Donald John Trump: 2016 President-Elect

[sistermagpie]

22 minutes ago, Padma said:

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!

I thought the Chinese press was already criticizing him

[Rapunzel]

2 hours ago, Padma said:

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.

Some in China are certainly likely to be reserved in speaking about him and in sharing their opinions and/or criticisms, but I'm specifically mentioning speaking with my good friends that I have long term relationships with. I lived there for 2 years and have been doing business there for over 10, typically making about 6 trips a year or so. Those I'm closest with will be honest and some already have been - it's been interesting so far, but I'm curious to hear from them about these latest developments.

I haven't read one of Trump's NDAs, however, I understand that it prohibits anyone employed by him from saying anything negative about him or his family. If they do so, he has the right to sue them. I believe this extends beyond just while they are employed by him and he basically expects the protection period to last forever.

Most typical NDAs or CDAs have a defined "Disclosure Period" (the time period during which confidential information will be disclosed  - this could be for as long as you're employed by a particular company, for example) which is followed by a "Protection Period" (the period of time after the Disclosure Period ends in which you are still prevented from disclosing any information learned during the Disclosure Period). They also typically specify what it is considered confidential/sensitive information and any how that information can be used.

In addition, any information that is made publically available or is publically known, cannot, of course, be considered confidential. So the fact that he is Orange, Tubby and resembles and Oompa Loompa is publically known, so even under his ridiculous version of an NDA, may not be protected. Of course, I'm kidding a bit here, but you all get the idea.

As we all know, Federal Employees already have to protect classified and sensitive info (and certain other types of info), however, given the First Amendment, nothing can prevent them from saying anything negative about their employer or his family or for speaking their minds.  He has the right, as President, to fire them for doing so (since they all "serve at the pleasure," he can technically fire someone on the spot) which I could see him definitely doing and this really turning into "The Apprentice" where he calls people into the Oval Office regularly and shouts "You're Fired!" and then also Tweets it for extra emphasis.

Trump can try to change this, however most seem to believe that it is unlikely he will be able to do so. My understanding is he could try to do it with an Executive Order, but he would still have to prove in court that signing an NDA that would give him the right to sue employees for criticizing he or his family would best serve the public interest. As mentioned, it really does not given that it could impact how history is recorded, journalism, etc. In addition, there is the issue of free speech, and as long as we still have the First Amendment, he'd have a hard time making case. Also, there would be a cost to enforce it, the system could get bogged down with these types of lawsuits, especially as there could be some ambiguity around what could be considered negative or disparaging remarks and judges would have to make the determination, damages would have to be proven, etc.

With the way things are and the things he's been able to get away with, I won't say anything isn't possible in his administration, however I think (I hope) that he would have a difficult time getting something like this passed. I guess he'll just have to resort to firing everyone as a deterrent.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Rapunzel

[Toomuchsoap]

59 minutes ago, Rapunzel said:

From many in China, that may be true, which is why I specifically mentioned speaking with my good friends that I have long term relationships with. I lived there for 2 years and have been doing business there for over 10, typically making about 6 trips a year or so. Those I'm closest with will be honest and some already been - it's been interesting so far, but I'm curious to hear from them about these latest developments.

I haven't read one of Trump's NDAs, however, I understand that it prohibits anyone employed by him from saying anything negative about him or his family. If they do so, he has the right to sue them. I believe this extends beyond just while they are employed by him and he basically expects the protection period to last forever.

Most typical NDAs or CDAs have a defined "Disclosure Period" (the time period during which confidential information will be disclosed  - this could be for as long as you're employed by a particular company, for example) which is followed by a "Protection Period" (the period of time after the Disclosure Period ends in which you are still prevented from disclosing any information learned during the Disclosure Period). They also typically specify what it is considered confidential/sensitive information and any how that information can be used.

In addition, any information that is made publically available or is publically known, cannot, of course, be considered confidential. So the fact that he is Orange, Tubby and resembles and Oompa Loompa is publically known, so even under his ridiculous version of an NDA, may not be protected. Of course, I'm kidding a bit here, but you all get the idea.

As we all know, Federal Employees already have to protect classified and sensitive info (and certain other types of info), however, given the First Amendment, nothing can prevent them from saying anything negative about their employer or his family or for speaking their minds.  He has the right, as President, to fire them for doing so (since they all "serve at the pleasure," he can technically fire someone on the spot) which I could see him definitely doing and this really turning into "The Apprentice" where he calls people into the Oval Office regularly and shouts "You're Fired!" and then also Tweets it for extra emphasis.

