|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » WHY DOESN'T POTUS ARREST BILL CLINTON, HILARY CLINTON, AND OBAMA? |
| 301-350 of 1629 Posts | < Previous Page | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Page 7 | 8 | 13 | 18 | 23 | 32 | 33 | Next Page > |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 03-26-18 04:40pm - 2369 days | #301 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Wonderful news: Trump is the leader of the US. He is the force of US morals. What is impressive is that Trump's allies, the people who helped get him elected, used advanced techniques in targeting potential voters. That is the Cambridge Analytica story. Of course, Cambridge Analytica denies it did anything wrong. They are innocent. However, it's possible that Trump's allies may have broken US laws. However, Trump's allies have a strong defense: they don't remember breaking any laws. Just like Trump does not remember having an affair with Stormy Daniels. Innocent until proven guilty. We must remember that Trump (and any of his allies) are innocent until proven guilty. And Zuckerberg, the Facebook billionaire, says it's hard to tell if Facebook data affected the 2016 election. Zuckerbergi is the Facebook expert. So that means Facebook is innocent. And Trump and his allies are innocent of breaking any laws. Clear skies ahead for Trump, once people realize he is innocent. ------- ------- Embattled data firm sent foreign workers to US campaigns By Drew Griffin, Curt Devine, Donie O'Sullivan and Maegan Vazquez, CNN Updated 5:34 PM ET, Mon March 26, 2018 Bolton super PAC linked to Cambridge Analytica Bolton super PAC linked to Cambridge Analytica 03:08 Washington (CNN)A former employee of the data firm Cambridge Analytica tells CNN the company might have violated US election laws by using non-US citizens to work on American campaigns during the 2014 midterm election cycle. Company whistleblower Christopher Wylie says the data firm, which was hired by Donald Trump's presidential campaign during the 2016 election, was even warned about the practice by the company's US-based law firm two years prior. But according to Wylie, the company's directors -- including later Trump campaign CEO and White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, Republican donors Rebekah and Robert Mercer, and now-suspended Cambridge Analytica CEO Alexander Nix -- were undeterred. "Bannon didn't care, the Mercers didn't care, Alexander Nix certainly didn't care," Wylie told CNN in an interview in London on Friday night. Ex-Cambridge Analytica staff say Bolton super PAC used compromised Facebook data The latest revelations come as the data firm is under fire for its alleged use of ill-gotten personal Facebook data from tens of millions of Facebook users in the United States to provide psycho-analytics and micro-targeting of voters. Last week the company suspended Nix in the wake of undercover reports showing him discussing potential bribery and entrapment. Nix said in a statement that despite the appearance of the undercover reports, the company does not engage in such practices. Friday night, the United Kingdom's Information Commissioner's Office executed a search warrant at Cambridge Analytica's London office to further its investigation of potential misuse of private Facebook data. Cambridge Analytica denies it used the Facebook data for its work on the Trump campaign. Legal warning Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's then-law firm, Bracewell and Giuliani, wrote a memo to Bannon, Rebekah Mercer and Nix in July 2014 specifically describing how US law prohibits foreign nationals from making "decisions involving election-related activity." The attorney who wrote the memo, Laurence Levy, said Nix should recuse himself from managing any clients involved in American elections and that Cambridge Analytica's foreign employees should not provide final analysis of data for US candidates or political action committees. "Foreign nationals may act as functionaries that collect and process data, but the final analysis of said data should be conducted by US citizens and conveyed to any US client by such citizens," the memo said. In a wide-ranging interview with CNN, Wylie detailed how Bannon, along with funding from the conservative billionaire Mercers, sought to use the data company to challenge and tweak cultural values in the US. The foreign staff, sent mostly from Cambridge Analytica's London headquarters, specialized in political messaging, targeting, and strategy. The company worked on congressional races and for the super PAC of incoming White House national security adviser John Bolton during the 2014 election cycle. Bannon says he doesn't remember purchasing Facebook data at Cambridge Analytica "They played a pivotal role in the direction of strategy and management" of the several American campaigns Cambridge Analytica was working with, Wylie said. Cambridge Analytica and the Mercers have not responded to CNN's requests for comment regarding Wylie's claims. William Burck, an attorney for Bannon, declined to comment. Zuckerberg on whether Facebook affected 2016 election results: It's 'really hard' to tell