OK...What's Next?

[Lantern7]

2 hours ago, Chicken Wing said:

Highlights, at this rate.

I haven't seen that in ages. Is the back cover still full of mistakes that readers are supposed to circle? You can take a picture of Washington on or after January 20, and any kid can get a lot of stuff right.

The Knicks won't win an NBA title until Dolan sells the team. Did he also own the Rangers in 1994? That was more about ending the 54-year Stanley Cup drought.

[BetyBee]

7 hours ago, izabella said:

Does it?  Dems are blamed for not being there to help so how can they expect people to vote for them, BUT Republicans were there often - except they clearly also didn't do anything to help since the people received no help except from the likes of volunteers like the writer,, so I thought the article didn't make sense. 

The only thing that made sense to me was that government services were not available in their immediate communities, and it was a hardship to go to the nearest county - that is a huge problem.  But then there was also the assertion made these people didn't want "handouts from the government" so that also didn't quite make sense.

I'm just saying, it was emotional and compelling and troubling, but not necessarily logical, and so was less powerful for me as an opinion to learn from.

It makes sense to me from the standpoint of all politics is local - that we should go out and help people who need help and that good people should run for local office and actually serve the people.  

[MulletorHater]

1 hour ago, Keepitmoving said:

It's not hard for me to understand, this is about racism and hate toward Obama and his legacy. They care more about that kind of evil than they do the people that they are suppose to serve. 

They want to tear the ACA down as if it never existed, instead of like Obama said, building on it, fixing it. Obama had an hour interview with VICE news and talked about how all the social programs started out with problems, but that you are suppose to build on them and make them better. He's not delusional enough to act like it doesn't have huge problems. The republicans can make it better and take legitimate credit for making it better, but they don't care about the people at all. All they care about is being racist, period. They don't want Obama's name on anything that's good, they would love to erase him from history. Sorry, I can't afford to think otherwise until I see a different pattern of behavior from them and I haven't so it's pretty simple for me to understand their obsession.

We've reached true levels of insanity and their kind of hate equals insanity. When one reaches a certain level of hate it turns into insane behavior and that's where the republican part is...I see them as insane so their obsession is not confusing for me at all.

Thanks for answering the question posed.  It was never, ever hard for me to understand.  Anytime some fool announces that their number one priority is to make the incoming president a one-term president at a time when the country was involved in two disastrous wars (the longest in our history); was shedding thousands of jobs daily; and had an economy that was in free fall, those of us paying attention knew what the real deal was.  Anytime a bunch of lawmakers meet in secret on the evening of the incoming president's inauguration and vow to obstruct EVERYTHING he does--including legislation that they, themselves, could take credit for, those of us watching knew what the real deal was.  They didn't want President Obama to have any legislative victories.  Their obsessive hatred led them to do any and everything they could to delegitimize, demean and humiliate Obama.  Rachel Maddow also revealed on her show a couple of years ago that the GOP even had an "impeachment playbook" with a plan to impeach Obama and his AG--both of whom just happened to be Black.  These men couldn't even hiccup without someone trying to attach "gate" to it.  Darrell Issa--he of the alleged criminal past--boldly announced that the Obama administration was the most corrupt administration in history.  His tenure as chairman of the House Oversight Committee was replete with 7 years of unfounded and inflammatory accusations, show trials and endless witch hunts to bring down Obama.  I won't even touch on the slurs, smears and insults--"food stamp president," etc.

My parents, grandparents and their parents before them would have known what was up.  Growing up in a segregated South, including a segregated Washington, D.C., they've seen this shit play out way too many times in different forms.  The only difference is that this was more "sophisticated" and gave the clowns perpetrating it, and their supporters, the cover to claim their opposition to President Obama was all about his policies.  Yeah, right.  I could almost buy that line of bullshit except the tea party happened immediately after, and in response to, the results of the 2008 election.  Not to mention the ginning up of the "birther" issue.  And, to ensure that an aberration like Obama's election never occurred again, ALEC and other groups got super busy passing regressive laws designed to suppress the vote.  Look at the fervor with which lawmakers went after Acorn.  Because, you know, there was no way that uppity Black guy could have won legitimately unless there was some cheating involved.

That's why I tell folks who try to sell me on that canard of "hating Obama's policies and it has nothing to do with his race," please don't give me a box of shit-covered nuts and try to convince me that it's a box of chocolate turtles.

[Moose135]

39 minutes ago, fastiller said:

Better explanation: he's a crack-cocaine addled twerp.

Yes, there's that too...

[SpencerHawk]

36 minutes ago, Lantern7 said:

I haven't seen that in ages. Is the back cover still full of mistakes that readers are supposed to circle? You can take a picture of Washington on or after January 20, and any kid can get a lot of stuff right.

The Knicks won't win an NBA title until Dolan sells the team. Did he also own the Rangers in 1994? That was more about ending the 54-year Stanley Cup drought.

