Donald John Trump: 2016 President-Elect

[Lunata]

Just today,

Obama to NPR: "We need to take action against Russia."

[Guest]

7 hours ago, parisprincess said:

Quote

I think like-minded people and businesses should festoon their homes and businesses with black funeral bunting for the inauguration. And sport black armbands. 

Personally, I decided on November 8th that I would be clad in black from head to toe on inauguration day.

I decided I would be anywhere but on U.S. soil. I'm leaving the country for four days. 

[Duke Silver]

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, Lunata said:

But I don't think that's who she is. I don't know what occupies her days while Barron is in school.

Hopefully what's occupying her time is a boyfriend. 

And if her child is autistic, as the rumors go, what is she -- some secret Scientologist where that disability cannot and should not ever be addressed? What a great platform she could have as FLOTUS for her to shed light on condition! But knowing Trump, he probably sees it as some kind of character flaw on the child's part, or worse -- evidence that his own genes aren't as superior as he thinks. Then again, Melania's just another grifter who I don't see doing anything altruistic for any other human being on the planet. It's not like she gives a shit about other people's problems -- no more than her gross husband does. 

[Lunata]

  1 hour ago, Lunata said:

But I don't think that's who she is. I don't know what occupies her days while Barron is in school.

Hopefully what's occupying her time is a boyfriend. 

And if her child is autistic, as the rumors go, what is she -- some secret Scientologist where that disability cannot and should not ever be addressed? What a great platform she could have as FLOTUS for her to shed light on condition! But knowing Trump, he probably sees it as some kind of character flaw on the child's part, or worse -- evidence that his own genes aren't as superior as he thinks. Then again, Melania's just another grifter who I don't see doing anything altruistic for any other human being on the planet. It's not like she gives a shit about other people's problems -- no more than her gross husband does. 

I appreciate the reference to a quote attributed to me, but the quote wasn't mine. It was from 'callmebetty'

2 hours ago, callmebetty said:

I think this is the reason.  Melania is following one of the most loved FLOTUS in a long time. Hell even Melania cribbed her for her speech. Melania is not down to earth, she is not going to be rolling up her sleeves and working in the garden or going on Jimmy Fallon doing mom dances.  Not that she has to, she could be more on the vein of Jackie Kennedy giving virtual tours of the White House. But I don't think that's who she is. I don't know what occupies her days while Barron is in school. But obviously by her own design or that choice being directed for her she is only going to be FLOTUS in name only. Is it not right or weird ?Certainly. But everything that has happened and is happening is not right and weird. 

Edited December 16, 2016 by Lunata

[Pixel]

1 hour ago, stewedsquash said:

LOL I don't think this is the kind of thing Kurt Eichenwald is used to happening. He never did answer the question, haha, just tried to run out the clock.  I bet he wishes that his "It's happening tmRachel Maddow" article got as much traction as he is getting from his deleted tweet. Poor Kurt is being laughed at already after his appearance on Tucker's show tonight if you google it. Haha, he came with a two foot thick binder (complete with those nice plastic page covers for the 4,000 pages) and letters cut out from Newsweek and pasted on the cover of it (like a blackmail note) that said Tucker Carlson's Falsehoods that he kept trying to heft up in front of the screen. Tucker told him to read from it, haha. 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/12/15/fireworks_tucker_carlson_rips_newsweeks_eichenwald_for_claim_trump_was_in_mental_hospital.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/a-reporter-tweets-his-way-into-trouble-with-a-claim-about-trump-that-lacked-evidence/2016/09/14/f8bd2a54-7a95-11e6-beac-57a4a412e93a_story.html?utm_term=.829eda558323

I wish I could link tweets, he is getting creamed on twitter now. 

Yeah, Eichenwald better be careful about spreading innuendos.  He might accidentally become President of the United States one day with behavior like that. 

LOL

Edited December 16, 2016 by Pixel
To cut extraneous stuff that wasn't about Eichenwald

[Lunata]

30 minutes ago, Duke Silver said:

I wonder if that coffee comes with some kind of cookies or croissants and if it's going to be in the West Wing or East Wing of the White House or in the $20,000 a night Presidential suite in the Trump hotel in Washington? It all matters of course, I wouldn't want to outbid the $50,000 last bid unless I'm guaranteed of getting a snack along with my coffee.

[Padma]

1 hour ago, Lunata said:

 I think she just wants to protect Barron and keep him safe from all that scrutiny that they would have if she lived at the White House.

If parents were really concerned that their child could not handle the pressure of the WH, then maybe they shouldn't try to win the presidency from someone who was completely prepared and completely committed.

Even if I give her "extenuating circumstances" they're supposedly billionaires. Why should I --and other taxpayers-- have to pay for their lack of foresight and planning?  In four years, their residence in Trump Tower will cost Americans over $1 billion. 

I'm just guessing that maybe we could have put that to much better use somewhere else.

[Padma]

Just now, stewedsquash said:

http://twitchy.com/wa-37/2016/12/15/what-has-happened-to-our-press-tucker-carlson-has-knife-fight-with-kurt-eichenwald/

There are just a couple tweets captured that were deleted. I swear I have never witnessed such an epic meltdown in real time before. I am counting down the hours until I can listen to Chris Plante skewer Kurt tomorrow on his radio show. 

Skewer him? How? Does Plante know something to contradict Eichenwald about the amphetamine use?