CNN also spoke to several former Cambridge Analytica staffers who were dispatched to the United States to work on the 2014 campaigns, all of whom requested anonymity, citing reasons that included fear of retribution and not wanting to be publicly dragged into the intense scrutiny of the company. One said that he remembers a mix of employees from Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States working for the company on behalf of US campaigns. He said foreign employees were mindful of the applicable laws, but he added, "We might have been cavalier at times." On the issue of foreigners working with US political committees, the Bracewell and Giuliani memo said that polling and marketing by foreign nationals without green cards could violate the law; it concluded "the prohibition against foreign nationals managing campaigns, including making direct or indirect decisions regarding the expenditure of campaign dollars, will have a significant impact on how Cambridge hires staff and operates in the short term." Investigators search Cambridge Analytica's London offices Investigators search Cambridge Analytica's London offices Brett Kappel, an attorney at Akerman LLP who specializes in campaign finance law, said the company's apparent use of foreign nationals warrants a Federal Election Commission investigation. "Here you have a memo from an attorney who specifically advised them not to do this, which could suggest they knowingly and willfully acted with criminal intent," Kappel said. Brendan Fischer of the Campaign Legal Center said all the facts about the foreign employees' roles in these US campaigns need to be known before reaching any legal conclusions. "The lines between participation in a campaign decision and merely giving advice can be blurry," he said. "If a foreign employee were only offering advice, that would probably be OK." | |
|
||
| 03-27-18 09:29pm - 2368 days | #302 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Evangelical Christians: Bill Clinton lied to the American public. He cheated on his wife. He was unfit to lead the US as President. Today: Donald Trump lied to the American public. He cheated on all his wives. He is still fit to lead the US as President. Conclusion: Evangelical Christians are hypocrites. Evangelical ministers are liars. --------- --------- Mellman: Evangelicals meet partisanship By Mark Mellman, opinion contributor — 03/27/18 07:30 PM EDT Twenty years ago, evangelical leaders could hardly have been more appalled. Arguing that character counts, Rev. Franklin Graham asserted that if a president “will lie to, or mislead, his wife ... what will prevent him from doing the same to the American public?” The late Billy Graham’s son was referring to President Bill Clinton. Evangelical leader Gary Bauer reported his distress about the scandal then dominating the headlines: “I walk around my home with the TV remote in my hand for fear that [my children] will come in the room when a story about the president comes on. [Thanks to Clinton] our kids have been taught that fidelity is old-fashioned, that adultery is the norm.” Focus on the Family founder Jim Dobson lamented, “As it turns out, character DOES matter. You can’t run a family, let alone a country, without it. How foolish to believe that a person who lacks honesty and moral integrity is qualified to lead a nation and the world! Nevertheless, our people continue to say that the President is doing a good job even if they don’t respect him personally. Those two positions are fundamentally incompatible. In the Book of James, the question is posed, ‘Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring” (James 3:11 NIV). The answer is no.” These and other evangelical leaders wanted Clinton impeached, convicted and removed from office. Their position, they asserted, was based on fundamental values. As one leader wrote, “Most evangelicals consider what Bill Clinton did … an undermining of … the moral and biblical principles on which [our Constitution] is based … evangelicals are values-based voters, values based on biblical morality … evangelicals believe in moral absolutes.” These “values” were reflected in poll data. As recently as 2011, only 30 percent of white evangelicals believed “an elected official who commits an immoral act in their personal life can still behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public and professional life,” according to a Public Religion Research Institute poll. Enter Donald Trump. We need not rehash his myriad moral failings in detail. Suffice it to say that he engaged in any number of extramarital affairs, not to mention the behavior described, and the vocabulary used, in the infamous “Entertainment Tonight” tape, as well as in scores of tweets and conversations. Trump lied to and misled his wives. He caused parents heartburn about what kids were hearing on TV. He engaged in adultery and sexual harassment. Neither honesty nor moral integrity are his calling cards. In short, whatever one thinks of Clinton, Trump’s transgressions are certainly as bad, and, in truth, worse. So, if evangelicals’ concerns are in fact based on moral absolutes, they should be at least