or she, but it was Man of the Year until 1999) was an evil sack of shit. Which is why Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Khomeini, and Putin have all been named in the past. Personally, I would prefer that it not be Trump just because it would puff up his fat head even more than it already is, but I could see naming Putin again since he certainly influenced our election and looks to be doing the same in Germany right now as well.

[AntiBeeSpray]

10 minutes ago, fishcakes said:

It's not necessarily an honor. Time's Person of the Year has always been about who's been most influential in the past year, regardless of whether or not he (or she, but it was Man of the Year until 1999) was an evil sack of shit. Which is why Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Khomeini, and Putin have all been named in the past. Personally, I would prefer that it not be Drumpf just because it would puff up his fat head even more than it already is, but I could see naming Putin again since he certainly influenced our election and looks to be doing the same in Germany right now as well.

I know. But it just makes me cringe. Regardless. Seeing any of those... things on the list, regardless of the year, makes me sick to my stomach.

[fishcakes]

6 hours ago, AntiBeeSpray said:

I know. But it just makes me cringe. Regardless. Seeing any of those... things on the list, regardless of the year, makes me sick to my stomach.

Oh, I agree. Every year there's at least one person on the short list who I wish we could just put into the ocean.

Just a few minutes ago I saw this, and, frankly, I think it's the way Time should go.

Edited December 7, 2016 by fishcakes

[kassa]

Actually, putting Putin on the cover would be pretty savvy -- if you want to see Trump turn on Putin.  Make it Putin holding a marionette of Trump.  

[AntiBeeSpray]

5 minutes ago, fishcakes said:

Oh, I agree. Every year there's at least one person on the list who I wish we could just put into the ocean.

Just a few minutes ago I saw this, and, frankly, I think it's the way Time should go.

I saw that on Tumblr earlier today. Maybe they should have multiple covers this year? One for the Flint Water people, one for Hillary and one of the one you just linked to.

@kassa

Actually, putting Putin on the cover would be pretty savvy -- if you want to see Drumpf turn on Putin.  Make it Putin holding a marionette of Drumpf.  

Maybe. At least in regards to the puppetry. Hold them both accountable.

[Lunata]

[Padma]

4 hours ago, SmithW6079 said:

Drumpf talked to Al Gore recently. Thoughts? I think it's just bs. He's trying to throw a little bone towards Democrats and moderates, thinking it'll calm them down. Wrong. We see through you.

 

4 hours ago, AntiBeeSpray said:

I have no words. Just no, Time.

The Flint Whistleblowers sure, but Drumpf or Putin, hell no.

Hillary "The People's Choice!" would be great for Person of the Year, but it will never happen.  The other good one would be Putin and "Stolen!" on the cover--over a map of the United States--calling him "Man of the Year" for his "unprecedented success in getting control over the results of an American election--from Russia".

Of course, neither of those will happen.  It will be Tubby, Tubby, Tubby and he'll be tweeting about it for a month.

3 hours ago, MulletorHater said:

I don't see why; she knowingly signed up for this.  I have no sympathy for either her or the jump-off she replaced.  Both of these women knew exactly what they were getting when they chose to lay up with someone else's huzzzzbinn.  They both knew they were getting a liar and a cheat, as well as a POS narcissist who obviously didn't give a shit about his family, his wife's humiliation or the children who were in tears because they were being teased at school.

Oooh!  Oooh!  I'm so excited! I get to post something positive about something Trump-related!  (No, not the part about "liar and cheat and POS narcissist who obviously didn't give a shit about his family". Who could argue with that?)

But in terms of Melania, she didn't have a relationship with him while he was married to Marla (the wife he cheated on Ivana with and whose relationship made the kids so upset that Don Jr. didn't talk to Tubby for a year).  He met Melania afterwards. (I always liked it that she wouldn't, at first, give him her phone number.  She may even be --a little-- smarter than she looks. Not wanting to cohabit in close proximity to him in the WH, though reprehensible in a First Lady, may be another example.)

ETA:  I love the idea of a TIME cover with two "winners" Putin, the puppeteer and Tubby, the puppet.