[zxy556575]

3 hours ago, millennium said:

Sometimes I find it hard to read this thread specifically for the reason that so many personal insults are lobbed at Trump and anyone connected to him, including but not limited to pejorative nicknames and other insulting monikers (usually associated with his appearance). It's too bad, because sometimes the people doing the name-calling make legitimate points about what's going on in our country right now but IMHO they do themselves and the readership a disservice because those points are tainted with such animus that the legitimacy of what is posted is automatically called into question.

Thanks for the thoughtful post, @millennium. I admit to getting a laugh out of Trump's nasty nicknames but also confess I was angry when that woman in West Virginia referred to Michelle Obama an "ape in heels." I honestly try to check myself with regard to double standards, so Trump it is.

[AntiBeeSpray]

24 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

Okay I wish I had captured the images because I read all 40 pages of his twitter over the last hour and he was unhinged. He made all kinds of accusations, gave away secret sources, brought in the intelligence agencies to back up (took about 7 pages to "deliver the message he said they told him to deliver" )and now poof, it is all gone. I wonder what happened? He has done lost his head over Drumpf. 

I wonder apart from what we've heard so far what drove him over the edge in regards to him?

[Keepitmoving]

24 minutes ago, Pixel said:

Yeah, Eichenwald better be careful about spreading innuendos.  He might accidentally become President of the United States one day with behavior like that. 

LOL

Perfect response.

I know I wouldn't mind him replacing the piece of shit that was just elected, so continue on Kurt with your innuendos.

[Padma]

If he's got the guts to take Trump on when others are wimping out (understandably, as this already powerful bully is soon going to be a lot MORE powerful), I applaud him. Hope he's warming up for a fantastic cover story that will get to the truth about Trump (from finances to health) in a way that no one else has.

[BuckeyeLou]

5 hours ago, Padma said:

I have to agree with you about trying to take the misogyny out of our language. I suppose that applies to describing Melania as having "resting bitch face" (which she surely does, imo), but other than using that slur, it's hard to think of how to describe her.

Maybe I'm naïve, but I'm not even convinced she married for money. Trump can be very charming and he's undeniably powerful. Supposedly, she didn't even give him her phone number the first time he asked (at a party).

I don't like to speculate on a woman's reasons for getting married because its hard to tell. She apparently has a business, but I don't like to speculate on her private life either--or how much or how hard she works at whatever she has to do as part of their marriage.

The only thing that actually concerns me about Melania is that she signed on when he ran for President. If she wasn't planning to do the job of FLOTUS--and it was going to be Ivanka instead--they really should have told that to the public, especially as it will apparently cost us HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars to accommodate Melania and Barron remaining in Trump Tower (and, no, they're not going to the WH in June).

That was dishonest. Also, imo, the decision to opt out of life in the WH is disrespectful of the office and history of the presidency. I -do- hold that against her and her husband (though he's got a whole lot more baggage than that, of course.) 

If they refuse to serve in the role, okay. But then pay for the cost of staying in Trump Tower yourselves. I don't see why WE, the taxpayer, should have to carry that burden (it's bad enough how much inconvenience and economic impact it already has on the people living in NYC). 

You want that cushy Trump Tower lifestyle that's not part of the deal of becoming president & FF?  Then pay for it yourself!!!

ITA....Melania has no intention of leaving NYC...why leave that gold-plated apartment in the sky? And no, its not right that American taxpayers have to pay for extra security for staying at Trump Tower. And it really makes me mad that Ivanka "the golden child" will get to 'play" at being First Lady while hawking her fashions on her website.

[slf]

I'm not surprised, to be honest. Eichenwald in particular has received an alarming, though not surprising, amount of shit from Trump supporters; he's written some great pieces on Trump and the election that were not well-received by them. His earlier tweets weren't well-received either, though almost none of them raised new concerns. Trump's been suspected of drug use for a while, especially of phentermine and similar drugs. 

I find Tucker Carlson, like most Fox News anchors, to be a hack and incredibly repulsive. It's a miracle if he can get through an evening without lying and can't get within fifty feet of a conversation about race without saying something racist. I remember when he made the mistake of going on Jon Stewart's show and just got dragged. I think Carlson's own show was canceled right after that, as was the next. And I remember how he attacked Gore over whether or not he campaigned on the same day his sister died. (No, Gore did not ignore his sister to campaign or go out to campaign right after her death on the same day. TC really has no class.) It's a pity; he was once a semi-talented journalist but transitioning to tv really brought out the smug, ignorant hack inside. I think it's hilarious, though, that he ended up on Fox News given he used to trash the channel, but he's been fired from every other channel so I guess that's all he could get.

Edited December 16, 2016 by slf

[millennium]

I watched the Carlson/Eichenwald exchange.    I didn't see the "breakdown" some are describing.   Carlson, who has never rebounded from the pasting he took from Jon Stewart many years ago, was clearly seeking a "gotcha" moment to discredit a significant Republican gadfly and perhaps regain some stature.   But Eichenwald, a bit of an eccentric, refused to lay his head gently on the chopping block. 

The answer to Carlson's question was likely "no."  But rather than doom himself with a simple one-word answer, as Carlson wanted, Eichenwald sought to couch the answer in context so that the viewers would at least understand the process that led him to tweet inaccurate information. 

Frustrated that he couldn't land a "gotcha," Carlson attempted to browbeat Eichenwald into answering yes or no, not unlike a defense lawyer trying to shut down a prosecution witness.   When Eichenwald went off on a tangent and instead starting talking about the "message" from the CIA (the "message" seemed to be something along the lines of Many dedicated men and women in our intelligence community stand by the accuracy of their information and you shouldn't be disparaging them), Carlson attempted to make him look crazy by saying, "Go ahead, tell us your secret message from the CIA."

