"Yes, being the president is a harder job than Donald Trump would expect, because Donald Trump had never previously held an actual job, because actually, spending your inheritance on a succession of failed cons is not an actual job."
Maybe you’d better sit down for this one. According to a report by Politico, corned-beef dirigible Donald Trump, a skill-free inheritance baby with a virtually unbroken lifelong track record of incompetence and failure, has found that running the United States government is a tougher job than lending his name to…
Public Policy Polling likes to have fun with its Twitter trolls, and that’s a good thing, because PPP has a new poll that will definitely unleash a flood of angry Trumpy trolls. Impeachment, rising disapproval, the Muslim ban, the Bowling Green Massacre … this poll is a thing of beauty.
Trump’s approval rating is just 43 percent, while his disapproval rating has shot up to 53 percent.
”Just three weeks into his administration, voters are already evenly divided on the issue of impeaching Trump with 46% in favor and 46% opposed.”
Trump’s Muslim ban gets 45 percent support, with 49 percent opposed, but here’s the kicker: “Among those who do support it you have to wonder how well thought out their position is—by a 51/23 margin Trump voters say that the Bowling Green Massacre shows why Trump's immigration policy is needed.”
“By a 48/43 spread, voters do think that the intent of the Executive Order is to be a Muslim ban. And just 22% support a Muslim ban, to 65% who are opposed.” A whopping 66 percent of those polled said the ban was poorly executed to boot, so Trump’s basic competence is getting the doubt it deserves.
The bad news just keeps coming: 53 percent of voters trust judges over Trump, and 64 percent don’t think Trump should have the right to overturn judicial decisions he doesn’t like. (But Trump voters are in a different world from everyone else and from the Constitution: 51 percent of them say Trump should be able to overturn court decisions.) Voters think he should fully divest from his business interests and release his tax returns. They don’t like Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, Sean Spicer, Betsy DeVos, or Russia. They increasingly do like Obamacare, as they’re faced with the prospect of losing it.
Back when Trump was leading in polls of the Republican primary, he loved to point to polls as evidence of great and true things. Now all he can say about his formerly beloved polls is “fake news.” But oh, wait. Another of this poll’s findings is that “Voters are increasingly taking the media's side in [Trump’s] fights with them.”
It appears as though T.J. Maxx and Marshall’s are in the midst of fading out Ivanka Trump items from their stores. The retail stores appear to be following in the steps of Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus, which just last week dropped Trump’s brand.
Tyra Banks beauty line “Tyra Beauty” as well as “the Honest Company,” which is affiliated with Jessica Alba have also just announced that they will no longer advertise during “the Apprentice” on NBC. The online retailer “shoes.com” has also dropped Trump brands.
The Trump-Russia scandal has so far resided in the territory between smoke and fire. Donald Trump associates have reportedly been investigated for interactions with Russia, but the FBI has not released information on these contacts. Trump has pushed an America First policy, but he has curiously denied or downplayed the US intelligence conclusion that Vladimir Putin mounted an extensive covert campaign to subvert the 2016 election to benefit Trump and instead has cultivated an odd bromance with the Russian autocrat. A series of memos written by a former counterintelligence officer contained allegations that Russian intelligence had spent years cultivating or co-opting Trump and gathering compromising information on him and that the Trump camp had colluded with Russians, but the specifics have not been confirmed.
Yet now one piece of the Trump-Russia puzzle has been clearly depicted: Trump's national security adviser was in cahoots with Russia to undermine the US government's effort to punish Moscow for hacking the US election—and he apparently lied about it. If Trump does not fire him—and if Washington's political-media complex (including Republicans) does not go ballistic over this revelation—then the Putinization of America has taken another big step forward.
On Thursday night, after a long and wild day of Trump news (Trump attacking Sen. John McCain, Kellyanne Conway seemingly breaking the law, an appeals court ruling against Trump's Muslim travel ban, and much more), the WashingtonPost dropped a bomb: a thoroughly reported article with the headline "National Security Adviser Flynn Discussed Sanctions With Russian Ambassador, Despite Denials, Officials Say." It began:
National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country's ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said.
Flynn's communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted by some senior U.S. officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions that were being imposed by the Obama administration in late December to punish Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 election.
Here was Flynn working against US policy—against steps President Barack Obama had ordered in response to Putin's meddling in the US election. He was in essence telling Moscow not to fret over these sanctions and that Russia would be rewarded once Trump moved into the White House. He was explicitly aiding the enemy that had attacked US democracy.
This move was in sync with the approach taken by Trump, who has refused to criticize Russia for intervening in the election. After Trump's first call with Putin as president, the White House accounts of the call contained no indication that Trump had even raised the subject.
Moreover, the Post story—which was based on interviews with nine current or former officials at security and law enforcement agencies—suggests that Flynn is not honest and not smart.
Since the news first broke weeks ago that Flynn had talked with Kislyak in December, Flynn and the White House have denied that sanctions were discussed. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer insisted Flynn's conversation with Kislyak was about more mundane matters, such as conveying holiday greetings and setting up a post-inauguration call between Trump and Putin. In an interview with CBS News last month, Vice President Mike Pence asserted, "They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States' decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia." Pence noted that he had spoken to Flynn about this. If so, it would seem that Flynn lied to him.