as distraught with Trump as they were with Clinton, if not more so. They aren’t. And it’s not just the leadership who’ve become silent accomplices. The number of white evangelicals who believe personal moral failings are not disqualifying for a public official rose 42 points, to 72 percent, in 5 years. This revolutionary change in evangelical attitudes reveals, once again, the power of partisanship to structure our beliefs. The absolutes to which they claim adherence are actually quite flexible in the face of partisan pressure. It’s a simple mechanism to maintain consistency: “My Republicanism is preeminent. If continuing to like Donald Trump conflicts with my beliefs about the personal morality of public officials, I will alter my views on that subject, enabling me to continue to support Trump.” Related to the power of partisanship is another lesson. We often discuss “values” as deeply held, guiding beliefs from which spring our attitudes on a host of issues. Evangelicals’ views on personal morality were frequently described as “fundamental” and indeed, “absolute” values. Yet, they withered in no time, suggesting that “values” may not be as deep and enduring as we think. Even for a partisan like me, it’s sad that party has become our highest value. Mellman is president of The Mellman Group and has helped elect 30 U.S. senators, 12 governors and dozens of House members. Mellman served as pollster to Senate Democratic leaders for over 20 years and as president of the American Association of Political Consultants. | |
|
||
| 03-27-18 11:30pm - 2368 days | #303 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Politics: I have a simple solution to Jared Kushner's problems: Let President Donald Trump, the great business leader, issue a blanket pardon to Jared Kushner for any and all crimes he may have committed after marrying Ivanka Trump. Brilliant, and effective. We don't want to cause the lovely young woman any problems. ------- ------- Politics Jared Kushner’s Month Goes from Bad to Weeping Inconsolably in a Janitor’s Closet Vanity Fair Bess Levin,Vanity Fair 13 hours ago It seems Jared Kushner’s dramatic fall from grace won’t have a soft landing. With his security clearance downgraded, state regulators now poring over his personal finances, and world leaders arguing over who has more sway over him, the First Son-in-Law suffered another blow on Tuesday when the White House was reported to be investigating some half a billion in loans that Kushner Cos. received after financial executives met with Boy Wonder in the White House. Per The Wall Street Journal: White House attorneys are examining whether two loans totaling more than $500 million to Jared Kushner’s family business may have violated any criminal laws or federal ethics regulations, according to a letter from a federal ethics agency made public Monday. The Office of Government Ethics told a Democratic lawmaker in the letter that the White House is probing whether a $184 million loan from the real-estate arm of Apollo Global Management LLC and a $325 million loan from Citigroup Inc. may have run afoul of the rules and laws governing the conduct of federal employees. In a letter to Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi,David Apol, acting director of the O.G.E., wrote: “I have discussed this matter with the White House Counsel’s Office in order to ensure that they have begun the process of ascertaining the facts necessary to determine whether any law or regulation has been violated. During that discussion, the White House informed me that they had already begun this process.” While the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment, Kushner’s personal lawyer, Abbe Lowell, was full of them, telling the Journal that after The New York Times’ initial report on the loans, “the White House counsel concluded there were no issues involving Jared.” He added that the Boy Prince of New Jersey “was not involved with his former company after he entered government service; the transactions in question came after that; he had nothing to do with those transactions; the transactions had nothing to do with any of his meetings in the White House, and the people from the companies involved have confirmed that as well.” (Though Kushner stepped down from his position as C.E.O. of Kushner Cos. upon entering the White House, and sold his personal stakes in some projects, he retained stakes in multiple Kushner Cos. properties—including, shockingly, the ones that received loans from Citigroup and Apollo.) In response to a letter from Senator Elizabeth Warren, Citigroup said last week that its $325 million loan to Kushner Cos. was “completely appropriate.” Apollo, responding to a letter from members of Congress earlier this month, said that the meetings between its C.E.O. and Kushner were not related to its $184 million loan, and that the loan “was negotiated on behalf of A.R.I. by an Apollo investment professional with a history of doing business with Kushner Companies that predated his tenure at Apollo.” As the negative stories continue to pile up—last month, there was that small matter of at least four other nations reportedly discussing how best to leverage Kushner’s massive debts and political novice, and last week, a report emerged detailing the sketchy slumlord tactics his family’s company allegedly engaged in while he was C.E.O.—even the world’s biggest joke of a president has become disenchanted, apparently complaining to allies that his son-in-law has become a liability. “He is very weakened,” a Mexican official said on the eve of Kushner’s most recent diplomatic visit. “And he’s going to get weaker.” | |