Yes it is, seen a copy of it at a grocery store awhile back.

[Moose135]

33 minutes ago, Lantern7 said:

The Knicks won't win an NBA title until Dolan sells the team. Did he also own the Rangers in 1994? That was more about ending the 54-year Stanley Cup drought.

No he didn't.  Paramount Communications owned MSG during the Stanley Cup run.  Viacom acquired Paramount in July 1994, after the end of the season, and shortly after that, Viacom sold it to Cablevision and ITT Corp.  Three years later, ITT sold their share to Cablevision. Jimmy has managed them as well as the Knicks.  As an Islander fan, it warms my heart.

[SpencerHawk]

3 hours ago, Chicken Wing said:

Highlights, at this rate.

Betting Trump would be unable to solve any of the puzzles on the back of their magazines, as he wouldn't have the patience to do so. As for Highlights, they have standards.

Edited January 3, 2017 by SpencerHawk

[Padma]

I like Eugene Robinson's reminder that, no, dumb bigots aren't the only "real America". https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-america-is-not-the-only-real-america/2017/01/02/a15239aa-ced0-11e6-a747-d03044780a02_story.html?utm_term=.a632e7e739fe

[Padma]

Here are some thoughts on activism happening already and going forward from Katrina vanden Heuvel https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/three-steps-for-progressive-resistance-and-rebuilding-as-trump-era-launches/2017/01/03/c52908d8-d112-11e6-a783-cd3fa950f2fd_story.html?utm_term=.3682529002fb

[Duke Silver]

[stillshimpy]

In case anyone needs help in the "finding out who your representative is" department, here you go:  

[Duke Silver]

[Pixel]

Chuck Schumer is giving me life right now on Rachel Maddow's show. He's the pit bull we need. I hope he's got the goods to keep it up.  Historically he's been quite the successful fighter. 

[Lantern7]

I know who my representative is. I pass by his local office every now and then. Right now, the only thing I can think is scrawling "QUIT BEING A PANSY! MAN UP!!!" on the outside wall, but that is a horrible idea. He's probably better than Grimm, but a ham sandwich can run for Congress on Staten Island as a Republican and get 60 percent of the vote.

I've known Chuck forever. He was the Congressman that visited my public school often. I'm hoping he won't have to go into hiding. Or his extended cousin Amy. She's got a movie out this year, and she's not playing a character named "Amy"! Call the Oscar people!! Seriously, I liked Trainwreck, and I hope it works for her.

ETA: Had to add the "Republican" thing.

[Pixel]

3 minutes ago, Lantern7 said:

I know who my representative is. I pass by his local office every now and then. Right now, the only thing I can think is scrawling "QUIT BEING A PANSY! MAN UP!!!" on the outside wall, but that is a horrible idea. He's probably better than Grimm, but a ham sandwich can run for Congress on Staten Island and get 60 percent of the vote.

I've known Chuck forever. He was the Congressman that visited my public school often. I'm hoping he won't have to go into hiding. Or his extended cousin Amy. She's got a movie out this year, and she's not playing a character named "Amy"! Call the Oscar people!! Seriously, I liked Trainwreck, and I hope it works for her.

I totally forgot he was Amy's cousin. Now I like him even more. I don't think Chuck is going into hiding. He's displaying energy and an excitement to get the fight going. 

[possibilities]

It's true that insurance rates are rising, but they're rising at a slower rate than before Obamacare was instituted.

The Repubs STILL haven't said what they want to replace it with, so it's not like they have any better ideas. It's plain bullshit. Unfortunately bullshit appears to win elections. I suspect anything they do will be with delayed implementation so they can claim they did something, but won't show any of the fallout til after 2020. Then they can claim they were decisive but measured, and any problems will be the fault of whoever inherits them-- just like the 2008 financial situation that Obama inherited, the ballooning deficit left by Reagan, and all the other crap these geniuses manage to manufacture and then disclaim. Or maybe they are truly insane enough to just burn it all down and not realize there'll be a backlash to end all backlashes. It's hard to know at this point where their egomania ends and their ass-covering instincts begin.

This guy is either suspiciously naive in his optimism or impressively subtle in his shade-throwing:  http://www.npr.org/2017/01/03/507983989/obamacare-architect-compromise-is-possible-with-gop-foes

It's like he actually thinks reasonableness will suddenly show up, after all these years....

[Duke Silver]

[galaxygirl76]

3 hours ago, stillshimpy said:

In case anyone needs help in the "finding out who your representative is" department, here you go:  

Well, my senators are Joni Ernst and Chuck fucking Grassley, so yeah I don't think they are actually interested in what I think considering Grassley has flat out said that his only job in the senate is to oppose Obama at every turn possible, not give a fuck about what the people of Iowa would be interested in.