Trump can try to change this, however most seem to believe that it is unlikely he will be able to do so. My understanding is he could try to do it with an Executive Order, but he would still have to prove in court that signing an NDA that would give him the right to sue employees for criticizing he or his family would best serve the public interest. As mentioned, it really does not given that it could impact how history is recorded, journalism, etc. In addition, there is the issue of free speech, and as long as we still have the First Amendment, he'd have a hard time making case. Also, there would be a cost to enforce it, the system could get bogged down with these types of lawsuits, especially as there could be some ambiguity around what could be considered negative or disparaging remarks and judges would have to make the determination, damages would have to be proven, etc.

With the way things are and the things he's been able to get away with, I won't say anything isn't possible in his administration, however I think (I hope) that he would have a difficult time getting something like this passed. I guess he'll just have to resort to firing everyone as a deterrent.

You are eloquent and more importantly informative. 

The issue I have is the fact that people are gung-ho willing to make this shitgibbon The Decider. I am speaking now about the guy who has an orange ferret stapled to his Cheeto- bloated, shitgibbon face!

[Rapunzel]

7 minutes ago, Toomuchsoap said:

You are eloquent and more importantly informative. 

The issue I have is the fact that people are gung-ho willing to make this shitgibbon The Decider. I am speaking now about the guy who has an orange ferret stapled to his Cheeto- bloated, shitgibbon face!

Thanks TOOMUCHSOAP. I'm glad it was useful information. :-)

[Padma]

2 hours ago, Rapunzel said:

....As we all know, Federal Employees already have to protect classified and sensitive info (and certain other types of info), however, given the First Amendment, nothing can prevent them from saying anything negative about their employer or his family or for speaking their minds.  He has the right, as President, to fire them for doing so (since they all "serve at the pleasure," he can technically fire someone on the spot) which I could see him definitely doing and this really turning into "The Apprentice" where he calls people into the Oval Office regularly and shouts "You're Fired!" and then also Tweets it for extra emphasis.

Trump can try to change this, however most seem to believe that it is unlikely he will be able to do so. My understanding is he could try to do it with an Executive Order, but he would still have to prove in court that signing an NDA that would give him the right to sue employees for criticizing he or his family would best serve the public interest. As mentioned, it really does not given that it could impact how history is recorded, journalism, etc. In addition, there is the issue of free speech, and as long as we still have the First Amendment, he'd have a hard time making case. Also, there would be a cost to enforce it, the system could get bogged down with these types of lawsuits, especially as there could be some ambiguity around what could be considered negative or disparaging remarks and judges would have to make the determination, damages would have to be proven, etc.

With the way things are and the things he's been able to get away with, I won't say anything isn't possible in his administration, however I think (I hope) that he would have a difficult time getting something like this passed. I guess he'll just have to resort to firing everyone as a deterrent.

Thank you so much for all of your detailed and informative answer.  This part was particularly encouraging because it means that he doesn't come in with the right to require NDAs and could instead try to require them by Exec Order (which would be unpleasantly public and attract legal challenges, so might not happen).  Being fired may inhibit some sources for journalists but it seems he won't do much about people talking to historians after the administration is through. I expect (hope!) there will be some use of the whistleblower protections as I've been reading how apprehensive federal employees are that they will be inadvertent participants in policies they abhor.

I'm glad the NDAs seem unlikely to follow him into the Oval Office, at least for anyone he hasn't already required them of.  Thanks again--good news is hard to find.

Different subject, shallow, but watching Tubby's victory tour in Fayetteville today, I noticed that double chin has really grown since the election. He was so mad about the press photos that showed it--he's not going to like all the photos that will be making it look like a goiter now.  Poor, poor tubby Tubby, especially with his disdain for fat people (or Miss Universe contestants who he calls 'Miss Piggy" when they gain 20 lbs to become a perfectly healthy and normal weight--118 to 138 at 5'9". Maybe she needed to lose weight for her contract, but she certainly was not deserving of his public and private humiliation over it.  Hmm...Maybe "Mr. Piggy"...or "President Piggy"?  will become a common moniker as we observe his growing girth once trapped in the Oval Office.).

[candall]

Wow, I have to move "The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell" to the top of my DVR priority list.  He (and his guests) don't mince words while they're dissecting DT's disaster du jour.  O'Donnell's very calm and elder statesman-like.  Almost Walter Cronkite-ish. 

For example, when he was talking about the Boeing mess, he said:

"Boeing's stock dropped this morning following DT's comments, but recovered completely by the end of the trading day.  It seems Wall Street figured out today that it will just have to continue to treat DT's comments as nothing more than out of control outbursts from an uninformed heckler, even though he will soon be heckling from the White House."

Then Kurt Anderson ("Studio 360", Spy Magazine founder) said:  "Of course, what preceded this was talking to Taiwan, which upset China a little bit. . . although presumably they understood that it was THIS GUY doing it, just the same way the [stock] market understood, about Boeing--'oh, it's THIS GUY doing this, we can ignore it . . .' "

Rapunzel, a lot of responsibility for you to go there and represent the continued sanity and intact integrity of the losing majority.  I can't wait to hear what you learn--whether the temperature is angry and offended, or perplexed . . . or is it too much to hope for something more dispassionate?  Because, after all, "it's this guy."