|
||
| 03-28-18 06:56am - 2368 days | #304 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Trump is a warrior sent by God to the aid of Evangelical Christians. Praise the Lord. We are saved. Except for sinful people who will go straight to hell, like gays, perverts, and other immoral non-Christian infidels. ------ ------ Politics Pastor Says If Jesus Supported 'Demon Possessed Traitor,' Evangelicals Can Support Trump Newsweek Gillian Edevane,Newsweek 17 hours ago Pastor Says If Jesus Supported Demon Possessed Traitor, Evangelicals Can Support Trump Prominent Pro-Trump evangelicals have sounded off on the Stormy Daniels controversy in recent days, with many vowing to continue supporting the president despite an alleged affair with the adult film star. Tennessee pastor Greg Locke, who made headlines last year for a viral rant against gay people, shared his rationalization for supporting the blustery business mogul with his 30,000 followers and 1.5 million Facebook followers. "People are like 'If you support Trump you can’t be a Christian,'" Locke tweeted. "Do y’all listen when you talk? Jesus hired a demon possessed traitor to handle his money for 3 years. He can use the President if He so desires. Take a seat people." Some online were confused by the tweet. Others enjoyed pointing out apparent "hypocrisy" from a group that offered moral condemnation during the Lewinsky scandal. Still others came armed with puns. Several of Locke's other tweets caused a stir, specifically those that degraded Daniels. One in particular caught the eye of CNN's Jake Tapper, who exchanged a quick back-and-forth with the pastor over a bible passage that preaches compassion for a woman who has lived "a sinful life." Despite the moral quandaries posed by a Trump presidency, evangelicals continue to overwhelmingly back the thrice-married businessman, according to the Pew Research Center. His job performance hovered around 80 percent for the group in mid-March, months after the alleged Daniels scandal broke in The Wall Street Journal. Other polling suggests that while evangelicals believe the reports about Trump's infidelity are true, they don't think it matters. David Brody, who co-authored The Faith of Donald Trump: A Spiritual Biography, rationalized the voting behavior of the religious group in a New York Times op-ed. "This president’s effect on our cultural norms has been shocking," Brody wrote. "His critics would call it appalling; evangelicals say it’s immensely satisfying: They’ve seen a culture deteriorate quickly in the past decade, and they’re looking for a bold culture warrior to fight for them. Showing that God does indeed have a sense of humor, He gave them Mr. Trump." This article was first written by Newsweek | |
|
||
| 03-28-18 09:13am - 2367 days | #305 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User  Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
People seem to think that running the government like a business is an admirable thing that should be done. But business is run on the profit motive, while government is supposed to be run on the principle of bettering the common good. This leads to a fascination with business leaders as potential political leaders because they "know how things work" or can weed out "waste, fraud, and abuse" in the system. But business leaders don't actually know how government works, and waste and fraud are ferreted out by autonomous audits. Abuse of the system seems to be the core principle of Congress. "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 03-28-18 10:30am - 2367 days | #306 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
You need to add Trump and his administration which has abuse of the system as its core principle. And for Trump specifically, before he became President, his business style was abuse, intimidation, and legal thuggery. | |
|
||
| 03-28-18 12:59pm - 2367 days | #307 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Trump Lawyer Floated Pardons Of Michael Flynn And Paul Manafort: Report HuffPost Doha Madani,HuffPost 2 hours 2 minutes ago John Dowd, the lawyer for President Donald Trump who resigned last week, floated potential pardons of former Trump advisers Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort as special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation closed in, according to a New York Times report published Wednesday. Three unnamed sources told the Times that Dowd discussed offering presidential pardons for Flynn, the president’s former national security adviser, and Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, as Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election mounted. Dowd had discussions with