[Duke Silver]

^^^^ It was weird seeing what people In Iowa Googled the most in 2016...  Is there any Muslim population there to speak of?  Kind of strange preoccupation...  Isn't Ernst basically a Tea Party crazypants?  I saw that POS racist Steve King sucking up to Trump & Goons yesterday, saying he also doubts U.S. Intelligence WRT #RussianHack.

[galaxygirl76]

There are Muslims where I live, but I'm just outside of Iowa City where the U of I is at so it's very multicultural there. I lived in southern Iowa for a year or so and they were too busy hating Hispanics to have time to hate Muslims(not everyone was like this, but a good chunk of the people I met there was openly racist). Joni Ernst is a tea party crazy pants as far as I know.
 

I will give Chuck Grassley this though, when I became a citizen his speech to us was by far the best of any of the politicians outside of Obama. Joni Ernst was a rambling mess and I can't even remember what Loebsack had to say.

Steve King can go DIAF as far as I'm concerned.

Edited January 4, 2017 by galaxygirl76
clarify

[candall]

On ‎1‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 3:29 PM, NewDigs said:

And I really don't understand why the practice of padding votes for Trump was not better exposed. 

And really not at all questioned. Just a ,"HoHum, nothing to see here" kind of response.

Those responsible should have been exposed and, dare I say, prosecuted for tampering with a Federal election.

 

'Donald Trump’s margin of victory in Wisconsin appears to be shrinking even before the state’s recount gets underway, according to a new report that cites a number of precincts padding the vote count in Trump’s favor.

According to the Palmer Report, some precincts realized the numbers were padded to benefit Trump and had to revise their numbers. As a result, 5,000 votes were essentially wiped out of Trump’s column in an instant. What’s particularly puzzling, the report noted, is that Clinton’s numbers remained virtually unchanged, despite Trump losing thousands of votes from his total.'

I don't care that those votes might not have changed the results. It's just WRONG!!

And it didn't just happen in Wisconsin.

...

I WILL NEVER FORGET THIS.

This is the rock solid proof that the election results were tampered with.  There's no "Russians?  Who's that?  Hacking?  What's that?  Recounts?  Why bother?" artifice or ambiguity about the fact that these votes for DT (only!) were manufactured out of thin air.

With barely the lightest tap--the suggestion that a recount was coming and there might be a reckoning:  **BOOM!** thousands upon thousands of DT votes were immediately invalidated.

And then it all just . . . stops?  NO ONE wants to push just a little harder, dig a little deeper??  I do not know why this news item is not kept constantly in front of our faces.  "Eighteen days until the inauguration and 67 days that there has been no investigation into the number and prevalence of fake T votes."

[stillshimpy]

Here's the Snopes on that, candall.   Basically, all furor stopped because the initial information released was not actually all that accurate.  

ETA:  There was a lot of money to be made in this "fake, misrepresented and sensationalized" news game in this election.   So whenever I see something that makes me say "Whaa......?"  I run a trustworthiness check on the site and then try to find articles that back them up.   The debunking link was the first one to show up in my search.  

So there was an adjustment at one precinct in Wisconsin but it isn't quite that obviously indicative of fraud.  

Edited January 4, 2017 by stillshimpy

[possibilities]

1 hour ago, galaxygirl76 said:

my senators are Joni Ernst and Chuck fucking Grassley, so yeah I don't think they are actually interested in what I think

I'm sure they don't right now, but if they start being deluged by calls, they will start caring, because even before ideology and sheer cussedness, comes re-election and personal ambition. An even if they are beyond reason, word will get out if there's opposition, and it will embolden others to run against them.

[Padma]

20 minutes ago, stillshimpy said:

Here's the Snopes on that, candall.   Basically, all furor stopped because the initial information released was not actually all that accurate.  

ETA:  There was a lot of money to be made in this "fake, misrepresented and sensationalized" news game in this election.   So whenever I see something that makes me say "Whaa......?"  I run a trustworthiness check on the site and then try to find articles that back them up.   The debunking link was the first one to show up in my search.  

So there was an adjustment at one precinct in Wisconsin but it isn't quite that obviously indicative of fraud.  

I still don't understand that "explanation" :  quote: "However, as of 28 November 2016, we found no evidence that any of Wisconsin's 72 counties admitted to committing voter fraud. The irregularity in Outagamie County appears to have been human error in tallying the unofficial results, an issue that was corrected with the official count."

What's the "human error" that CREATES thousands of votes for one candidate out of thin air?  Also, the 5000 "incorrect" votes were announced at the beginning, BEFORE the count.  And there were, if memory serves, another 27,000 or so in Michigan--where the vote count was stopped, but they'd already made the "correction". (Let's not think about the 20+ ballot boxes with broken seals--a serious disqualification of results--in Detroit.)

Trump's final lead in the three states dropped from 107,000 to 77,000, with none of those votes being re-assigned to Clinton. Who knows what they would have found with a recount?