Edited December 7, 2016 by candall
homonyms

[tribeca]

Really Time magazine?   Donald Trump is your person of the year?   And he takes no responsibility for dividing the nation.  That was not president Obama at your rallies filled with hate speech.   

[PatsyandEddie]

Great minds tribeca. Just put this in the Politics in the Media thread. 

Dumbass wandering around with the noose in his pocket to frighten hijab wearing women in Edmonton is in custody. Throw the book at this asshole! No drumpf inspired bs wanted this way. 

[Chicken Wing]

33 minutes ago, tribeca said:

Really Time magazine?   Donald Trump is your person of the year?   And he takes no responsibility for dividing the nation.  That was not president Obama at your rallies filled with hate speech.   

We must remember that the Person of the Year title is simply for the individual who most affected the news or was most influential in shaping events of that year -- "for better or for worse." Hitler was once Time's Man of the Year, as was Stalin -- twice. 

In a way, it makes perfect sense that Dump was chosen Person of the Year, the most influential person of the year. Because he was. This year has, more than any that I can recall, exposed so much that is wrong, sick and stupid about this country than any of us could have ever imagined, and he was the one that pulled back that curtain. Still, it sickens me that he can now add this title to his list of "accomplishments" in his spank bank.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Chicken Wing

[sleekandchic]

Please ignore quote boxes.  [EDIT:  Thank you for removing those, Mystery Mod!]   <3

TIME's decision is not surprising.  The editors' rationale makes sense.

I wonder though if he's pleased with his cover photo?   His beloved hair looks even worse than usual on the side, his scalp is plainly visible, with strands of hair pasted down;  and his face looks demonic to me.

Then, in its announcement,   TIME added the "photographed on the 66th floor" business, and I have to laugh.  Is the unnecessary  reference to the floor number meant to evoke 666?

http://time.com/time-person-of-the-year-2016-donald-trump-choice/

Edited December 7, 2016 by sleekandchic

[Jewlmc]

I wouldn't wipe my ass with it.

[Neurochick]

2 minutes ago, Jewlmc said:

I wouldn't wipe my ass with it.

Or even bother to put it at the bottom of a bird cage.

[KerleyQ]

11 hours ago, windsprints said:

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.

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

My feeling is that, as a citizen, she can express her concerns to him on any issue that doesn't affect their businesses, since that topic is supposed to be off the table with their pseudo "blind trust."  If she wants to express to him her concerns about the environment, that's fine, as long as she expresses them from the standpoint of "look at the science, and look at your kids and grandkids and think about what you want them to live with."  The other caveat is that she cannot make any business moves based on those conversations.  So, if he tells her he is considering signing an agreement or implementing some policy, she can't go make a business decision that would benefit from whatever that agreement or policy is.  (I'd say that even if the topic was one I didn't agree with her on, as long as, as I said, it isn't related to their business).  

11 hours ago, Padma said:

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.

At some point during the campaign, he said that, when he wins, he will look to make the WH staff sign more thorough NDA's so that they cannot later spill information or write a book about his tenure.  It seemed like his main issue was people making money off of him after he gives them a job.  I don't know if he legally can make them sign them, or if there's some executive order he can draft to make it a thing.  I'm sure some of his appointees will happily sign them (and that may have even been an issue discussed when he was deciding who to appoint, and anyone who wasn't up for signing the NDA didn't get the job).  

This makes me wonder if KAC's trying to decide whether to accept a staff position or work for that proposed Ministry of Propaganda is at least partially hinging on the NDA's.  Obviously, she likely signed a very restrictive one for her job as campaign manager, since even his volunteers had to sign ridiculous ones.  But, if that covered her time as his campaign manager, she may be looking down the road and thinking that, if she is employed outside the WH during his presidency, she might have the ability to freely share and comment on whatever goes down from 1/20 forward.  I could see her having an eye towards writing a book about his presidency down the road.  As long as she doesn't include any information about the campaign (beyond already publicly available information) then any attempt by him to stop her would likely have to prove damages and, even then, would hinge on a judge not just throwing out the "can't say anything bad about him for the rest of your life" bullshit portion of his NDA's.  

For the record, I think it's that part that is almost definitely unenforceable in his NDA's.  I don't think you can take someone who works or volunteers for you for a year or less and say "OK, for the rest of your life now, you're never allowed to utter a single negative thing about me."  Sure, he puts that in there.  Technically, he can put anything he wants in there. The issue comes to whatever he can actually enforce when it comes to dragging someone into court over a perceived violation.  