[AntiBeeSpray]

12 minutes ago, Padma said:

 

Hillary "The People's Choice!" would be great for Person of the Year, but it will never happen.  The other good one would be Putin and "Stolen!" on the cover--over a map of the United States--calling him "Man of the Year" for his "unprecedented success in getting control over the results of an American election--from Russia".

Of course, neither of those will happen.  It will be Tubby, Tubby, Tubby and he'll be tweeting about it for a month.

Oooh!  Oooh!  I'm so excited! I get to post something positive about something Drumpf-related!  (No, not the part about "liar and cheat and POS narcissist who obviously didn't give a shit about his family". Who could argue with that?)

But in terms of Melania, she didn't have a relationship with him while he was married to Marla (the wife he cheated on Ivana with and whose relationship made the kids so upset that Don Jr. didn't talk to Tubby for a year).  He met Melania afterwards. (I always liked it that she wouldn't, at first, give him her phone number.  She may even be --a little-- smarter than she looks. Not wanting to cohabit in close proximity to him in the WH, though reprehensible in a First Lady, may be another example.)

I did the first quote. --> Drumpf talked to Al Gore recently. Thoughts? I think it's just bs. He's trying to throw a little bone towards Democrats and moderates, thinking it'll calm them down. Wrong. We see through you.

Yea it would be.

Probably. *gags self with a spoon*

Nah, that'll NEVER happen with me. Ever.

[ruby24]

I don't take any conversation anybody has with him as good news, because again, his word is absolutely worthless. He might sit there and say oh yeah, sure, whatever, but he'll forget about it the second you're gone.

Isn't this what we've learned? He doesn't care about anything except himself, and literally the last person he talks to is the one he parrots.

Best case scenario on climate change (or anything good) is that Ivanka thinks it's genuinely important and takes it upon herself to make sure he listens to her and resists the people around him. And I don't have a whole lot of faith in her, really, I think she just wants to sell her clothes.

[MulletorHater]

9 minutes ago, AntiBeeSpray said:

I did the first quote. --> Drumpf talked to Al Gore recently. Thoughts? I think it's just bs. He's trying to throw a little bone towards Democrats and moderates, thinking it'll calm them down. Wrong. We see through you.

Yea it would be.

Probably. *gags self with a spoon*

Nah, that'll NEVER happen with me. Ever.

I would never calm down either.  If anything, it would incense me even more if Gore or any Democrat was trying to normalize Drumpf or his favorite child in search of a "cause" to assign her name to.  Sorry, but neither Drumpf nor Ivanka should get away with trying to pass themselves off as concerned environmentalists.  Not now; not ever.

Drumpf is merely looking to add another episode to his reality show, and Ivanka wants to ensure that people aren't under water so they will be around to buy her cheaply made handbags and shoes.

[Padma]

I thought it was odd that Gore met first at length with Ivanka and then, also at length, with Tubby. Maybe Tubby was running late so Ivanka took the meeting, but my impression was they usually meet with people jointly. Since Tubby, as we know, has zero attention span, it made me wonder if Ivanka might actually be interested in climate change and had questions.  (Yep! Duped again!)

I understand Gore's spin on it afterwards. I think, as with Obama, Trump throws out hopeful signs that he's listening to you and people leave feeling "I don't want to jinx this opportunity by saying something bad about him."

Of course, as the cynics among us know, there really IS no opportunity for them. Tubby will be the most dangerous, least environmentally concerned president in history, with unprecedented opportunities to do damage. Eventually Obama and Gore will oppose him publicly, but for now, he's successfully playing for time to put corporate America fully at the helm

Edited December 6, 2016 by Padma

[potatoradio]

3 minutes ago, MulletorHater said:

I would never calm down either.  If anything, it would incense me even more if Gore or any Democrat was trying to normalize Drumpf or his favorite child in search of a "cause" to assign her name to.

That's exactly how I read this - a fake, bullshit "meeting" to build up something for Ivanka the "hot piece of ass" figurehead. Sort of like when the Tubby campaign prodded Melania onstage with a trial balloon of online bullying of children as a potential (Not My) FLOTUS rallying point. The wimmin folk gots to be the ones pedaling the "soft side" of Tubby and give us all warm fuzzies. Never mind that both of those bots leave me stone cold unimpressed - Tubby's brain is nothing but a soft side.