The Post reports there is no ambiguity about Flynn's conversation with the Russian ambassador:
All of those officials said Flynn's references to the election-related sanctions were explicit. Two of those officials went further, saying that Flynn urged Russia not to overreact to the penalties being imposed by President Barack Obama, making clear that the two sides would be in position to review the matter after Trump was sworn in as president.
"Kislyak was left with the impression that the sanctions would be revisited at a later time," said a former official.
A third official put it more bluntly, saying that either Flynn had misled Pence or that Pence misspoke. An administration official stressed that Pence made his comments based on his conversation with Flynn. The sanctions in question have so far remained in place.
Which brings us to the not-very-smart part of this story. How do all these officials know what was really said between Flynn and the Russian? US intelligence routinely conducts surveillance aimed at Russian diplomats and monitors their communications. The Post story clearly indicates that Flynn's conversation with Kislyak was intercepted and that a transcript of it has been passed throughout the intelligence community. Flynn, of course, should have been aware that any discussion he had with the Russian ambassador was vulnerable to surveillance. After all, not too long ago he was head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
This makes Flynn's behavior dumb on two counts. First, he should not have explicitly discussed undermining US policy with Kislyak, because he ought to have realized this conversation would be picked up by US intelligence. Second, he should not have told Pence and others that sanctions had not been covered in the conversation, because he should have known there was evidence of what had actually transpired during his chat.
On Wednesday, Flynn denied to the Post that he had discussed the sanctions with Kislyak. The next day, the paper reports, "Flynn, through his spokesman, backed away from the denial. The spokesman said Flynn 'indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn't be certain that the topic never came up.'" So he has shifted from an emphatic denial to weasel words. The FBI, according to the paper, is continuing to investigate, though it's unclear if any laws were broken. The Logan Act of 1799 does prohibit US citizens from meddling in US foreign policy matters, but it has never been successfully applied.
Flynn's conversation with Kislyak, it turns out, was part of a series of contacts. And this, too, is suspicious, given Flynn's history of interactions with the Putin regime. In December 2015, he was paid by RT, the English-language propaganda arm of Moscow, to attend a gala, where he sat at a table with Putin. (Flynn has steadfastly refused to say how much he pocketed for this appearance.) The Russian ambassador told the Post that he had been communicating with Flynn since before the election, but he declined to say what they had discussed. Oddly, he would not reveal the origin of his relationship with Flynn.
Last month, Pence declared there had been no contact between the Trump campaign and Russia. "Of course not," he said. "Why would there be any contact between the campaign? This is all a distraction, and it's all part of a narrative to delegitimatize the election and to question the legitimacy of [Trump's] presidency." But when Flynn was talking to Kislyak prior to the election, he was a senior campaign aide and surrogate for Trump. Pence was peddling a falsehood. And this raises the question: Why was Trump's top national security aide talking to Russia while Moscow was attacking the US election to help Trump? What was he signaling to Moscow? What was he being told?
This is a scandal. A real scandal. A big scandal. Republicans and Democrats should be screaming for investigations and public hearings. (Yesterday, House Democrats did resort to a little-used legislative tool to force a debate on both Trump's conflicts of interest and the possible ties between his inner circle and Russia.) And Flynn should be booted. The evidence is strong that he lied and that he cozied up to Moscow while it was assaulting American democracy. Worse, for a supposed national security maven, he acted in a stupid manner and practiced awful tradecraft. Placing the nation's security in his hands of a dishonest and reckless fellow is risky business.
The Trump-Russia story has faded in recent days, amid other Trump chaos. But if this Flynn news does not cause a firestorm—and threaten Flynn's position—then something is very rotten in the nation's capital.
UPDATE: On Friday morning, the Trump administration confirmed that Flynn did speak to the Russian ambassador about the sanctions. And Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the senior Democrat on the House intelligence committee, called for Flynn's dismissal with this statement: "The allegation that General Flynn, while President Obama was still in office, secretly discussed with Russia’s ambassador ways to undermine the sanctions levied against Russia for its interference in the Presidential election on Donald Trump's behalf, raises serious questions of legality and fitness for office. If he did so, and then he and other Administration officials misled the American people, his conduct would be all the more pernicious, and he should no longer serve in this Administration or any other."
As much as I wish for every kitty to have a loving home, that’s simply not realistic! These TNR kitties help to prevent countless homeless and unwanted kittens whose lives would only go to waste.
You can learn more about TNR and caring for your local strays by visiting Alley Cat Allies, the organization which began the program!
Feral kitties keep pest populations down! (Way better than my pet kitties, one of which lets mice run across his paws -_-) Since the cat colony across the street started hunting in my yard, I’ve had no more problems with mice in my house, either!
“I tire so of hearing people say, / Let things take their course. / Tomorrow is another day. / I do not need my freedom when I’m dead. / I cannot live on tomorrow’s bread.”
I FINALLY FINISHED IT! In honor of the brave national parks employees that rebelled against Trump’s anti-science agenda, I have drawn a revolutionary pic of the Parks and Rec characters!