Eichenwald never said it was a "secret message," but merely a message from the many men and women he knew in the intelligence community.   Unfortunately Carlson cut him off before he could complete his reply.

What I saw Eichenwald do on Tucker Carlson wasn't much different than what I have seen Kelly Ann Conway and numerous other surrogates do on CNN and elsewhere for the past several months.   When a question comes along where a truthful answer may be unflattering, they obfuscate and evade, and they keep evading, until the person posing the question simply gives up.    

It should be noted that Eichenwald seems to make a distinction regarding the nature of actual reporting.   He kept reminding Carlson that "I didn't print it" (i.e. in Newsweek) because the quality of information wasn't up to his standards.  Carlson replied "But you did print it" pointing at the tweet.

Is Twitter just a social site where anyone can casually say whatever comes to mind?   Or is it an arm of the press where journalistic standards should apply?

Eichenwald's adversaries are calling it a "meltdown" and accusing him of "filibustering" but what I saw was Eichenwald determined not to give Carlson the damning sound byte he was after.  Clearly there is a longstanding adversarial relationship between the two men: prior to the show Carlson had cherry-picked Eichenwald's tweets and Eichenwald had prepared his "Tucker Carlson's Falsehoods" binder.

I don't know anything about Eichenwald's tweeting after the interview.  I haven't read any of it.   But it is human nature to want to defend yourself when somebody else tries to make you look bad and doesn't give you an opportunity to tell your side of the story. 

Edited December 16, 2016 by millennium

[savannah1985]

I know why the Orange one doesn't do press conferences. He can't!  Just picture him being asked questions and having to explain himself and how will he get out of answering when he doesn't want to and doesn't have his precious twitter.  Do you think hell be banning press he's angry with when he's president?  Can he do that?  Can he just say no to press conferences the way he has been?  What if he thinks he can?  Do we have any recourse?

[backformore]

37 minutes ago, millennium said:

I watched the Carlson/Eichenwald exchange.    I didn't see the "breakdown" some are describing.   Carlson, who has never rebounded from the pasting he took from Jon Stewart many years ago, was clearly seeking a "gotcha" moment to discredit a significant Republican gadfly and perhaps regain some stature.   But Eichenwald, a bit of an eccentric, refused to lay his head gently on the chopping block. 

The answer to Carlson's question was likely "no."  But rather than doom himself with a simple one-word answer, as Carlson wanted, Eichenwald sought to couch the answer in context so that the viewers would at least understand the process that led him to tweet inaccurate information. 

Frustrated that he couldn't land a "gotcha," Carlson attempted to browbeat Eichenwald into answering yes or no, not unlike a defense lawyer trying to shut down a prosecution witness.   When Eichenwald went off on a tangent and instead starting talking about the "message" from the CIA (the "message" seemed to be something along the lines of Many dedicated men and women in our intelligence community stand by the accuracy of their information and you shouldn't be disparaging them), Carlson attempted to make him look crazy by saying, "Go ahead, tell us your secret message from the CIA."

I agree completely.   Tucker Carlson asked a question, waited until the Kurt started with an explanation, then cut him off and demanded he answer, then did the same thing again.   Kurt Eichenwald refused to give him the soundbyte - the yes or no that he was demanding, because that was a trap.  I thought Tucker Carlson came off poorly, because he used that dismissive laugh, and would not let him answer. 

Kurt E is the author of the Newsweek piece, and Tucker Carlson had one goal -  to discredit him, so the article about Trump's conflict of interest would be discredited.  I contend that the Newsweek article was well written and well researched. 

[Duke Silver]

[Ceindreadh]

It should be noted that Eichenwald seems to make a distinction regarding the nature of actual reporting.   He kept reminding Carlson that "I didn't print it" (i.e. in Newsweek) because the quality of information wasn't up to his standards.  Carlson replied "But you did print it" pointing at the tweet.

Clearly Eichenwald was simply following the president-elect standards of accuracy with the Tweet. 

[Pixel]

6 hours ago, millennium said:

I watched the Carlson/Eichenwald exchange.    I didn't see the "breakdown" some are describing.   Carlson, who has never rebounded from the pasting he took from Jon Stewart many years ago, was clearly seeking a "gotcha" moment to discredit a significant Republican gadfly and perhaps regain some stature.   But Eichenwald, a bit of an eccentric, refused to lay his head gently on the chopping block. 

The answer to Carlson's question was likely "no."  But rather than doom himself with a simple one-word answer, as Carlson wanted, Eichenwald sought to couch the answer in context so that the viewers would at least understand the process that led him to tweet inaccurate information. 

Frustrated that he couldn't land a "gotcha," Carlson attempted to browbeat Eichenwald into answering yes or no, not unlike a defense lawyer trying to shut down a prosecution witness.   When Eichenwald went off on a tangent and instead starting talking about the "message" from the CIA (the "message" seemed to be something along the lines of Many dedicated men and women in our intelligence community stand by the accuracy of their information and you shouldn't be disparaging them), Carlson attempted to make him look crazy by saying, "Go ahead, tell us your secret message from the CIA."

Eichenwald never said it was a "secret message," but merely a message from the many men and women he knew in the intelligence community.   Unfortunately Carlson cut him off before he could complete his reply.

What I saw Eichenwald do on Tucker Carlson wasn't much different than what I have seen Kelly Ann Conway and numerous other surrogates do on CNN and elsewhere for the past several months.   When a question comes along where a truthful answer may be unflattering, they obfuscate and evade, and they keep evading, until the person posing the question simply gives up.    