Meanwhile, welcome fracking to your backyard and we'll hold out for a "better deal" on the Paris treaty and we'll go to war for oil again (because this time, damn it, we're taking the oil home with us!) --- but, wait, environmentalists! Shop Ivanka's newest line of slave diamonds shaped like hearts! Love the Earth! Oh, look! Melania's giving a speech today from her spa - she says all the poor bullied children should buy her caviar lotion and they'll be all better!

Please, please, Dems and RINOS and sane people everywhere who give a shit about this country and the world...wake the fuck up and DRAW THE GODDAMNED LINE. 

Never normal. Never acceptable. An abomination now and forever. And those of you who have the power to do anything need to fucking do it.

[Ceindreadh]

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/trumps-plans-hit-the-wall-as-application-for-doonbeg-barrier-scrapped-35272669.html

aww poor guy isn't going to get one of his walls built. 

I wonder how long before he starts tweeting about ungrateful Irish locals. 

[stormy]

Well, Stephanie Miller had some choice words for Al Gore this morning.

She felt totally screwed by Gore when he sold Current TV.

Edited December 6, 2016 by stormy

[Padma]

Spending time with newspapers this a.m. and, cynical as I am already about Tubby, it's inescapable that the world already feels like a much more dangerous place--and he's not even president yet.

[Dresdengirl]

6 hours ago, KerleyQ said:

He is probably just working an angle to get to use his own plane as POTUS, so he can charge us for the use of his plane instead of flying on Air Force One.  

Bingo, and at twice the rate.

[Bookish Jen]

4 minutes ago, Padma said:

Spending time with newspapers this a.m. and, cynical as I am already about Tubby, it's inescapable that the world already feels like a much more dangerous place--and he's not even president yet.

Yes, I really have a feeling of dread about our place in the world as inauguration day looms even among our allies.

[Dresdengirl]

22 hours ago, parisprincess said:

I read about a party that Trump, Bannon and KellyAnn attended last night at the home of one of their biggest donors. The theme was "Villians and Heros". Trump went as himself (you know, the hero), KellyAnn went as Supergirl and Bannon didn't wear a costume (guess all of his sheets were at the laundry). 

Eta: I stole that last line from a poster on another forum ( we need a little humor!)

"We need a little humor" - That's the only thing that keeps me sane these days.

[rcc]

Apparently Ivanka is very interested in the environment and climate change. Maybe yes, maybe no. I just can't trust those people to be true to any damn thing.

[ruby24]

17 minutes ago, rcc said:

Apparently Ivanka is very interested in the environment and climate change. Maybe yes, maybe no. I just can't trust those people to be true to any damn thing.

I don't know. I know that he doesn't stand for or believe in anything except himself. I don't know about her. If she takes it upon herself to push for good things and has a good influence on him, then I'm all for it. But even if she was a Democrat in reality and wants to influence him in a good way or push him back to his old Democratic self or whatever- she's gotta go up against those scummy people around him like Bannon, Priebus, etc.

Does she have the stomach for that? Can she do it? And what about her husband, who seems to have just as much influence. Is he a true Republican at heart? I just don't have much hope, honestly.

[Duke Silver]

He ‘lied his a– off': Carrier union leader on Trump’s big deal
 

Quote

 

At the Dec. 1 meeting, where Trump was supposed to lay out the details, Jones hoped he would explain himself.

“But he got up there,” Jones said Tuesday, “and, for whatever reason, lied his a-- off.”

--------

“Trump and Pence, they pulled a dog and pony show on the numbers,” said Jones, who voted for Hillary Clinton but called her "the better of two evils." “I almost threw up in my mouth.”

 

[MulletorHater]

20 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

I don't know. I know that he doesn't stand for or believe in anything except himself. I don't know about her. If she takes it upon herself to push for good things and has a good influence on him, then I'm all for it. But even if she was a Democrat in reality and wants to influence him in a good way or push him back to his old Democratic self or whatever- she's gotta go up against those scummy people around him like Bannon, Priebus, etc.