Oh, how I wish Time had gone with that double chin picture Trump complained about as their cover photo.  It would have been perfect.  There he is, dying to boast about this great honor, and the picture on the cover is one he despises.  

Edited December 7, 2016 by KerleyQ

[izabella]

14 minutes ago, KerleyQ said:

The issue comes to whatever he can actually enforce when it comes to dragging someone into court over a perceived violation.  

I suspect a lot of the language in the NDA's is unenforceable.  However, that doesn't mean he can't file a lawsuit.  It might get thrown out, but not before it costs someone a lot of money paying a lawyer to deal with all the motions and filings and defend it until a judge throws it out, and most of those volunteers and others don't have that kind of money to take the risk.

[MulletorHater]

13 hours ago, Pixel said:

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

I would be even more impressed if he did the right thing and removed the elder Flynn from consideration as well.  Pops was just as big a part of spreading those fake stories that led to real guns just as much as his punk kid was.  

Edited December 7, 2016 by MulletorHater
Revised by placing an "s" after "a"

[fishcakes]

9 minutes ago, izabella said:

I suspect a lot of the language in the NDA's is unenforceable.  However, that doesn't mean he can't file a lawsuit.  It might get thrown out, but not before it costs someone a lot of money paying a lawyer to deal with all the motions and filings and defend it until a judge throws it out, and most of those volunteers and others don't have that kind of money to take the risk.

Yes, 1900+ lawsuits with Trump as plaintiff means he figured out a long time ago that he can use the legal system for harassment and intimidation. Imagine how he'll use the Executive Office.

[sistermagpie]

20 minutes ago, fishcakes said:

Yes, 1900+ lawsuits with Trump as plaintiff means he figured out a long time ago that he can use the legal system for harassment and intimidation. Imagine how he'll use the Executive Office.

This is what I thought of when that woman came forward with the story of Trump sticking his finger in her at a club when she was 23. There were people claiming that obviously it never happened because if it did the girl would have had the power to just destroy him for doing that. Because all this young girl would have to do is tell somebody Trump did this and he'd have to give her all his money and power! His life would be ruined!

[MulletorHater]

12 hours ago, windsprints said:

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.

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

Exactly.  To me, it's like trying to put lipstick on a bunch of grifters and sociopaths.

If Ivanka the Terrible had any real influence, her father and most ardent admirer would have never selected Myron Ebell to head the transition team for the EPA.  All Gore did was follow the pattern of so many others by beating a path to the door of the Trump Tower of Doom after being summoned by the royal princess in the hopes that Coral Caligula will deign to consider their ideas.  Every last one of those people have to know that Coral Caligula has the attention span of a gnat.  Just because a person wins an election doesn't mean that his character has changed; that goes for the people closest to him.  This would-be emperor has repeatedly shown he is unable to hold a consistent position on anything beyond what benefits him and some of the members of his family (poor Tiffany).  For him, it's the ultimate power trip to see all these supplicants parading to his royal gold-gilded palace.  Now, our grossly incompetent mayor of D.C., Muriel Bowser, has made the pilgrimage to the Trump Tower of Doom.  

I would also take this time to remind folks of Rancid Preibus' recent statement that his fuhrer's "default position" on climate change is that "most of it is a bunch of bunk."  Why is it so difficult to grasp that what we see and hear from Coral Caligula is exactly what we're going to get and is who he is?  How many times does he have to keep resting his case?  

As for Ivanka the Terrible, it won't occur to her until next year when her brand is damaged that maybe this isn't a good look for her.  It still makes my blood boil to know she had her ass sitting in the room when her father had meetings with foreign dignitaries recently.  

I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to drink the "Let's give Ivanka a chance because she could do some good" Kool-Aid.  It's another step in normalizing the unthinkable.  She may be the smartest of his brood, but she's as much of a snake oil salesman as her old man is.  And, because it needs to be repeated:  HE DIDN'T WIN THE ELECTION!

#NeverTrump #NeverHisFuckingFamily

[partofme]

I still don't understand why we're not having a 50 state recount because I'm not convinced that he really fairly won the electoral college and it wasn't all rigged.  Why isn't there more attention to the fact that PA had to take 5,000 non cast votes from him and WI had to take 22,000 non cast votes from him before a recount was even started.

[numbnut]

17 hours ago, Duke Silver said:

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

Shocker. This is his M.O. Glad a Carrier worker called him out but will anyone listen as Trump tries to cover his tracks in a tweetstorm?

[Toomuchsoap]

4 hours ago, tribeca said:

Really Time magazine?   Donald Trump is your person of the year?   And he takes no responsibility for dividing the nation.  That was not president Obama at your rallies filled with hate speech.   