[Quilt Fairy]

On ‎1‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 7:37 PM, sistermagpie said:

Because it's the job they had before and the ones their grandparents had. This is the argument I have literally heard made on TV. There's no dignity in working on a computer.

It's more realistic to say that you can't raise a family if you now need to drive 50 miles every day to the nearest Walmart to stock shelves for minimum wage.  It won't even pay for the gas money.  A lot of those mining towns were left high and dry when the mining companies pulled out.  There are no blue-collar jobs left.  Anyone with enough education and/or smarts to work a computer can probably find work, but you don't need a high school diploma to shovel coal.

I feel bad about West Virginia, because it is a beautiful state (with the exception of driving through Charleston on I-64 - yikes! my ass puckers up just at the thought).

[backformore]

Obama threw Russian hackers out of the USA.  Putin didn't like it, Trump indicates he will reverse what Obama did.

So, I'm wondering -  If Trump, once he is president, lets the hackers back in - INVITES them back, basically -  Would this be considered an act of treason by the president?  An impeachable offense? 

And that leads me to - is kicking out the hackers a strategic move by Obama, designed to force Trump's hand, to reveal where his loyalties lie? 

Maybe I'm grasping at straws here.  But if there's one thing we all should have learned in the past 8 years - it's not to underestimate  President Obama.

[Lantern7]

Grasping straws is all that we can do these days. Right now, Washington is going to resemble professional wrestling, and not in a good way. Linda McMahon's husband isn't as big a tool as the would-be despot. If Obama stands up to defy his successor at every turn, I hope he succeeds.

[candall]

1 hour ago, Padma said:

I still don't understand that "explanation" :  quote: "However, as of 28 November 2016, we found no evidence that any of Wisconsin's 72 counties admitted to committing voter fraud. The irregularity in Outagamie County appears to have been human error in tallying the unofficial results, an issue that was corrected with the official count."

What's the "human error" that CREATES thousands of votes for one candidate out of thin air?  Also, the 5000 "incorrect" votes were announced at the beginning, BEFORE the count.  And there were, if memory serves, another 27,000 or so in Michigan--where the vote count was stopped, but they'd already made the "correction". (Let's not think about the 20+ ballot boxes with broken seals--a serious disqualification of results--in Detroit.)

Trump's final lead in the three states dropped from 107,000 to 77,000, with none of those votes being re-assigned to Clinton. Who knows what they would have found with a recount?

Mmm, yeah, I don't see that this particular Snopes article even addresses, much less satisfies, the full extent of the . . . anomalies.  The very narrowly stated claim deemed FALSE is:  "Three Wisconsin counties admit to fixing the vote in favor of Donald Trump."  And the conclusion is that no one made any such admission, and that someone in one county punched in the wrong numbers on a calculator, ultimately corrected.

Except . . . I'm certain that one state tossed out a bunch of (T) votes prior to recount and then a second state invalidated a boatload of (T) votes.  The third state never even had to take a cursory peek and, as always, never mind those ballot boxes with the broken seals.

So.  Three out of 50 states are targeted for recount and two of those three discover there was an "oopsy," coincidentally favoring one candidate, and meanwhile one state's GOP elected official is baldfaced lying when he protests the recount on the grounds the cost will accrue to the taxpayers and the candidate's own attorneys are moving heaven and earth to make sure the recounts are prohibited by the courts.

This is a picture that everyone is now satisfied was A-Okay?

[Padma]

2 hours ago, backformore said:

Obama threw Russian hackers out of the USA.  Putin didn't like it, Trump indicates he will reverse what Obama did.

So, I'm wondering -  If Trump, once he is president, lets the hackers back in - INVITES them back, basically -  Would this be considered an act of treason by the president?  An impeachable offense? 

And that leads me to - is kicking out the hackers a strategic move by Obama, designed to force Trump's hand, to reveal where his loyalties lie? 

Maybe I'm grasping at straws here.  But if there's one thing we all should have learned in the past 8 years - it's not to underestimate  President Obama.

I haven't read that the 35 diplomats were hackers, although they were suspected of espionage-related activities (not uncommon at any embassies, apparently). I think the hacking was all "cyber" (as PEOTUS would say) so could have even originated in Russia.

I'm still curious about that computer they reported on in Trump Tower that had a link set up to a Russian bank. Someone dismissed it as "nothing to see here" but I wonder why. There are certainly many ties linking Trump to Putin in much more than a "fanboy" kind of way.  He prizes loyalty above all else and rarely gives it unless he's received it first. So.... how close to Putin IS our next president?  We really DO need to know.

I thought LOD made a good point tonight about the inflammatory Trump tweet about the intelligence agency "supposed to be coming today" but "now rescheduled for Friday" then snidely suggesting it was because they needed "more time" to prepare their presentation (somehow implying it would be fake).