Does she have the stomach for that? Can she do it? And what about her husband, who seems to have just as much influence. Is he a true Republican at heart? I just don't have much hope, honestly.

She and her husband are just as scummy as Poppa Drumpf and the other people around him are.  I find it very difficult to reconcile that Ivanka's husband is Jewish and that she converted to Judaism herself; meanwhile, they are content to swim in the murky waters with Bannon and haven't said jack shit that I'm aware of about Poppa's endorsement from the KKK and other white nationalist groups.  They were okay with all of it during the campaign and from what I see, that hasn't changed.  As my grandmother used to say, if you don't stand for something, then you fall for anything.  That's why I see Ivanka just like her father--an opportunistic empty vessel interested in filling her coffers.  Al Gore needs to tread carefully and not fall for the okey-doke.  I see beneath all the Maybelline, MAC, and Bobbi Brown and I'm still not impressed.

Like, how is she going to have climate change as her "signature issue" when she and Poppa are fully vested in business ventures that will trash the environment?  And, who is she to even be put in this position?  She wasn't elected to a damn thing; she's not the FLOTUS and she sure as hell has no business trying to influence policy.  And, this is especially so while she's in a position to be running a so-called blind trust.  Not to mention the robber barons Poppa has picked to be in his cabinet whose actions and intentions directly contradict Ivanka's newfound interest in the environment.

[Duke Silver]

https://twitter.com/HirokoTabuchi/status/806258357086650369

 

[BBDi]

1 hour ago, rcc said:

Apparently Ivanka is very interested in the environment and climate change. Maybe yes, maybe no. I just can't trust those people to be true to any damn thing.

Trump's staff and cabinet/potential cabinet are stacked with climate change deniers. That tells me all I need to know. 

He's got a good thing going with Ivanka - he lets her be the frontman on anything progressive, without ever himself committing to doing anything about climate change, etc. 

He knows he can get away with it. 

[candall]

4 hours ago, fishcakes said:

It's not necessarily an honor. Time's Person of the Year has always been about who's been most influential in the past year, regardless of whether or not he (or she, but it was Man of the Year until 1999) was an evil sack of shit. Which is why Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Khomeini, and Putin have all been named in the past. Personally, I would prefer that it not be Trump just because it would puff up his fat head even more than it already is, but I could see naming Putin again since he certainly influenced our election and looks to be doing the same in Germany right now as well.

Oh shit, you just know he's going to say Time has named him "Best Person of the Year."  I'll hurl my remote through the tv.

2 hours ago, stormy said:

Well, Stephanie Miller had some choice words for Al Gore this morning.

She felt totally screwed by Gore when he sold Current TV.

Why?  He sold to Al Jazeera, which was an excellent, responsible news network.  I always got scolded when I suggested the name put them at a disadvantage in the US, but the reporting was international and objective.  I'm sure everyone (here) would be tuning in these days, to get some relief from our regularly scheduled journalistic tapdance.

***************

ETA:  Wait, let's not slam the door on Ivanka if it's even remotely possible she cares about the environment, on the grounds she wasn't elected to anything.  That's the argument used against Hillary in 1994, and the main reason we haven't all had decent, single-payer healthcare for the last twenty years.

I'm not inclined to believe anything I hear about any of them, either, but it's a sure bet no one else up there in Penthouse One gives a damn.

Edited December 6, 2016 by candall

[Padma]

15 minutes ago, MulletorHater said:

Like, how is she going to have climate change as her "signature issue" when she and Poppa are fully vested in business ventures that will trash the environment?  And, who is she to even be put in this position?  She wasn't elected to a damn thing; she's not the FLOTUS and she sure as hell has no business trying to influence policy.  And, this is especially so while she's in a position to be running a so-called blind trust.  Not to mention the robber barons Poppa has picked to be in his cabinet whose actions and intentions directly contradict Ivanka's newfound interest in the environment.

Good points, all. But I hope the media will stop calling it a "so-called blind trust".  It's either a blind trust or it isn't.

In Tubby's case, of course, he likes to call it that. But, it's just another lie.  There IS no "blind trust", nor does he appear to be setting one up.  If he did, Ivanka would have to have no part in it.