attorneys for Flynn and Manafort shortly after he took over as Trump’s personal lawyer last summer, according to the Times. Dowd reportedly told Flynn’s attorney, Robert K. Kelner, that Trump felt the case against Flynn was flimsy and that the president was prepared to pardon him. Flynn has since pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian government. After news of the plea broke in December, Dowd told The Wall Street Journal that he was “not worried about it.” The former Trump lawyer spoke to Manafort’s legal representation about a pardon in October, before Manafort was indicted on charges of conspiracy and money laundering in connection with the Russia investigation, the Times reported. Read more at The New York Times. Dowd resigned from Trump’s legal team on Thursday as he felt the president was increasingly ignoring his advice, sources told the Times and The Washington Post. President Donald Trump has attacked special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation a number of times. When asked about the reports during a Wednesday press briefing, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders denied any conversation of pardons. “I would refer you back to the statement from [White House lawyer] Ty Cobb and the report you’re asking about, in which he said, ‘I’ve only been asked about pardons by the press and have routinely responded on the record that no pardons are under discussion or consideration at the White House,’” Sanders told reporters in the briefing room. The White House has repeatedly denied any collusion with Russia in regard to the 2016 election. Trump has attacked Mueller’s investigation a number of times, especially as Mueller increases pressure on the president. Mueller issued subpoenas to the Trump Organization demanding documents referencing Russia earlier this month. The president’s aggression toward Mueller’s investigation has prompted a number of concerns that Trump will push to fire the special counsel. Nine Democratic senators signed a letter Tuesday urging senior officials at the Justice Department to publicly defend Mueller against the White House. Related: Trump's Top Lawyer for the Special Counsel Probe Reportedly Resigns This story has been updated to include comments from White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and more background on the Russia investigation. This article originally appeared on HuffPost. | |
|
||
| 03-29-18 11:33am - 2366 days | #308 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
The law is a bunch of nonsense. Created by lawyers to make lots of money for themselves. Which is the way of capitalism: legally steal as much for yourself as you can, while claiming you are working for the common good. I was told that when you went to buy a car, any verbal promises made by the salesman were worthless: they have no legal weight. Any promises have to be in a written contract, for the promise to have weight, or be valid. But this article states that a contract may be verbal, and still be legal. But I've read instances where a verbal promise in business is not binding (not legal or enforceable). And a handshake deal, although common in the movies as binding, is not worth spit. (The movies are fake news, which Donald Trump is an expert at. Maybe that's why Donald hates Hollywood, and says Meryl Streep is a terrible actress. Because Trump never won an Emmy--and he feels he should have.) ------- ------- Entertainment Trump’s lawyer has a lawyer and he just made the Stormy Daniels situation a lot worse thinkprogress.org 4 hours ago The scandal surrounding Stormy Daniels, the adult film actress who claims to have had an affair with Donald Trump, just got worse. It started when David Schwartz, an attorney for Donald Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen, appeared on CNN last night. Schwartz told CNN’s Erin Burnett that Trump “was not aware of” the non-disclosure contract signed by Stormy Daniels and “wasn’t told about it.” This is a big problem for Trump. Daniels’ attorney, Michael Avenatti, argues that the absence of Trump’s signature on the non-disclosure agreement renders the contract invalid. But while this might be true, it is not a slam-dunk argument. You can have a binding contract without any written document. But there are three core elements to a binding contract: 1. offer, 2. acceptance and 3. consideration (something of value). While you can have a binding contract without a a signature you cannot be a party to a contract that you don’t even know about — knowing about the contract is literally what being “a party to a contract” means. That is because you have to have knowledge of the offer and knowingly accept the offer. Trump, by Schwartz’s own admission, did neither of those things. Schwartz’s argument is that there was a binding contract between Daniels and EC LLC, the shell corporation set up by Michael Cohen, and Trump was a “third party beneficiary” of the contract. The problem for Schwartz, Cohen, and Trump is that the contract was not constructed in a way to make that possible. Part of the inducement for Daniels to sign the contract, explicitly, were things that only Donald