O'Donnell and guests pointed out how bizarre it is for Trump to keep picking these fights with U.S. intelligence while defending so vigorously RUSSIAN intelligence. It really IS bizarre. Someone observed that if there's one group you don't want to tick off, it's the intelligence community.

This reminded me of Watergate, where the FBI actually leaked the information to the Washington Post reporters that brought down Nixon. It gives me hope, actually, that Trump is making enemies in the wrong places and that someone--somewhere--may take the extra effort to find out exactly WHAT his ties to Putin are and how deep they go (and for how long).  It actually is one of the most hopeful developments I've seen, in terms of possibly getting rid of him.

And, by the way, a high -ranking intelligence official immediately released a statement that the meeting was ALWAYS scheduled for Friday.

[Pixel]

6 hours ago, Padma said:

I haven't read that the 35 diplomats were hackers, although they were suspected of espionage-related activities (not uncommon at any embassies, apparently). I think the hacking was all "cyber" (as PEOTUS would say) so could have even originated in Russia.

I'm still curious about that computer they reported on in Trump Tower that had a link set up to a Russian bank. Someone dismissed it as "nothing to see here" but I wonder why. There are certainly many ties linking Trump to Putin in much more than a "fanboy" kind of way.  He prizes loyalty above all else and rarely gives it unless he's received it first. So.... how close to Putin IS our next president?  We really DO need to know.

I thought LOD made a good point tonight about the inflammatory Trump tweet about the intelligence agency "supposed to be coming today" but "now rescheduled for Friday" then snidely suggesting it was because they needed "more time" to prepare their presentation (somehow implying it would be fake).

O'Donnell and guests pointed out how bizarre it is for Trump to keep picking these fights with U.S. intelligence while defending so vigorously RUSSIAN intelligence. It really IS bizarre. Someone observed that if there's one group you don't want to tick off, it's the intelligence community.

This reminded me of Watergate, where the FBI actually leaked the information to the Washington Post reporters that brought down Nixon. It gives me hope, actually, that Trump is making enemies in the wrong places and that someone--somewhere--may take the extra effort to find out exactly WHAT his ties to Putin are and how deep they go (and for how long).  It actually is one of the most hopeful developments I've seen, in terms of possibly getting rid of him.

And, by the way, a high -ranking intelligence official immediately released a statement that the meeting was ALWAYS scheduled for Friday.

The only thing I buy in this situation is that the computer in Trump Tower could possibly legitimately have ties to a Russian bank for legitimate business purposes. I automatically assume that the rest of anything that comes from Trump world is a lie until proven otherwise. I have never ever felt before that everything the president says is a blatant lie, but I will probably never believe a word that comes out of THIS president's mouth.  I can't even capitalize the word, because he's not a President in the sense of any past President.

A friend pointed out that it's possible the whole attack on the independent ethics committee was a gift from the Republicans to Trump, to make him look decent and reasonable and give him a chance to show that he's not going to blindly support whatever the Repubs want to do. I don't think so, but it was an interesting idea.

[sistermagpie]

10 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:

It's more realistic to say that you can't raise a family if you now need to drive 50 miles every day to the nearest Walmart to stock shelves for minimum wage.  It won't even pay for the gas money.  A lot of those mining towns were left high and dry when the mining companies pulled out.  There are no blue-collar jobs left

Right, but in this case they were rejecting the idea of bringing new businesses to the state to replace coal. For instance, training people to work producing new energy. So it wasn't that they were rejecting the idea of a job that was unhelpful, it was that they were literally rejecting the idea of creating blue-collar jobs to replace the ones that left because they had to do the *old* blue-collar jobs that their grandfather did. Mining coal had a dignity that making solar panels did not. (To be fair, it wasn't an actual coal miner making this argument, but that was the argument being made on their behalf.)

7 hours ago, Padma said:

I'm still curious about that computer they reported on in Trump Tower that had a link set up to a Russian bank. Someone dismissed it as "nothing to see here" but I wonder why.

LOL! Sorry, but I'm just imagining the cartoonish mustache-twirling picture that set up would create if Hillary had a computer in her house linked up to a Russian bank!

7 hours ago, Padma said:

This reminded me of Watergate, where the FBI actually leaked the information to the Washington Post reporters that brought down Nixon. It gives me hope, actually, that Trump is making enemies in the wrong places and that someone--somewhere--may take the extra effort to find out exactly WHAT his ties to Putin are and how deep they go (and for how long). 

Frankly, what he's doing is terrible even if his only ties to Putin are the he mistakenly thinks Putin called him brilliant. 

7 hours ago, Padma said:

And, by the way, a high -ranking intelligence official immediately released a statement that the meeting was ALWAYS scheduled for Friday.

Not the first time he's told exactly this kind of lie that was immediately corrected. If he's attacking the IC on that kind of petty level, just think of what he's doing on the macro level.