It should be noted that Eichenwald seems to make a distinction regarding the nature of actual reporting.   He kept reminding Carlson that "I didn't print it" (i.e. in Newsweek) because the quality of information wasn't up to his standards.  Carlson replied "But you did print it" pointing at the tweet.

Is Twitter just a social site where anyone can casually say whatever comes to mind?   Or is it an arm of the press where journalistic standards should apply?

Eichenwald's adversaries are calling it a "meltdown" and accusing him of "filibustering" but what I saw was Eichenwald determined not to give Carlson the damning sound byte he was after.  Clearly there is a longstanding adversarial relationship between the two men: prior to the show Carlson had cherry-picked Eichenwald's tweets and Eichenwald had prepared his "Tucker Carlson's Falsehoods" binder.

I don't know anything about Eichenwald's tweeting after the interview.  I haven't read any of it.   But it is human nature to want to defend yourself when somebody else tries to make you look bad and doesn't give you an opportunity to tell your side of the story. 

This!  I watched it and came to pretty much the same conclusion.

[parisprincess]

6 hours ago, savannah1985 said:

I know why the Orange one doesn't do press conferences. He can't!  Just picture him being asked questions and having to explain himself and how will he get out of answering when he doesn't want to and doesn't have his precious twitter.  Do you think hell be banning press he's angry with when he's president?  Can he do that?  Can he just say no to press conferences the way he has been?  What if he thinks he can?  Do we have any recourse?

I don't think we'll see many press conferences from Trump. He doesn't want to do them because the press will ask questions that he can't answer because he doesn't have a clue as to what he's doing. He probably will ban those who ask the hard questions and will only allow those who will ask the softball questions that won't make him show how inarticulate and uninformed he is. Maybe he'll also make the press submit their questions beforehand so he can have someone write out the answers for him to read.

[Chicken Wing]

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

[candall]

My Hayes/Maddow/O'Donnell daily pre-dawn newsfest was basically an economics lesson in how Putin gutted Russia to become THE wealthiest man in the world--and how DT's on the same track.  Flags!  Red warning flags are waving madly!

 

I see DT's indefinite postponement of his "Conflict of Interest" press conference, and immediate inclusion of his kids in the tech titan confab, as his way of announcing:  "NO, I won't be 'divesting,' I won't be 'separating,' and fuck you if you don't like it."  Connect summoning these tech giants with the news that we're all going to get unblockable T-tweets on our phones and I was so freaked out, my mind briefly flashed on why there were "JC Penney 50% Off Sale" commercials on my tv instead of Early Warning Signal broadcasts.  WAKE UP, AMERICA.

 

The one bright spot was the Attorney General of NY, who won the T University suit, reminding everyone that the Founders awarded a lot of power to the States specifically to "check and balance" anyone who got into power with his eye on a monarchy.  That AG now has The T Foundation in his sights as his next project.  I think this guy is going to need a bodyguard.  No, scratch that . . . needs one now.  Is anyone covering Elizabeth Warren?

 

The Republican legislature in NC openly and blatantly trying to ram through a truckload of RIDICULOUS new laws before the new Dem Governor takes office looks like the first sign of T-inspired political anarchy.  (Example:  Control will now alternate between Dems and GOP--GOP in even-numbered years, when elections are held.)  Oh look, news footage of the police hauling off the citizen protesters in handcuffs.  =: o

Edited December 16, 2016 by candall

[Shannon L.]

19 hours ago, tenativelyyours said:

Whatever role she has post inauguration, whatever presence she has in the White House, it is at his order and his wish.  There is no way if he wanted her there by his side and taking up residence there, it wouldn't be happening.  I have a hard time believing he didn't just send someone to tell her how it was going to be since I think they live rather separate lives outside of the PR appearances.   But I'd have to be present to see and hear her walk into whatever gilded travesty of a room he was in at the apartment and inform him she was staying in NYC and would do a few social events as needed in the years to come.  And after I saw and heard such a conversation take place I'd first get my hearing and sight checked and then I would commit myself for observation, clearly suffering from delusions or possibly having suffered a stroke.

Exactly what I've thought all along.  I doubt there was any discussion about whether or not he should run for president, what she thought of the idea and if she would be able to handle all that's involved with being FLOTUS should he win.  I'm betting he just told her that he was going to do it and that was that. 

This discussion reminds me of one that my mother had with me when I was a teenager.  My mom had heard from a few other mothers that they hoped that their daughters were able to find a rich husband.  My mom said no way.  She wanted me to find someone who made a good enough income to keep us safe, happy and healthy---comfortable, but not rich.  Why?  Because, if anything went wrong, they could use their money to buy anything they wanted and leave you out in the cold. The influence of that kind of money in the wrong hands was too dangerous and, to her, it wasn't worth the risk.  So, whenever I listen to the debate about what Melania might have said or done in regards to his campaign and the decisions about her role (or not) as FLOTUS, I err on the side of "she doesn't have any say/choice in the matter".

Edited December 16, 2016 by Shannon L.

[Toomuchsoap]

10 minutes ago, Shannon L. said:

Exactly what I've thought all along.  I doubt there was any discussion about whether or not he should run for president, what she thought of the idea and if she would be able to handle all that's involved with being FLOTUS should he win.  I'm betting he just told her that he was going to do it and that was that. 