Well he's up there with great company: Adolf Hitler in 1938, Stalin a little later, Putin a few years ago. I've left off a few other deplorables who graced besmirched the covers of Time throughout its years. It's a sad fact that the entire world exploded for a long damn time following Hitler's glorious Cover Boy moment, and it's because of despots like Joseph Stalin that the world saw the likes of a VladPutin and his sockpuppet tRump. I'm very uncertain the world will survive them. Oh, they'll be okay alright. They may need to spend their long nuclear winter sunning themselves on Mars or from some underground de-commissioned, retrofitted rich guy's nuke silo someplace in the hinterlands of Iowa or Siberia, but they'll be okay. I hope when they blow the world to smithereens in giant simultaneous mushroom clouds I'm at Ground Zero. Poof. Over and out!

Edited December 7, 2016 by Toomuchsoap

[candall]

14 minutes ago, partofme said:

I still don't understand why we're not having a 50 state recount because I'm not convinced that he really fairly won the electoral college and it wasn't all rigged.  Why isn't there more attention to the fact that PA had to take 5,000 non cast votes from him and WI had to take 22,000 non cast votes from him before a recount was even started.

I agree that the results are questionable. 

We're not having a countrywide recount because, who has the power or authority to implement that?  US citizens donated millions of dollars to get just three states recounted, and you saw how quickly the T/GOP walls were erected to thwart that effort.  So, Congress?  Fat chance.  Executive Order?  Also not happening.  I'm very disappointed Obama isn't using his last ounce of strength in the Stop T movement, but I can also understand that he doesn't want his very dignified term to end on a note like the North Carolina clusterfuck, where the governor looked like an idiot by refusing to accept the results and cede the office.

I don't know why thousands and thousands of T votes were invalidated and it barely rated a mention.  Maybe T tweeted something foolish and everyone had to talk about that instead.  It's all just completely incomprehensible.

[Toomuchsoap]

52 minutes ago, partofme said:

I still don't understand why we're not having a 50 state recount because I'm not convinced that he really fairly won the electoral college and it wasn't all rigged.  Why isn't there more attention to the fact that PA had to take 5,000 non cast votes from him and WI had to take 22,000 non cast votes from him before a recount was even started.

I don't either. I'm about 100% convinced that the rethugs in the states he won rigged the outcome. Many of the states are controlled by rethugs. I keep waking up every morning hoping that everything since November 8th has been just a terribly long and very, very bad dream. But, of course, it's not. Now my thoughts keep turning to some faint hope that someone will kill the fat cheeto shitgibbon. Maybe we'll all get lucky and he'll go down in Air Force One over Taiwan on his Worldwide Victory Fuck You Thank You Tour.

[Spartan Girl]

I threw up in my mouth when I saw that Time picked him.  Either they sold out or he paid them off.  Either way, it's horrendous.

[candall]

Someone on MSNBC asked last night:  Why is it that 2.7 million nationwide votes for Hillary mean nothing, but 70,000 votes for T, spread across four states, mean everything?

[Padma]

Re: NDA.  Everyone signs them who works for him. KAC has already signed one. It's binding for life. If she's hesitating, I imagine the dilemma is completely over her ambition (the fame of WH job) + money she can make out of government + not ticking  him off.

RE: Man of the Year.  Thanks for the link. At least their reason for choosing him is far from fawning. While making too little of her popular vote win, I did like that they included this part: "In fact, she crushed Trump among voters who cared most about experience and judgment and temperament, qualities that have typically mattered when choosing the leader of the free world. Even at his moment of victory, 6 in 10 voters had an unfavorable view of Trump and didn’t think he was qualified to be President." 

FYI TIME magazine.  Trump Tower has 58 floors, not 68. He had them start at eleven on the elevator to make it seem taller. 

Re: vote count. I'm so tired of Democratic leaders who are such wimps. Say what you will of Tubby, if the situation had been reversed he (1) wouldn't have immediately conceded, (2) would have been raising skepticism about voter suppression and Russian hacking for weeks; (3) would have questioned close results in typically Republican states that Hillary won; (4) would have pointed out repeatedly that he won the popular vote by millions" and that the American people deserved recounts so they would know for certain that their election had not been stolen.

I don't want Dems to act like duplicitous Republicans, BUT would it hurt to not always roll over and be so bleeping passive all the time?  From what I can see, from the president on down, they have offered Stein next to no support. (Obama acts like the idea of a stolen election somehow reflects on him personally). Personally, I appreciate what she is doing and hope she gets better press out of it in the weeks to come.

Whatever the results are, it was the RIGHT thing to do.

I wish their "Man of the Year" had been a montage of authoritarians--Trump, Erdogan, Putin and Farage--with some title like Rise of Authoritarians" or even better, leave out Putin and call them the Men of the Year with the title "Putin's Puppets?"

[peacheslatour]

Quote

I wish their "Man of the Year" had been a montage of authoritarians--Trump, Erdogan, Putin and Farage--with some title like Rise of Authoritarians" or even better, leave out Putin and call them the Men of the Year with the title "Putin's Puppets?"