51 minutes ago, Pixel said:

A friend pointed out that it's possible the whole attack on the independent ethics committee was a gift from the Republicans to Trump, to make him look decent and reasonable and give him a chance to show that he's not going to blindly support whatever the Repubs want to do. I don't think so, but it was an interesting idea.

And he didn't even have to be against them. All he said was, "Yes, having ethics oversight is unfair, but wait a bit to attack it."

Edited January 4, 2017 by sistermagpie

[SoSueMe]

Good grief.

Mike Pence, Paul Ryan are doing nothing but repeating and scrambling every anti- ACA slogan from the campaign without answering anyone's questions on how they intend to repeal & replace. No matter how they rearrange the words, they are NOT answering.

[galaxygirl76]

8 hours ago, Padma said:

I haven't read that the 35 diplomats were hackers, although they were suspected of espionage-related activities (not uncommon at any embassies, apparently). I think the hacking was all "cyber" (as PEOTUS would say) so could have even originated in Russia.

I'm still curious about that computer they reported on in Trump Tower that had a link set up to a Russian bank. Someone dismissed it as "nothing to see here" but I wonder why. There are certainly many ties linking Trump to Putin in much more than a "fanboy" kind of way.  He prizes loyalty above all else and rarely gives it unless he's received it first. So.... how close to Putin IS our next president?  We really DO need to know.

I thought LOD made a good point tonight about the inflammatory Trump tweet about the intelligence agency "supposed to be coming today" but "now rescheduled for Friday" then snidely suggesting it was because they needed "more time" to prepare their presentation (somehow implying it would be fake).

O'Donnell and guests pointed out how bizarre it is for Trump to keep picking these fights with U.S. intelligence while defending so vigorously RUSSIAN intelligence. It really IS bizarre. Someone observed that if there's one group you don't want to tick off, it's the intelligence community.

This reminded me of Watergate, where the FBI actually leaked the information to the Washington Post reporters that brought down Nixon. It gives me hope, actually, that Trump is making enemies in the wrong places and that someone--somewhere--may take the extra effort to find out exactly WHAT his ties to Putin are and how deep they go (and for how long).  It actually is one of the most hopeful developments I've seen, in terms of possibly getting rid of him.

And, by the way, a high -ranking intelligence official immediately released a statement that the meeting was ALWAYS scheduled for Friday.

I have been wondering about him making an enemy out of the US intelligence agencies. I can't see that being a smart move at all because they will know more about him than he even can begin to comprehend and all they really have to do is 'accidentally' leak some very incriminating information to a source that hates him(like the WaPo) 

Edited January 4, 2017 by galaxygirl76
Spelling

[Ocean Chick]

Quote

 If Trump, once he is president, lets the hackers back in - INVITES them back, basically -  Would this be considered an act of treason by the president?  An impeachable offense? 

Better question is, does it really matter if a sitting president commits treason, if no one in Congress bothers to impeach him?  How many acts of treason can the Orange Oaf commit before Republicans say "enough"?  Do checks and balances really exist in our government anymore, if no one bothers to use those checks and balances?

Edited January 4, 2017 by Ocean Chick

[random chance]

Yeah I think it's pretty clear that the Republicans are going to choose power over country.

[stillshimpy]

Quote

What's the "human error" that CREATES thousands of votes for one candidate out of thin air?  Also, the 5000 "incorrect" votes were announced at the beginning, BEFORE the count.  And there were, if memory serves, another 27,000 or so in Michigan--where the vote count was stopped, but they'd already made the "correction". (Let's not think about the 20+ ballot boxes with broken seals--a serious disqualification of results--in Detroit.)

 

 

 

Yeah, I know, there's no direct rebuttal of the numbers, but then that seems to be because there was no accurate source for those numbers in the first place.  

Don't get me wrong, I gave money to Jill Stien's recount efforts -- sure, she's a conspiracy theory pandering lunatic herself but she could file the request for the recounts so....any port in this shit storm, was my mindset -- and I can't track down an accurate source on those numbers anywhere.  Can you guys?   The initially reported "5,000 vote adjustment" seems to have been the misreport, that the error was caught on election night and corrected.  

Frankly, it's just freaking galling that we can't get information that we know to be accurate, partially because journalists don't bother to fact check in their rush to report.  They are so anxious to get a scoop, they don't do due diligence before sharing things as facts.   

Also, I will never understand why we have to announce on election night, or the next morning, who won the bloody thing when all votes have yet to be tallied.  In Australia this year they had a very close (and equally dismaying in the results, by the way) election.   You know what they did?  They all settled their asses down for a nearly 8 week "we won't know until everything has been counted"  result. 