So... there is no blind trust now, none planned, none ever.  I guess "his multinational company" is about the most accurate way of describing it.

[Bastet]

7 minutes ago, candall said:

He sold to Al Jazeera, which was an excellent, responsible news network.  I always got scolded when I suggested the name put them at a disadvantage in the US, but the reporting was international and objective.  I'm sure everyone (here) would be tuning in regularly these days, to get some relief from our regularly scheduled journalistic tapdance.

I've missed Al Jazeera America every day since it went off the air!  It provided the best journalism on American television, and I feel its absence keenly, especially now.

[candall]

14 minutes ago, Padma said:

So... there is no blind trust now, none planned, none ever.  I guess "his multinational company" is about the most accurate way of describing it.

The Seawitch called The Presidency his "day job," so I guess that makes running T Inc. International his . . .what? sidegig? hobby?  Oh, I know!  His passion.

[NewDigs]

Is this even possible?

He divested all of his stocks in June?

And it's finally "news" in December?

[fishcakes]

21 minutes ago, NewDigs said:

Is this even possible?

He divested all of his stocks in June?

There's only one way to know for sure: tax returns.

[candall]

2 minutes ago, NewDigs said:

Is this even possible?

He divested all of his stocks in June?

And it's finally "news" in December?

Yes, it's absolutely true--you can see it right there on his tax returns.  [SARCASM]

But there's the fucking Washington Post, with a lengthy article about the ramifications of this divestiture--when 100% of the evidence that this occurred in the first place is a statement from his "spokesperson."

He had all his stocks in May, according to his mandatory personal financial disclosure, then he divested himself of all those stocks in (surprise!) JUNE--as reported by that thoroughly credible spokesperson--and now he doesn't have to file another personal financial disclosure until May 2018.

All Aaaaaa . . .board!

[Duke Silver]

https://twitter.com/Anthony/status/806301957191245824

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, candall said:

Yes, it's absolutely true--you can see it right there on his tax returns.  [SARCASM]

I forget who it was on Twitter but it was a reporter who said that in the past Trump had told him he'd sold his stocks in something and then when he was able to research it he discovered Trump simply lied.

Of course he's lying.

[KerleyQ]

33 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

I forget who it was on Twitter but it was a reporter who said that in the past Trump had told him he'd sold his stocks in something and then when he was able to research it he discovered Trump simply lied.

Of course he's lying.

Eichenwald.  I swear, he's the only one left who insists on fact-checking every word Drumpf's stubby little orange fingers tweet out.  

[AntiBeeSpray]

1 minute ago, KerleyQ said:

Eichenwald.  I swear, he's the only one left who insists on fact-checking every word Drumpf's stubby little orange fingers tweet out.  

I hope he gets plenty of overtime pay for it.

[Padma]

Eichenwald's been amazing. I trust him to find the truth of this--maybe also David Fahrenthold who's been so persistent in nailing down the details (i.e. lies) about Tubby's finances.

From what I can tell, things the spokespeople say are easiest for Trump to deny later so they're the first line of defense--i.e. the first in the "lying defenses" line up.  It's harder to link the lie to Tubby himself when its come from Miller or KAC or others.  I suspect that's what we'll find out here, too., that he still has plenty of compromising stocks.

[Pixel]

1 hour ago, Duke Silver said:

https://twitter.com/Anthony/status/806301957191245824

I hope he really did do the right thing and remove Flynn's kid. 

[Gemma Violet]

8 hours ago, ari333 said:

Here's some shallow. Lucky that Ivanka looks like Ivana. Poor Tiffany looks like rump. Bless her heart.

Actually, Ivanka strongly resembled Tiffany when she was 18-19 years old.  She's obviously had plastic surgery. Google Ivanka Before and After, and click on Images to see the difference.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Gemma Violet

[windsprints]

Quote

Apparently Ivanka is very interested in the environment and climate change.

I don't care what Ivanka is interested in. If she is running Daddy's companies then she should be no where near any government policy. I have zero trust in any member of the Trump family, which includes Ivanka's husband, not to sway policy for their own financial gain.