Or a mirror like they did a few years ago. With the banner "You did this to yourselves"

[potatoradio]

Or if they just rejiggered the title to "CON man of the year," I'd be okey doke with that.

With a big map of the red states and a "Grabbed by the P*ssy" headline. 

Subheadline: So....should we just lie back and enjoy it now? Because, you know, our country is supposed to have ways to shut that kind of thing down....

[Chicken Wing]

Just now, potatoradio said:

Or if they just rejiggered the title to "CON man of the year," I'd be okey doke with that.

With a big map of the red states and a "Grabbed by the P*ssy" headline. 

Subheadline: So....should we just lie back and enjoy it now? Because, you know, our country is supposed to have ways to shut that kind of thing down....

Ha, and I thought that remark was the stupidest thing I'd ever hear from a politician.

[izabella]

4 minutes ago, potatoradio said:

With a big map of the red states and a "Grabbed by the P*ssy" headline. 

With a subtitle:  Grabbed by the Pussy - We Let Him Do It, You Know

[MulletorHater]

8 minutes ago, izabella said:

With a subtitle:  Grabbed by the Pussy - We Let Him Do It, You Know

I know, right?  This is one of those rare instances where I would be willing to blame the "victim."

[Chicken Wing]

57 minutes ago, candall said:

Someone on MSNBC asked last night:  Why is it that 2.7 million nationwide votes for Hillary mean nothing, but 70,000 votes for T, spread across four states, mean everything?

For real. It burns me that Hillary Clinton lost three states in her firewall by a combined 77,000 votes. Just 77,000 votes of the nearly 14 million between them. One half of one percent. Ugh. A win is a win, but I'm not sure how and why Trump and his Trumpies take that as evidence of some blowout victory and proof of how he reached out to those people and she didn't and he is what those people want. He won by a football stadium's worth of people. At best, his win owes to a fluke of turnout more than anything else. The millions there who didn't vote, despite not caring enough to vote, may well have not wanted him any more than those who went out and voted for someone else. So shut it, Dump. You clinched the election by a fluke-of-turnout victory nail biter of 77,000. Hillary whooped your ass in the overall vote by millions.

[KerleyQ]

3 hours ago, izabella said:

I suspect a lot of the language in the NDA's is unenforceable.  However, that doesn't mean he can't file a lawsuit.  It might get thrown out, but not before it costs someone a lot of money paying a lawyer to deal with all the motions and filings and defend it until a judge throws it out, and most of those volunteers and others don't have that kind of money to take the risk.

I'd love to see some lawyer agree to take it on without charging anything unless they win, and, even then, their fee would only be whatever they recover by filing for attorney's fees for Trump filing something his lawyers had to know was not a legit case.  Someone has to step in and shut this shit down.  

3 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

This is what I thought of when that woman came forward with the story of Trump sticking his finger in her at a club when she was 23. There were people claiming that obviously it never happened because if it did the girl would have had the power to just destroy him for doing that. Because all this young girl would have to do is tell somebody Trump did this and he'd have to give her all his money and power! His life would be ruined!

Exactly.  People think "oh, if it really happened, you'd come forward."  Because, sure, it's super easy to accuse someone who is wealthy, powerful, and armed with a team of high priced attorneys.  If they even make noise about accusing him, his attorneys likely step in and intimidate the hell out of the victim until she retreats.  

1 hour ago, Padma said:

Re: NDA.  Everyone signs them who works for him. KAC has already signed one. It's binding for life. If she's hesitating, I imagine the dilemma is completely over her ambition (the fame of WH job) + money she can make out of government + not ticking  him off.

KAC is smart enough to understand that a lot of the language in his NDAs (especially the "you can't say anything negative about me or my family for the rest of your life" portion) is unenforceable, especially as it relates to non-proprietary information.  Plus, she also knows that, if she separates from his employ before he takes office, she's not bound by any NDA for anything that she observes once she no longer works for him.  Add in that she has the money and influence herself to stand toe to toe with him in court, and she's not going to be nearly as afraid of that NDA as some entry level staffer or volunteer would be.  I'm one hundred percent certain she's had her own lawyers look that thing over (before she signed it), and she knows what is and is not enforceable in it.  

[Lunata]

14 hours ago, candall said:

Wow, I have to move "The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell" to the top of my DVR priority list.  He (and his guests) don't mince words while they're dissecting DT's disaster du jour.  O'Donnell's very calm and elder statesman-like.  Almost Walter Cronkite-ish. 

or perplexed . . . or is it too much to hope for something more dispassionate?  Because, after all, "it's this guy."