I guess part of the reason I'm not as "where did the votes go??" is that....where's the source on that initial information?  Where's the backup on that?  I've spent a lot of time saying that I can't believe that the right-wing of conservatism allowed themselves to be fooled by fake news.  That's part of the reason that unless I'm finding actual backup of the initial report, I'm not going to get as het up over that as I am over the fact that our system is setup (projections are the same as results! Woooooooo! Wait...what? That's not accurate, look at our fucking polls for why that's a really stupid idea) to pretty much guarantee that we hardly ever really know the real numbers.  Partially because we have a system that says we don't have to wait for them....and that's just baffling as hell.   We may have ADHD'd ourselves into a Trump presidency. 

But I do know that in the days following the beginning of the recount efforts, I saw reports from that same site linked to above (politicususa.com) that were not accurate and that its factual rating is listed as "mixed" because it does tend to sensationalize and misrepresent.   

I hate that I am stuck in the position of having to fact check our alleged news sites but that's the gig.  Since all the journalists seemed to have shuffled off the truthful coil and fucking died, we're all turned into fucking cub reporters.    My journalism prof practically lit a candle at an altar after I was out of his life because -- note the wordiness -- I am not suited to journalism by my personal writing style.   I really kind of resent having to fact-check the shit out of everything and I sincerely hate that too often that entire exercise turns into a snake eating itself because hardly anything matches up anywhere.  

On that particular one, it isn't that I'm putting such faith in Snopes, although they tend to be pretty good, but rather that I can't find anything to substantiate the original claims....and apparently neither could snopes.   The words misrepresented and misreported are two indicators of that.  It truly isn't that I'm saying, "That's bullshit and don't believe it" it's that I'm saying, "I can't find multiple, independent sources on that one....and apparently neither could snopes."  

Has anyone?  Other than that same "this number, that number, these numbers!" I can't find anything that substantiates where that came from in the first place.  It's genuinely such an awful feeling to have to cross-check and cross-reference the hell out of things that are reported as news.  I'm doing their freaking job, they're making bank and I'm getting a headache trying to separate the truth from the exaggerations and to find out which exaggerations were part of fabrications.  

So I won't forget it either, but for rather different reasons.   

Edited January 4, 2017 by stillshimpy

[Padma]

1 hour ago, Pixel said:

A friend pointed out that it's possible the whole attack on the independent ethics committee was a gift from the Republicans to Trump, to make him look decent and reasonable and give him a chance to show that he's not going to blindly support whatever the Repubs want to do. I don't think so, but it was an interesting idea.

It would be even more scary than it is if I thought they were really that smart and cunning and well-coordinated (especially as they did it by secret ballot, and let Ryan and McCarthy keep their hands clean). But if that was the case, I think Trump would have tweeted about the importance of ethics rather than just casting shade at their priorities.

[MulletorHater]

8 hours ago, Padma said:

I thought LOD made a good point tonight about the inflammatory Trump tweet about the intelligence agency "supposed to be coming today" but "now rescheduled for Friday" then snidely suggesting it was because they needed "more time" to prepare their presentation (somehow implying it would be fake).

O'Donnell and guests pointed out how bizarre it is for Trump to keep picking these fights with U.S. intelligence while defending so vigorously RUSSIAN intelligence. It really IS bizarre. Someone observed that if there's one group you don't want to tick off, it's the intelligence community.

This reminded me of Watergate, where the FBI actually leaked the information to the Washington Post reporters that brought down Nixon. It gives me hope, actually, that Trump is making enemies in the wrong places and that someone--somewhere--may take the extra effort to find out exactly WHAT his ties to Putin are and how deep they go (and for how long).  It actually is one of the most hopeful developments I've seen, in terms of possibly getting rid of him.

And, by the way, a high -ranking intelligence official immediately released a statement that the meeting was ALWAYS scheduled for Friday.

I think LOD and/or one of his guests also mentioned how bizarre Drumpf's ongoing defense of Putin was especially since he has a few cabinet picks who still need to be confirmed including Tillerson.  If one expects his proposed cabinet picks to sail through the nomination process, why do shit that will make an already difficult situation that much more difficult?  I also loved it that O'Donnell mentioned the list of questions that folks on these committees should be compiling for Drumpf's proposed cabinet picks, including the relationship with Russia, etc.  The panel also highlighted how obvious it was that Drumpf and his team do not communicate at all.  Oh, and we're still waiting with bated breath for that press conference regarding the business conflicts of interest.  Tick...tick...tick...tick...

And, of course, Drumpf lied about that meeting.  It's what he does!  It simply astounds me when those who should know better by now are actually shocked--shocked, I tell you!--when a lying asshole behaves like...a lying asshole.  Um, mainstream media, how about trying this one on for size?  How about not reporting Drumpf's Tweets and giving them serious analysis before you speak to all sources to get to the truth of the matter?  I've lost track of the number of times this pitiful spectacle has played out.  