This discussion reminds me of one that my mother had with me when I was a teenager.  My mom had heard from a few other mothers that they hoped that their daughters were able to find a rich husband.  My mom said no way.  She wanted me to find someone who made a good enough income to keep us safe, happy and healthy---comfortable, but not rich.  Why?  Because, if anything went wrong, they could use their money to buy anything they wanted and leave you out in the cold. The influence of that kind of money in the wrong hands was too dangerous and, to her, it wasn't worth the risk.  So, whenever I listen to the debate about what Melania might have said or done in regards to his campaign and the decisions about her role (or not) as FLOTUS, I err on the side of "she doesn't have any say/choice in the matter".

ot that old fashioned.  It's just that at the time of that discussion, I was saying that I'd eventually like to be a stay at home mom. 

What would make anyone believe Melanoma is anything more to this orange caveman than a Barbie blowup doll?  A man that so clearly has no regard for women and only values them for how good they look draped over his arm or bent over at the waist does't have a role for a woman in his life as his partner. I think he is reluctant to bring her to Washington because she will be (or her immigration status will) one more question that he won't have to stonewall while he's busy with Paul Ryan and VladPutin pilfering from the peasants.

[random chance]

14 hours ago, stillshimpy said:

I'm going to take this one on

*stands up and cheers*

15 hours ago, millennium said:

Sometimes I find it hard to read this thread specifically for the reason that so many personal insults are lobbed at Trump and anyone connected to him, including but not limited to pejorative nicknames and other insulting monikers (usually associated with his appearance). 

I no longer buy into the play-nice, be-more-ethical we-go-high crap that put this monster in a position of power. When he went low we should have metaphorically kicked him in the face - and gouged and spat and everything else they tell you to do to your attacker. Too late now, but I won't be showing any polite respect to this fascist.

13 hours ago, tenativelyyours said:

She might be reaping unintended benefits to not being in the White House.  She might even be entirely happy with what the plans are.  But in no way shape or form can anyone convince me that this is her doing. 

I don't think so either, I can't imagine that she has any say at all in what happens to her. He's a control freak.

[callmebetty]

With all due respect to everyone including stillshimpy I still reserve the right to call Ivanka occasionally "hot piece of ass" since she herself allowed that moniker to be a description. And I think she has become just as bad as the rest of that clan.

[sistermagpie]

13 hours ago, tenativelyyours said:

Whatever role she has post inauguration, whatever presence she has in the White House, it is at his order and his wish.  There is no way if he wanted her there by his side and taking up residence there, it wouldn't be happening.  I have a hard time believing he didn't just send someone to tell her how it was going to be since I think they live rather separate lives outside of the PR appearances.  

I have to agree. I don't think this was some discussion the two of them had. She may agree enthusiastically that she'd rather be in New York, but the Trump world seems to totally revolve around Trump and his marriages have never been a partnership by his own bragging.

8 hours ago, backformore said:

Kurt E is the author of the Newsweek piece, and Tucker Carlson had one goal -  to discredit him, so the article about Trump's conflict of interest would be discredited.  I contend that the Newsweek article was well written and well researched. 

Yup, and not surprising this is what some people want. To laugh at the investigative reporter and the facts he presents that are actually doing them a great service.  As if DT getting away with something is actually of some benefit to them. Or that not listening to the better informed person means they're not better informed. (Now I'm remembering an old Simpsons quote where Homer just keeps repeating what the other person is saying in a sarcastic voice as if this makes what the guy said stupid.)

1 hour ago, candall said:

My Hayes/Maddow/O'Donnell daily pre-dawn newsfest was basically an economics lesson in how Putin gutted Russia to become THE wealthiest man in the world--and how DT's on the same track.  Flags!  Red warning flags are waving madly!

Cue more eye-rolling jokes about how they're unhinged, I guess. And laughter at how economics lessons are by definition crazy or wrong because they don't fit in a Tweet. None of your facts will change what I already think! You're just being condescending by trying to share information with me! Trump respects me because he tells me I'm smart and says simple things I want to hear! If evolution is real how come monkeys don't have engineering degrees? If Global Warming is real how come in snowed last Christmas? My ignorant soundbites are a shield against your facts and nuance! Trump loves me!

[millennium]

26 minutes ago, random chance said:

 

I no longer buy into the play-nice, be-more-ethical we-go-high crap that put this monster in a position of power. When he went low we should have metaphorically kicked him in the face - and gouged and spat and everything else they tell you to do to your attacker. Too late now, but I won't be showing any polite respect to this fascist.

 

My post was never about showing respect to the President-Elect, but respect for what we put on the page, and the people reading it.   

[callmebetty]

5 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

I have to agree. I don't think this was some discussion the two of them had. She may agree enthusiastically that she'd rather be in New York, but the Trump world seems to totally revolve around Trump and his marriages have never been a partnership by his own bragging.

Yup, and not surprising this is what some people want. To laugh at the investigative reporter and the facts he presents that are actually doing them a great service.  As if DT getting away with something is actually of some benefit to them. Or that not listening to the better informed person means they're not better informed. (Now I'm remembering an old Simpsons quote where Homer just keeps repeating what the other person is saying in a sarcastic voice as if this makes what the guy said stupid.)

Cue more eye-rolling jokes about how they're unhinged, I guess. And laughter at how economics lessons are by definition crazy or wrong because they don't fit in a Tweet. None of your facts will change what I already think! You're just being condescending by trying to share information with me! Trump respects me because he tells me I'm smart and says simple things I want to hear! If evolution is real how come monkeys don't have engineering degrees? If Global Warming is real how come in snowed last Christmas? My ignorant soundbites are a shield against your facts and nuance! Trump loves me!