I'm with you regarding "The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell", his style is really refreshing. He just puts it all out there without mincing words. I even hate to admit it but I've recently been watching "Hardball With Chris Matthews". I never liked him but after watching him hammer away at Trump regarding criminalizing women that have abortions, I gained some respect. I've watched occasionally and I have to admit that he's growing on me more and more. I find that I've drifted further and further away from CNN and towards MSNBC and it's been a refreshing change.

19 hours ago, Rapunzel said:

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).

There's something else about the Presidential airplanes. Of course, those aren't just ordinary airplanes as we know, they're literally a flying White House, and more. The plane has a lot of technology in its on-board medical facility. The medical room has an extensive pharmacy, loads of emergency room equipment and even a fold-out operating table. The plane also has a staff doctor, who travels with the president wherever he goes. On every mission, the plane is prepared for a wide range of potential emergencies. It has 85 on-board telephones, a collection of two-way radios, fax machines and computer connections. It also has 19 televisions and assorted office equipment. The phone system is set up for normal air to ground connections and secure lines. The on-board electronics include about 238 miles of wiring (twice the amount you'd find in a normal 747). Heavy shielding is tough enough to protect the wiring and crucial electronics from the electromagnetic pulse associated with a nuclear blast. The in-flight refueling gives Air Force One the ability to stay up in the air indefinitely, which could be crucial in an emergency situation. The plane is outfitted with electronic counter measures (ECM) to jam enemy radar. The plane can also eject flares to throw heat-seeking missiles off course. One of the best features of Air Force One is that has the ability to fly at a speed of over 600 miles per hour (or 92 percent of the speed of sound) -- so fast that F-16 fighter planes escorting the president’s plane while in flight on September 11 had difficulty keeping up and had to ask the plane’s pilot to slow down. While "Air Force One" is the most commonly known name, its Air Force designation is VC-25A, and its classified call name is "Angel." I'm sure there's a lot more equipment that's so top-secret that the public isn't allowed to be aware of. And there are actually thousands of skilled people that have a hand in manufacturing that plane. It makes a little more sense now why those two airplanes cost so much.

Here comes the 'something else' part that I mentioned before going into detail about Air Force One. As President of the US, Donald Trump will actually be required to use it rather than his own private jets. National security dictates this. This leaves his family, in particular Ivanka Trump and husband Jared Kushner free to fly around using Donald's private plane. Secret Service will be required to accompany them on their trips and Secret Service traveling on a Trump-owned plane means the agency would need to reimburse the aircraft’s owner. In this case, the president. That goes the same for any one of the Trump or Pence clan traveling on the Trump airplane. So now you have government money going into the pockets of the president and his children. But this is exactly what Trump did during the campaign, billing the federal government $1.6 million for granting Secret Service agents the right to fly on his plane. Oh and one more thing totally unrelated to his planes and Secret Service. When he's officially president, every single one of his tweets, no matter how thoughtless or idiotic is a matter of public record and cannot be deleted or removed. They are all history from that point on. No 'do-overs' on tweets.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Lunata
had to shorten the quotes, I got carried away :)

[Ohwell]

4 hours ago, MulletorHater said:

Now, our grossly incompetent mayor of D.C., Muriel Bowser, has made the pilgrimage to the Trump Tower of Doom.  

I lived in DC for many years, live in NoVA now, but I always thought she was a rather dim bulb.  Now I'm convinced she is.  Trump doesn't give a rat's ass about DC statehood.

I have to admit, though, that I was disappointed that Al Gore met with Trump.  Meeting with Ivanka was bad enough. 

[Padma]

I see he's got another victory tour scheduled tomorrow in Des Moines. 

Does anyone know how much these things are costing us?  One was bad enough but this parade of them is pointless, asinine and a colossal waste of money.  Why are we--the people of America who didn't want him--being forced to pay for these sops to his vanity?  It's crazy.

[AntiBeeSpray]

20 minutes ago, Padma said:

I see he's got another victory tour scheduled tomorrow in Des Moines. 

Does anyone know how much these things are costing us?  One was bad enough but this parade of them is pointless, asinine and a colossal waste of money.  Why are we--the people of America who didn't want him--being forced to pay for these sops to his vanity?  It's crazy.

Yep it is. I don't think I want to know.

This fits him. Bless Carly Simon.

Source: cnn.com

[Rapunzel]

1 hour ago, Lunata said:

When he's officially president, every single one of his tweets, no matter how thoughtless or idiotic is a matter of public record and cannot be deleted or removed. They are all history from that point on. No 'do-overs' on tweets.

I can't remember where I read it or if it was on one of the MSNBC shows, but someone mentioned that his Presidential Library would be nothing more than one big wall full of his Tweets. What a horribly embarrassing legacy. I wonder if they'll have an SNL Section, a Rosie O'Donnell Section, a Crooked Hillary Section, a Rigged Election Section, a Whiny Ass Orange Man Baby Oompa Loompa Section, etc.