Quote

Wait, let's not slam the door on Ivanka if it's even remotely possible she cares about the environment, on the groundsshe wasn't elected to anything.  That's the argument used against Hillary in 1994, and the main reason we haven't all had decent, single-payer healthcare for the last twenty years.

Ivanka isn't comparable IMO.  Hillary wasn't running the family's companies; the financial stakes were not the same.  

[Rapunzel]

I'm watching LOD, and he brought up the point that, building a new Air Force One plane takes several years (8 to 10 years due to all the extra features, including a full operating room, all the latest technology, etc.). No order for the actual planes has been placed yet (so Tubby, no order to "cancel" quite yet), but Obama did commission the design for the new planes. Even if Boeing gets the order, Trump will never fly in those planes due to the amount of time it takes to build them - this is even if he is in office for 8 years (which, heaven forbid, had better never happen - I'm still hoping he doesn't even make it close to 4 months let alone years).

Another good point made was that, the only other manufacturer of large, commercial aircraft in the world is Airbus, a French Company. So if Trump doesn't order from Boeing, a US Company, then he will have to order from Airbus. The Air Force One Planes are due for replacement - they are over 25 years old and outdated in terms of technology so they do need to order new ones and soon, given the lead time. What was that about keeping jobs in the US again?

Oompa Loompa apparently likely decided to go off on Boeing not due to cost, but because about 25% of the planes they make, 737s in particular, are purchased by China. In his warped, ignorant mind, this is another way that he is "standing up to" China. At the end of the day, however, it hurts the US economy and jobs in the US more. He is just so myopic and short term in his thinking that he can't even comprehend this. All he cares about is some weird vendetta against China, who makes the Trump family's shitty lines of clothing and whatnot and is also a country that he personally owes a ton of money to (I negotiate contracts with China often - I am sure there is most likely a way for them to call in Tubby's debt early if they want to). Why does he want to piss them off so badly?

I have to go to China on business right after New Year's. I go there often and have never been afraid to go there, and I won't be now (my company has offices there and we also have Customers there that I am going to see), but I know they will be curious about Trump and his antics and I'm sure I'll get some interesting opinions from some of my good friends over there that I've known for over a decade.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Rapunzel
Typos

[izabella]

3 hours ago, Duke Silver said:

He ‘lied his a– off': Carrier union leader on Trump’s big deal
 

From the article: 

Quote

And now the president-elect was applauding the company and giving it millions of dollars in tax breaks, even as hundreds of Indianapolis workers prepared to be laid off

I really, really hope WaPo goes back to Indiana after the Carrier workers are laid off and talks to those in the unemployment line.  TV crews also need to be there to expose the lies to the rest of the country.  Reality has to hit some time.  That would be a great time for local Democrats to start talking to people about that job re-training plan Hillary had...oh, wait, there won't be any money to implement it.  Too bad Pence didn't write that $7M tax check for THAT.

[Padma]

16 minutes ago, Rapunzel said:

I have to go to China on business right after New Year's. I go there often and have never been afraid to go there, and I won't be now (my company has offices there and we also have Customers there that I am going to see), but I know they will be curious about Trump and his antics and I'm sure I'll get some interesting opinions from some of my good friends over there that I've known for over a decade.

Based on my time in China, I'm going to guess that you will hear some confusion but not really much criticism of dear Tubby. Hope I'm wrong!

Since you handle contracts, do you know anything about Trump's NDAs?  They are described as draconian, binding all who encounter him (even as volunteers for his campaign nation-wide) to agree to say nothing negative about him, his family, their families and all Trump businesses for the rest of their lives.

KAC, Lewandowski (yes, as CNN contributor), Bannon--all have signed them. I'm sure Trump would want everyone who works in the WH to sign as well.  Can he demand that of federal employees? I can imagine his Cabinet might feel pressured to do it, but you'd hope there would be legal recourse to prevent him from even ASKING civil servants in the government.

Any thoughts on that?  Signing NDAs -- even for Cabinet members -- would have a chilling effect on journalism and, even more important, on historians. So much valuable historical information, pro and con, has come not from the presidents but from those who have worked with them.