But for most people and I include myself in this group it's not about dumbing it down to 140characters but putting it in layman's terms. I appreciate all the articles people have been linking, but some of them are long and some of the stuff is over my head because it gets into history and terms and sometimes it's just damn hard to follow.  They need to start editing and break it down to talking points and add HUMAN history.  Real stories from real people.  Look at the light bulb moments from the townhall with Bernie, the woman who signshould people up for Healthcare in Kentucky.  When you give them words and real life circumstances they can understand you can reach some people, not all but I bet you could reach a lot more people than your aware of. Lengthy articles aren't a bad thing, but I don't find all people stupid or ignorant if after awhile their eyes glaze over.  

Give me a real life story and then I can relate, I can feel that tangible wow that's what that means? that's what can happen? 

I'm not dismissing that there are people who just don't want to or care to dig deeper, but we cant write off everyone because this shit is happening and we are going to need as many people as possible to help.

[sistermagpie]

Just now, callmebetty said:

Lengthy articles aren't a bad thing, but I don't find all people stupid or ignorant if after awhile their eyes glaze over.

Sure--but I don't think that applies to the Carlson interview. That was just asking a question and then yelling at them after a second. There's a lot of people who want to blur the difference between keeping someone from running out the clock with talking points--like KAC often clearly does by introducing some other, bare-related or not related speech about how Trump will make America great again, and letting someone explain something in context. Simple questions can be intentionally set up that way--like for instance the question of "If evolution is real why haven't monkeys turned into people yet?" You can't answer the question without backing up and explaining how it's based on a lot of false assumptions, but when you start to put it in context you're accused of dodging the question.*

I think a TV journalist who was sincerely trying to inform the public (which TC was obviously not there to do) they would put themselves in the place of an interested viewer and ask the questions that will make it more understandable. Look, for instance, at how excellent Jon Oliver is at this. Everyone understands Net Neutrality now--and is already mourning the fact we're probably going to lose it under Trump.

It's important, I think, also to make a distinction between one's eyes glazing over in a long article (I freely admit that's happened to me plenty!) and rejecting anything complicated just because it's complicated. Sometimes the story is complicated and involves people we haven't heard of before. The long article is there to give all the details. Nothing wrong with getting a simplified version of that too. Sometimes we don't need to know all the details, just what we need to know. But of course, that doesn't mean that if the original article was one of those endless, complicated ones that means it's unimportant or just journalistic masturbation or something. Especially when we're talking about politics or foreign affairs there probably is going to be a lot of stuff that comes across that way. I don't know if I'm ever going to really get my head around the difference between Sunnis and Shiites, but that doesn't make the difference irrelevant. 

*This reminds me of a court case in some school district where a school board of Creationists/ID people were trying to get Intelligent Design taught in the school. Because it was a court scientists were actually able to answer questions fully and explain evolution. At one point the judge called a recess by jokingly calling the proceedings "biology class" but what was funny was he was obviously enjoying himself. It was *interesting.* And it was news to most people in the courtroom because the anti-evolution movement had been so successful at censoring it in classrooms and yelling over the facts with ignorant statements.

[Rapunzel]

I'm not sure if this has been posted yet or not, but it is an open letter to the Electors and it was published in several papers the other day. If you go to the link, you can read the full letter and you can also sign a petition.

Quote

Today we begin publishing our full-page Letter to Electors in newspapers across the country.

The letter affirms the danger Trump presents, and the right and responsibility of Electors to vote their conscience and protect the Constitution. For today's action, we are asking you to read and share it.

http://lettertoelectors.org

[callmebetty]

7 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Sure--but I don't think that applies to the Carlson interview. That was just asking a question and then yelling at them after a second. There's a lot of people who want to blur the difference between keeping someone from running out the clock with talking points--like KAC often clearly does by introducing some other, bare-related or not related speech about how Trump will make America great again, and letting someone explain something in context. Simple questions can be intentionally set up that way--like for instance the question of "If evolution is real why haven't monkeys turned into people yet?" You can't answer the question without backing up and explaining how it's based on a lot of false assumptions, but when you start to put it in context you're accused of dodging the question.*

I think a TV journalist who was sincerely trying to inform the public (which TC was obviously not there to do) they would put themselves in the place of an interested viewer and ask the questions that will make it more understandable. Look, for instance, at how excellent Jon Oliver is at this. Everyone understands Net Neutrality now--and is already mourning the fact we're probably going to lose it under Trump.

It's important, I think, also to make a distinction between one's eyes glazing over in a long article (I freely admit that's happened to me plenty!) and rejecting anything complicated just because it's complicated. Sometimes the story is complicated and involves people we haven't heard of before. The long article is there to give all the details. Nothing wrong with getting a simplified version of that too. Sometimes we don't need to know all the details, just what we need to know. But of course, that doesn't mean that if the original article was one of those endless, complicated ones that means it's unimportant or just journalistic masturbation or something. Especially when we're talking about politics or foreign affairs there probably is going to be a lot of stuff that comes across that way. I don't know if I'm ever going to really get my head around the difference between Sunnis and Shiites, but that doesn't make the difference irrelevant. 

*This reminds me of a court case in some school district where a school board of Creationists/ID people were trying to get Intelligent Design taught in the school. Because it was a court scientists were actually able to answer questions fully and explain evolution. At one point the judge called a recess by jokingly calling the proceedings "biology class" but what was funny was he was obviously enjoying himself. It was *interesting.* And it was news to most people in the courtroom because the anti-evolution movement had been so successful at censoring it in classrooms and yelling over the facts with ignorant statements.

I agree with what you are saying.  And it's maddening that soundbites and gotcha moments are what some people live for. That's why John Oliver, Samantha Bee, Seth Meyers etc when they have time and they can break it down people can see.

Do you see hope in our future?