That man does not deserve a library - he doesn't read and admits it. From the way he speaks, he sounds practically illiterate. One of my friends in China that I've known for a long time mentioned that they have a hard time understanding him and that translating his speaking into Chinese can be difficult because of it. They can't believe that English is his first language.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Rapunzel

[twoods]

Seriously. We are forced to pay for this bullshit ego stroking parade, the security of his family who will live in a different state than him (while he gets to pocket our tax money since the SS will be living in his building), but Air Force One is just too much of a burden on us. A plane that will be used for the next thirty years or so to protect the president, their family, and other important people. I can understand telling Boeing that it's too expensive and decrease the cost, but canceling the order? I just can't... and don't get me started on Time and their insanity.

[ari333]

On ‎12‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 3:04 PM, kassa said:

 

Sorry about the quote box. Cant get it off.

If rump likes the Time cover, then I hate it. That is all

[Stuffy]

Looks like Trump is picking Scott Pruitt to head the EPA.  He of course is anti-climate change and extremely pro-oil just like Mary Fallin.  Also his claim to fame is wasting my tax dollars by filing a lawsuit to the U.S. supreme court asking Colorado to repeal their weed law.  

[Jediknight]

22 minutes ago, twoods said:

Seriously. We are forced to pay for this bullshit ego stroking parade, the security of his family who will live in a different state than him (while he gets to pocket our tax money since the SS will be living in his building), but Air Force One is just too much of a burden on us. A plane that will be used for the next thirty years or so to protect the president, their family, and other important people. I can understand telling Boeing that it's too expensive and decrease the cost, but canceling the order? I just can't... and don't get me started on Time and their insanity.

And it's not just one plane, it's two that Boeing would be building, but good old Donnie tweets that it's a plane.

And now Linda McMahon has been picked to head up the Small Business Administration.  Well, at least she knows about a business.  But the McMahons are friends with Donnie, they gave him a lot of money, and held 2 Wrestlemanias at Trump Plaza (the Mega Powers exploding should have been at a bigger venue), so he's choosing a friend that gave him a lot of money.

[khyber]

13 minutes ago, Stuffy said:

Looks like Trump is picking Scott Pruitt to head the EPA.  He of course is anti-climate change and extremely pro-oil just like Mary Fallin.  Also his claim to fame is wasting my tax dollars by filing a lawsuit to the U.S. supreme court asking Colorado to repeal their weed law.  

I wonder if Green Party voters are happy with this.  Does the Earth Liberation Front  still exit?

[ari333]

18 minutes ago, Stuffy said:

Looks like Trump is picking Scott Pruitt to head the EPA.  He of course is anti-climate change and extremely pro-oil just like Mary Fallin.  Also his claim to fame is wasting my tax dollars by filing a lawsuit to the U.S. supreme court asking Colorado to repeal their weed law.  

Wow.The evil weed . People smoke in their home, eat a Snickers, mind their own business, and go to sleep. The horror!

Fill up the prisons!

[stormy]

^^^  Did Al Gore just get stabbed in the back?  Sorry, but he made an ass of himself, IMO

[ari333]

3 minutes ago, stormy said:

^^^  Did Al Gore just get stabbed in the back?  Sorry, but he made an ass of himself, IMO

What happened?  I missed it.

[stormy]

Oh.  Al Gore met with doughy butt and his daughter this week to discuss climate change.  Gore said afterwards, it was a good discussion and basically hoped to have more in the future.

But, considering who doughy butt has chosen to lead the EPA, (see earlier posts), IMO, Gore was taken for a ride.

Edited December 7, 2016 by stormy

[ari333]

1 minute ago, stormy said:

Oh.  Al Gore met with doughy butt and his daughter this week to discuss climate change.  Gore said afterwards, it was a good discussion and basically hoped to have more in the future.

But, considering who doughy butt has chosen to lead the EPA, (see earlier posts), IMO, Gore was taken for a ride.

Wow.I cant believe Gore fell for that. If rump asked me to meet with him (and I am a nobody) I'd refuse. I wish more people had balls to refuse meetings with him. He is not god.

And I'm so sick of Ivanka I could puke.

[Jediknight]

8 minutes ago, stormy said:

Oh.  Al Gore met with doughy butt and his daughter this week to discuss climate change.  Gore said afterwards, it was a good discussion and basically hoped to have more in the future.

But, considering who doughy butt has chosen to lead the EPA, (see earlier posts), IMO, Gore was taken for a ride.

Isn't it great that our soon to be President is humiliating and trolling people?  I know I was hating that for over 240 years there were Presidents that acted Presidential.

[ari333]

1 minute ago, Jediknight said:

Isn't it great that our soon to be President is humiliating and trolling people?  I know I was hating that for over 240 years there were Presidents that acted Presidential.

ISIS and others are laughing their asses off at us.