For me, this is about the profound hypocrisy of the so-called conservatives who never want to spend any tax money to actually help make our country and the people who live in it a little better, never want to actually invest money in education, infrastructure, public health, or any of the things that will have enormous benefits for all Americans, but don’t say a single thing about this totally unnecessary waste of money.
“MORE HISTORICAL DRAMAS ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE THAT DON’T INVOLVE SLAVERY ALTHOUGH WE DON’T WANT TO TO NECESSARILY GET RID OF MOVIES AND TV SHOWS ABOUT SLAVERY WE’D JUST LIKE TO SEE MORE VARIETY OF ERAS”
“WHEN DO WE WANT IT”
“TECHNICALLY NOW BUT WE UNDERSTAND IT’LL TAKE A WHILE TO WRITE SCRIPTS, FIND ACTORS AND DISTRIBUTE CONTENT AND WE’RE WILLING TO WAIT FOR GOOD QUALITY”
Listen up turd turrets, I WANTED to just play video games, I WANTED to just have fun, I NEVER wanted my gaming to be political or a struggle, I just wanted to play.
But you wouldn’t fucking let me, you brought up my gender, you judged me based on it, YOU made it political.
So now I WILL wreck everything with my fucking feminism, I am the feminist nightmare you fucking created.
It's kind of a sad condition, but it exists. If you give money to poor people, they spend it. If you give money to rich people, they hoard it. Which one is going to improve your local economy?
surprising everyone, except for people who make at or near minimum wage and anyone who understands economics
Literally what every millennial has been asking for for years Of course your fucking business does better when everyone has more money in their pockets When we have don’t have the money to spend, we can’t fucking spend it, who’d have thunk?
More money flowing means more money flowing. Surprising.
At least seven protesters were arrested in Phoenix, Arizona on Wednesday night after Guadalupe Garcia de Rayos, a 35-year-old mother of two American teenagers, was arrested and set for deportation in accordance with Donald Trump’s executive order expanding the definition of “criminal alien.”
Cut
to the current election. We had heard allegations that Trump kept
Hitler’s speeches by his bedside, but somehow we normalized that. We
didn’t take him seriously because of all the outrageous, clownish acts
and gaffes we thought would cause him to drop out of the race. Except
these gaffes were designed to distract. This was his secret strategy,
the essence of his success — you can’t take a stand against Trump
because you don’t know where Trump is standing. You can’t find him
guilty of evil, you can’t find him at all.
Speaking
to the U.S. Central Command on Monday, President Trump went off his
prepared remarks to make a truly stunning claim: The media was
intentionally covering up reports of terrorist attacks.
“You’ve
seen what happened in Paris, and Nice. All over Europe, it’s happening,”
he said to the assembled military leaders. “It’s gotten to a point
where it’s not even being reported. And in many cases the very, very
dishonest press doesn’t want to report it. They have their reasons, and
you understand that.”
As
an official in the Justice Department, I followed in Hamilton’s
footsteps, advising that President George W. Bush could take vigorous,
perhaps extreme, measures to protect the nation after the Sept. 11
attacks, including invading Afghanistan, opening the Guantánamo
detention center and conducting military trials and enhanced
interrogation of terrorist leaders. Likewise, I supported President
Barack Obama when he drew on this source of constitutional power for
drone attacks and foreign electronic surveillance.
But even I have grave concerns about Mr. Trump’s uses of presidential power.
“However,
as far as this place is concerned I feel very strongly that our
opposition to racism and to sexism and our support for equality before
the law and an independent judiciary are hugely important considerations
in the House of Commons.”
Mike Huckabee to Fox Business: I don’t understand the role of the judiciary, and I’ll frame my ignorance in toxic masculinity!
I
think in the past we have had an executive branch that has emasculated
itself by surrendering constantly to the idea that once the court says
something, that’s it. It’s the law of the land, and when I hear that
phrase, it’s the law of the land cause the court said it, I think did
you guys pass ninth grade civics for gosh sake? The court can’t make
law. They cannot legislate.
But
by Republican standards, this should be a major, impeachment-worthy
scandal. Unless there’s some arbitrary minimum number of U.S. casualties
(greater than one but less than four) above which administrative heads
should roll, there’s no standard by which Benghazi should have become
the subject of a vast, conspiratorial inquest, but the botched raid in
Yemen should not.
Congressman
Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (R-NC.), a vice-chairman on the House Financial
Services Committee, has sent a blistering letter to Federal Reserve
Chair Yellen telling her in no uncertain terms to stop cooperating with
other central banks and insurance supervisors over global rules of
conduct, at least until the new administration has given her a clear
political line to follow.
As
former ethics counsels to Presidents Obama and George W. Bush, we’ve
reviewed more than our share of ethics filings for cabinet nominees.
Seldom have we seen a worse cabinet-level ethics mess than that
presented by Betsy DeVos, President Trump’s choice for education
secretary.
Her extensive financial holdings present
significant—and unresolved—conflict of interest issues. She also failed
to provide the Senate with accurate information about her involvement
with outside organizations. We have regretfully come to the conclusion
that these concerns disqualify DeVos for that cabinet position.