[random chance]

44 minutes ago, millennium said:

My post was never about showing respect to the President-Elect, but respect for what we put on the page, and the people reading it.   

Sorry, I misunderstood the no-name-calling portion of your post.

[twoods]

Omarosa has officially been added to Trump's transition team. Are we being punked? What in the world would she have to offer to his team? 

[sistermagpie]

41 minutes ago, callmebetty said:

Do you see hope in our future?

I read something recently that did make me hopeful. It pointed out that while we think of the printing press as being this great leap forward, it actually took a while for it to be used as well as it could be. At first it printed a lot of terrible stuff and false information. 

That really did make me think yes, this is human nature, but it doesn't mean that eventually we can't adjust and use the internet more responsibly. Really, the main thing it requires is for people to *want* truth and nuance and a lot of people feel that way already.

[AntiBeeSpray]

7 minutes ago, twoods said:

Omarosa has officially been added to Drumpf's transition team. Are we being punked? What in the world would she have to offer to his team? 

I'm wondering too.

MSN mentioned this:

Quote

Omarosa started working with Drumpf's campaign in July as his director of African-American outreach, then earlier this month made headlines by claiming the campaign was keeping an enemies list. "Let me just tell you, Mr. Drumpf has a long memory, and we're keeping a list," she said.

Source: http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/omarosa-officially-joins-trump-transition-team/ar-AAlCdtZ?li=BBnbfcL

So it's Hitler (racism, etc), Nixon (enemies list) and Reagan (trickle down economics) all wrapped into one O_O.

[ClareWalks]

Omarosa worked in the White House...once upon a time...to what capacity, I have no idea. She bragged about it on The Apprentice season 1, though. She can be the Secretary of Accusing People of Racism.

[parisprincess]

I can just picture a press conference.

"Mr. President, what do you plan to do about [insert random world problem]?

Trump: "Trust me, I have people working on that. They will find a solution and it will be the best solution in the history of the world because they are great men, they are like a fine wine, and they know words."

[kokapetl]

Wasn't Omarosa the most hated woman alive? 

[AntiBeeSpray]

Not too impressed by some of the 'Electors'...

One of them:

Quote

Similarly deluged, Republican elector Hector Maldonado, a Missouri National Guardsman, has taken the time to console one correspondent, a single mother and Air Force veteran who is beside herself with worry about what a Drumpf presidency will mean.

“Everything’s going to be OK,” he said he told her. “I know you’re scared, but don’t worry. Everything’s going to be OK. And I know that it will be.”

Source: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/electoral-voters-not-revolt/

Really lady? That woman has every right to be worried and concerned and so do the rest of us. We all live in the real world. We don't live in a bubble and will be affected by this "Presidency" one way or another.

[stillshimpy]

My post was never about showing respect to the President-Elect, but respect for what we put on the page, and the people reading it.  

I'm sorry if my language offends you, but this is not an issue of respecting the people reading a post.   Please feel free to put me on ignore, as I won't be changing my approach because I am genuinely angry.  I'm using derogatory terms to describe a man who can be described in no other terms.   Also, history is going to judge us all by the digital record we are leaving behind and if I do one thing in all of this, I'm going to live my convictions.  

This will be the only time that I will refrain from calling Donald Trump something because I'm barely talking about him.    But I won't stop because my respect isn't for the easily offended sensibilities.  It is for the people he will harm.   I do apologize if it makes you uncomfortable but he's out to do so much worse.   This is individual.  This is targeted.  This is not participating in isms.   This is about what a horror of a human being Donald Trump is and this is not the time to play nice. 

[ari333]

16 hours ago, tenativelyyours said:

She might be reaping unintended benefits to not being in the White House.  She might even be entirely happy with what the plans are.  But in no way shape or form can anyone convince me that this is her doing.  Whatever role she has post inauguration, whatever presence she has in the White House, it is at his order and his wish.  There is no way if he wanted her there by his side and taking up residence there, it wouldn't be happening.  I have a hard time believing he didn't just send someone to tell her how it was going to be since I think they live rather separate lives outside of the PR appearances.   But I'd have to be present to see and hear her walk into whatever gilded travesty of a room he was in at the apartment and inform him she was staying in NYC and would do a few social events as needed in the years to come.  And after I saw and heard such a conversation take place I'd first get my hearing and sight checked and then I would commit myself for observation, clearly suffering from delusions or possibly having suffered a stroke.

BBM

THIS is what I wanted to say too. Melania being in NY (or anywhere ...but not the White House) is all his doing.... for whatever reason but I can take a guess.

[Lunata]

3 hours ago, candall said:

The Republican legislature in NC openly and blatantly trying to ram through a truckload of RIDICULOUS new laws before the new Dem Governor takes office looks like the first sign of T-inspired political anarchy.  (Example:  Control will now alternate between Dems and GOP--GOP in even-numbered years, when elections are held.)  Oh look, news footage of the police hauling off the citizen protesters in handcuffs.  =: o

@CANDALL, I'm glad you posted this because I just became aware of it this morning.

The North Carolina Republicans are trying to substantially curb the power of the new incoming Democratic Governor, Roy Cooper. The Republicans in the North Carolina legislature called a special session to openly and blatantly try to strip power from the incoming Democratic governor after a bitter election that extended years of fierce ideological battles in the state.

Republican lawmakers quickly proposed sweeping changes to state government, including proposals that would diminish the governor’s authority to make appointments, particularly to the State Supreme Court. Lawmakers want to tie the hands of the incoming Democratic governor, Roy Cooper, before he takes office Jan. 1 by making his Cabinet appointments subject to approval by the state Senate and cutting his ability to appoint members to UNC schools’ boards of trustees.