Drumpf Tweets, "I have a meeting with Oprah on Friday to make a [sic] announcement, and it's gonna be HUGE!  Okay--I'm the new spokesperson for Viagra and Melania will testify about my sexual prowess!  She'll tell you there is NO problem!"  The media's first response, if they are so inclined to report on this "incredible" event, should be to contact Oprah first to verify that such a meeting is taking place and when.  They should also confirm the nature of the meeting and announcement.  And, follow up even further by talking to the makers of Viagra to determine if it is true that a corpulent 70-year-old pussy-grabber, who abuses self-tanner and under eye concealer, is actually going to be the brand's new spokesman.  Nine times out of ten, Oprah will be shocked to learn about the meeting because it was never scheduled to take place.  It will also turn out that the makers of Viagra would rather die than admit on the record that Drumpf is their best example of male virility.  See how that works, media outlets?  True, Drumpf will issue more Tweets denouncing Oprah as a narcissistic phony and a fraud and whining that Pfizer is "very unfair!" but should anyone actually feign surprise at that point?

Shakes head in disgust...

[Duke Silver]

I'm working from home, but have been on long conference call & haven't had tv on.  Not sure if CNN corrected DeMint's lie.

[Lana X]

12 minutes ago, Duke Silver said:

I'm working from home, but have been on long conference call & haven't had tv on.  Not sure if CNN corrected DeMint's lie.

probably not. remember. what is fake and what is real? nobody knows

welcome to the twilight zone

[SpencerHawk]

16 hours ago, Pixel said:

Chuck Schumer is giving me life right now on Rachel Maddow's show. He's the pit bull we need. I hope he's got the goods to keep it up.  Historically he's been quite the successful fighter. 

Heck yea. I cheered him the heck on last night. He kicked ass and took names. I hope he can keep it up as well.

[Duke Silver]

[SoSueMe]

1 hour ago, Duke Silver said:

I'm working from home, but have been on long conference call & haven't had tv on.  Not sure if CNN corrected DeMint's lie.

As I recall, she corrected him but it was hard to hear over his talk-over/over-talk.

[SoSueMe]

27 minutes ago, Duke Silver said:

That is super funny, but I'm sure it will be attributed to "fake news" or more likely "fake polls". I'm surprised it hasn't been deleted.

[fishcakes]

5 minutes ago, SoSueMe said:

That is super funny, but I'm sure it will be attributed to "fake news" or more likely "fake polls". I'm surprised it hasn't been deleted.

One idiot in the comments attributed it to the "liberal conspiracy" that is statistics:

Quote

Polls, population sampling, statistical inference, and statistics in general are all liberal conspiracies.

To which my new secret online significant other replied thusly:

Quote

Statistics is a liberal conspiracy... I'm dying lmao. Other liberal conspiracies: math, the alphabet, engineering, and colors

[stillshimpy]

Oh, that's just wonderful.   The side that benefited hugely from people believing fake news is now saying the real news is fake.    I'm sitting here eating this ludicrously healthy lunch, carrots, broccoli, black-eyed peas and barley, I should swap that the fuck out for twinkies and bourbon so at least the coroner will be able to find some reason when I inevitably perish from an apoplectic event brought on by these horrible human beings, who want to take health care away from people while having no plans for what those people are supposed to do in the meantime.  Die, I guess.  

Quote

Heck yea. I cheered him the heck on last night. He kicked ass and took names. I hope he can keep it up as well.

Seriously, I'd give him five years off my actual freaking lifespan to try and help him keep it up. 

Also, is that a tiny rodent wearing a football helmet in your avatar?  

[SpencerHawk]

3 minutes ago, stillshimpy said:

Oh, that's just wonderful.   The side that benefited hugely from people believing fake news is now saying the real news is fake.    I'm sitting here eating this ludicrously healthy lunch, carrots, broccoli, black-eyed peas and barley, I should swap that the fuck out for twinkies and bourbon so at least the coroner will be able to find some reason when I inevitably perish from an apoplectic event brought on by these horrible human beings, who want to take health care away from people while having no plans for what those people are supposed to do in the meantime.  Die, I guess.  

Seriously, I'd give him five years off my actual freaking lifespan to try and help him keep it up. 

Also, is that a tiny rodent wearing a football helmet in your avatar?  

Yes it is. Here is a version of it.

Edited January 4, 2017 by SpencerHawk

[Lantern7]

Front page of the Daily News had Charles Manson getting closer to death. He's not the guy I had dying to offset the slew of celeb passings in 2016, but that could totally work.

[Pixel]

9 minutes ago, Lantern7 said:

Front page of the Daily News had Charles Manson getting closer to death. He's not the guy I had dying to offset the slew of celeb passings in 2016, but that could totally work.

I figured since he's getting out of prison Trump would appoint him Secretary of Mental Health or something.

[Lantern7]

And I'm still banking on YKW naming Bill Cosby as Surgeon General.