This seems to be the year of the dirtiest politics this country has experienced to date and there have been some pretty dirty politics over the decades. But this year is different. The failure of Donald Trump to unite people and bring some harmony to his new presidency has left people angry, distrustful and vengeful. The Republicans in North Carolina are a prime example of how dirty politicians can be. Citizens have come out in force to protest and thank goodness they have. Politicians assume that people are dogs that will sit when told to sit and play dead when ordered to.

If nothing else, this presidential election has brought forth the consciousness of the average American and forced them to be aware how much politics matter, and that everyone should be informed and speak up when something is wrong. Object and protest and get involved. If not then we're just handing over everything we have to those greedy, lying politicians who only want to further their own self-interests. Political activism used to be associated with Martin Luther King, Ralph Nader or Gloria Steinem. People felt that these people were just 'nutbags' and hippies and attention seekers. Political activism and dissension should be a role that everyone plays at some level.

 

 

[candall]

Co-sign.

 

ETA:  Ha, this was a stillshrimpy vive la liberté co-sign.  My word, these posts happen fast.

Edited December 16, 2016 by candall
snoozing, losing

[callmebetty]

8 minutes ago, Lunata said:

@CANDALL, I'm glad you posted this because I just became aware of it this morning.

The North Carolina Republicans are trying to substantially curb the power of the new incoming Democratic Governor, Roy Cooper. The Republicans in the North Carolina legislature called a special session to openly and blatantly try to strip power from the incoming Democratic governor after a bitter election that extended years of fierce ideological battles in the state.

Republican lawmakers quickly proposed sweeping changes to state government, including proposals that would diminish the governor’s authority to make appointments, particularly to the State Supreme Court. Lawmakers want to tie the hands of the incoming Democratic governor, Roy Cooper, before he takes office Jan. 1 by making his Cabinet appointments subject to approval by the state Senate and cutting his ability to appoint members to UNC schools’ boards of trustees.

This seems to be the year of the dirtiest politics this country has experienced to date and there have been some pretty dirty politics over the decades. But this year is different. The failure of Donald Trump to unite people and bring some harmony to his new presidency has left people angry, distrustful and vengeful. The Republicans in North Carolina are a prime example of how dirty politicians can be. Citizens have come out in force to protest and thank goodness they have. Politicians assume that people are dogs that will sit when told to sit and play dead when ordered to.

If nothing else, this presidential election has brought forth the consciousness of the average American and forced them to be aware how much politics matter, and that everyone should be informed and speak up when something is wrong. Object and protest and get involved. If not then we're just handing over everything we have to those greedy, lying politicians who only want to further their own self-interests. Political activism used to be associated with Martin Luther King, Ralph Nader or Gloria Steinem. People felt that these people were just 'nutbags' and hippies and attention seekers. Political activism and dissension should be a role that everyone plays at some level.

 

 

 

This! 

[stillshimpy]

It is absolutely stunning to me that anyone, from either side of the political spectrum, could view this attack on democracy and not fear that our country is in terrible danger.  

Quote

The Republican legislature in NC openly and blatantly trying to ram through a truckload of RIDICULOUS new laws before the new Dem Governor takes office looks like the first sign of T-inspired political anarchy.  (Example:  Control will now alternate between Dems and GOP--GOP in even-numbered years, when elections are held.)  Oh look, news footage of the police hauling off the citizen protesters in handcuffs.  =: o

 

Man alive.  This is stunning stuff and truly terrifying.  

This seems to be the year of the dirtiest politics this country has experienced to date and there have been some pretty dirty politics over the decades. But this year is different. The failure of Donald Trump to unite people and bring some harmony to his new presidency has left people angry, distrustful and vengeful.

It is worse than failing to unite, he won't even roundly condemn horrible actions.  This is before he has any real power to enact changes.  How is it even humanly possible that there are no patriots in Washington D.C.?  Forget political affiliations for a moment, this is against what our country is supposed to be.  This shouldn't be a partisan issue.   

They are attempting to dismantle democracy, right before our eyes.  

Edited December 16, 2016 by stillshimpy

[backformore]

After the Kurt Eichenwald/Tucker Carlson interview, Kurt got a lot of hate on Twitter - ugly insulting comments.   One Trump supporter who had been messing with him posted a flashing light gif that is specifically designed to give someone a seizure.   They did that knowing that Kurt has epilepsy, and it did trigger a seizure.  He is trying to find the identity of the person, and intends to pursue legal action.   He tweeted that he was taking a break from twitter - and that was followed by more hate, ugliness, and insults, AND re-posting the flashing gif. 

People are assholes.

[AntiBeeSpray]

Just now, backformore said:

After the Kurt Eichenwald/Tucker Carlson interview, Kurt got a lot of hate on Twitter - ugly insulting comments.   One Drumpf supporter who had been messing with him posted a flashing light gif that is specifically designed to give someone a seizure.   They did that knowing that Kurt has epilepsy, and it did trigger a seizure.  He is trying to find the identity of the person, and intends to pursue legal action.   He tweeted that he was taking a break from twitter - and that was followed by more hate, ugliness, and insults, AND re-posting the flashing gif. 

People are assholes.

Word. I hope that he's able to get him/her. His wife wrote on his account about the seizure and the legal action. It's sick what people do. I also hope he blocks the heck out of the really nasty folks too after either writing them down/taking screen caps or having someone else do it if it involves gifs such as that. They've harassed him like that before back in August and in October. It's just cruel.