Trump himself (referred to in the contract, and by Schwartz, as “DD”) could provide. The contract explicitly states, in Section 4.3, that as a “material inducement” for Daniels to sign the contract Trump agrees not to sue Daniels in civil court or provide her name to the authorities unless asked. This relates to any claims Trump might have against Daniels for the dissemination of “the Property” — defined as photos, videos or other evidence of their alleged affair. It explicitly notes that “each Party” is “executing this Agreement in reliance thereon.” In other words, the promise by Trump to release Daniels from legal liability is not a trivial part of the contract. This is the “consideration” part of the contract. It’s essential. But if Trump is not a party to the contract — and Schwartz has admitted he was not — Trump cannot provide such a warranty. Thus, Daniels was “materially induced” to sign a contract with a false promise. In other words, Schwartz’s definitive statement that Trump was not a party greatly increases the chances that a court will invalidate this contract. Even if a court decided the contract is valid somehow, Schwartz’s claim that the president is not a party to it does significant damage to Trump. The case is now in federal court. Trump and Cohen are seeking to avoid having to sit for a deposition, or be subject to additional discovery, by pushing the dispute back into secret arbitration. But the contract only allows Trump, not Cohen’s shell corporation, to resolve disputes in arbitration under section 5.13 and 5.2 of the agreement. Trump can’t take advantage of an arbitration agreement that he is not a party to and knows nothing about. This problems all stems from Cohen’s attempts to thread this legal needle. He wanted to create a contract that prevented Daniels from talking about her alleged relationship with Trump, but also wanted to simultaneously claim Trump wasn’t involved at all. But binding your client to an agreement, and paying $130,000 to seal the deal without telling him or her about it, is a violation of a lawyer’s professional responsibility — and could result in Cohen being sanctioned or disbarred. So now Cohen has a lawyer of his own and he’s trying to protect his client by claiming Cohen did not bind Trump, but just created a separate agreement between a shell corporation and Daniels. This isn’t working out well and may end up making Trump’s problems much worse. | |
|
||
| 03-29-18 11:48am - 2366 days | #309 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Michael Cohen demands Stormy Daniels retract and apologize for a claim she did not make Cohen responded almost immediately to Daniels' 60 Minutes appearance — by focusing on something she didn't say. Judd Legum Mar 26, 2018, 9:45 am Shortly after Stormy Daniels’ appearance on 60 Minutes Sunday night, Michael Cohen — Donald Trump’s longtime attorney and fixer — released a letter through his lawyer demanding the adult film star retract and apologize for her statements. The letter focuses on the claim that Cohen “was responsible for an alleged thug who supposedly visited [Daniels], while she was with her daughter, and made an alleged threat” against her. The letter demands that Daniels “immediately retract and apologize through national media” for making such a claim and “make clear [she has] no facts or evidence whatsoever that my client had anything whatsoever to do with this alleged thug.” There’s one problem with the letter: Daniels never made such a claim. In the interview that aired Sunday, Daniels — whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford — said she was approached by a man in a Las Vegas parking lot who warned her to stop talking about Donald Trump and threatened her life. The alleged incident occurred in 2011, shortly after Daniels gave an interview to Life & Style magazine about her affair with Trump. The magazine ultimately did not run the story after receiving a legal threat from Cohen. But Daniels did not not suggest that the man who threatened her was sent by Michael Cohen. According to the transcript of Daniels’ discussion of the incident during the show: Stormy Daniels: I was in a parking lot, going to a fitness class with my infant daughter. T– taking, you know, the seats facing backwards in the backseat, diaper bag, you know, gettin’ all the stuff out. And a guy walked up on me and said to me, “Leave Trump alone. Forget the story.” And then he leaned around and looked at my daughter and said, “That’s a beautiful little girl. It’d be a shame if something happened to her mom.” And then he was gone. Anderson Cooper: You took it as a direct threat? Stormy Daniels: Absolutely. Stormy Daniels: I was rattled. I remember going into the workout class. And my hands are shaking so much, I was afraid I was gonna– drop her. Anderson Cooper: Did you ever see that person again? Stormy Daniels: No. But I– if I did, I would know it right away. Anderson Cooper: You’d be able to– you’d be able to recognize that person? Stormy Daniels: 100%. Even now, all these years later. If he walked in this door right now, I would instantly know. Anderson Cooper: Did you go to the police? Stormy Daniels: No. Anderson Cooper: Why? Stormy Daniels: Because I was scared. Note that there is no mention of Cohen, much less a claim that he was involved. It’s unclear when the letter was written, but Trump reportedly had dinner with Cohen on Saturday night. Oddly, Cohen’s letter also expresses his belief that the 2011 incident never occurred. It’s unclear why Cohen would know, since he professes to have had nothing to do with it. There are, however, other documented instances of Cohen threatening people who speak out about Trump. When Tim Mak of the Daily Beast was reporting an article about Ivana Trump, who once wrote in a book that she was raped by Trump, Cohen’s threat was not subtle: “I will make sure that you and I meet one day while we’re in the courthouse. And I will take you for every penny you still don’t have. And I will come after your Daily Beast and everybody else that you possibly know,” Cohen said. “So I’m warning you, tread very fucking lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be fucking disgusting. You understand me?” Megyn Kelly, who previously worked at Fox News and now works at NBC News, recounted in her book being threatened by Cohen. After Kelly asked Trump a pointed question at a presidential debate, Cohen retweeted a message encouraging Trump supporters to “gut her.” While Daniels did not name Cohen as the source of the threat during her Sunday appearance, her attorney, Michael Avenatti, was less circumspect. Appearing on CNN on Monday morning, Avenatti said he had “no doubt” that Cohen or someone else close to Trump was responsible for the 2011 threat against Daniels. | |
|
||
| 03-29-18 11:54am - 2366 days | #310 | |
|
Jade1 (0)
Active User Posts: 103 Registered: Mar 28, '18 |
This really isn't true. Most people are not doing that. No system is perfect. Some will always take advantage, but I'd caution against such thinking. Because what's the alternative, have another 100 or so million people killed by Socialism/Marxism? I don't think it's possible to dream up horrors worse than what was done in the Soviet Union from 1918-1956. The government used to print posters that essentially said: "Remember, it's not good to eat your children." Check out Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago (part of why he won a Nobel Prize) if you need a refresher. Edited on Mar 29, 2018, 02:12pm | |
|
||
| 03-29-18 03:20pm - 2366 days | #311 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Communism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money[3][4] and the state.[5][6] ----- ----- Communism, in theory, is wonderful: common ownership of the means of production, the absence of social classes, money, and the state. In practice, it has been used by rulers (Stalin, etc.) to commit crimes against humanity. But that's because communism is theory. Maybe the hippies tried to put it into practice. But on the level of states or countries, the rulers were rulers, not communists. Even though they might have chanted the slogans of communism. Read George Orwell's Animal Farm. That's communism on a practical level. Because the leaders and the regime don't follow communistic theory: they use the theory for their own benefit. | |
|
||
| 03-29-18 03:27pm - 2366 days | #312 | |
|
Jade1 (0)
Active User Posts: 103 Registered: Mar 28, '18 |
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying you agree that Communism/Marxism is a terrible idea? Are you saying it's a good idea that's impossible to implement with humans? Or are you saying something else? Would you be willing to watch this short clip? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZHEEkxZHhc It mirrors my thoughts but is more articulate than I am. Edited on Mar 29, 2018, 04:08pm | |
|
||
| 03-29-18 05:50pm - 2366 days | #313 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
Let's ditch the whole "communism is great in theory" conversation. Marx and Engels wrote about a supposedly inevitable class struggle between labor and capital that would lead to socialism and then to communism. There is some legitimacy to the idea of class conflict in capitalistic societies, but that doesn't necessarily lead to either socialism or communism. Populism and fascism are also possible outcomes. Violent class struggles are not inevitable. In a liberal democracy, there is plenty of opportunity for political and economic reform that balances the needs of labor and capital within a free market. "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 03-29-18 09:58pm - 2366 days | #314 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Utopia is theory. Communism or Socialism, in theory, is for the good of the common man. But we live in the real world, where, in reality, man is not perfect. So the countries that were labelled communist countries in the past have not been heaven on earth. That's what I am saying. In theory, communism would be where everyone shares equally. In practice, not everyone shares equally. That's what I'm saying. Utopia is a dream, where everyone lives perfectly happy lives. In reality, we don't live perfectly happy lives. On a practical basis, not even Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin lead perfectly happy lives. They have happy moments, and some disappointments, along the way. Is Russia still considered a communist country? Is China still considered a communist country? Is North Korea considered a communist country? A communist country is a label, because there are no "communist" countries in the world. By that, I mean the rulers and population do not live in Utopia, where everyone shares equally. Also note: I am not a political science expert. I don't know if "experts" use the term "communism" to apply to Russia, China, or North Korea any more. Or if the leaders or populations of those countries consider the countries "communist". My belief is that none of those countries were ever communist. That was just a label that was used. The rulers and the population did not share equally. | |
|
||
| 03-29-18 09:59pm - 2366 days | #315 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
RE: Marx and Engels wrote about a supposedly inevitable class struggle between labor and capital that would lead to socialism and then to communism. They wrote about what they believed, or hoped, would happen over time. But they were writing about what they wanted to happen. That we would all live in a better world. Instead, we live in reality, where man is flawed, not perfect. And society is not perfect. Blaming communism for the crimes of Stalin is wrong: He used "communism" as a tool to become a tyrant. The leader of North Korea is a tyrant. People are not perfect. And some are less perfect than others. That's what I'm saying. I'm not saying Communism or Democracy are perfect solutions. They are theories. I'm not a communist or socialist. Never have been. Edited on Mar 29, 2018, 10:28pm | |
|
||
| 03-29-18 11:12pm - 2366 days | #316 | |
|
Jade1 (0)
Active User Posts: 103 Registered: Mar 28, '18 |
I think you are implying that somehow Stalin implemented communism incorrectly. This is not so. He did it exactly right. So did Mau in China and Castro in Cuba. Same today in Venezuela and North Korea. It is not possible to implement without imposing tyranny. And it leads to a horror show. Evey time. So I guess my point was... maybe don't be so derisive of capitalism. It's only produced the best conditions for the most people ever in recorded history and they just continue to improve. Edited on Mar 29, 2018, 11:16pm | |
|
||
| 03-30-18 07:29am - 2366 days | #317 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Perhaps you are right when you say that Communism needs to be implemented by a tyrant. That's why Trump as President of the US will possibly bomb North Korea. And maybe Russia as well. We need to make the world safe for Democracy. And these countries are serious threats to the United States. And who cares about the millions of lives that might be lost? After all, you can't make an omelette without cracking a few eggs. And Trump (and his new war-pro National Security advisor) are just the people to take care of business and keep the world safe for Democracy. So let's man up and start building our personal bomb shelters. Trump, as President, already has his prepared. | |
|
||
| 03-30-18 08:22am - 2366 days | #318 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Fake news: This opinion piece is obviously slanted against President Trump's fine pick for National Security Advisor. Read the opinion piece with an open mind. Are you in favor of a safe, pro-active United States of America? Then give John Bolton your full support. Here's a perfect strategy for Trump, right out of The Art of the Deal: Invite the leader of North Korea for peace talks to Washington, D.C. While he is in Washington, D.C., arrest him as a terrorist. Then bomb the hell out of North Korea, which is one of the biggest threats to the US. Then waterboard the bastard until he confesses his plans. Trump will zoom in the polls, for his cunning and strength. ------- ------- https://www.crisisgroup.org/united-state...nal-security-advisor Stephen Pomper Program Director, United States President Trump’s announcement that John Bolton would become his third national security advisor hit foreign policy circles like a minor earthquake last week. Bolton had long been rumoured to be waiting in the wings to take over from H.R. McMaster, who clashed both with the president and with powerful principals like Secretary of Defense James Mattis, but the reality was still bracing for anyone familiar with Bolton’s long and controversial professional history. Bolton, of course, gained notoriety in the George W. Bush administration where he advocated for the disastrous Iraq war and generated such a toxic reputation for twisting intelligence and abusing subordinates at the State Department that a Republican-controlled Senate declined to confirm him as U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations. He ultimately received a recess appointment, and during his brief tenure representing the United States at the United Nations appeared particularly to relish his run-ins with U.S. allies. Even fresher, though, is the profile Bolton has gained in recent years as a media commentator. The term “bomb thrower” has rarely seemed more apt. Indeed, Bolton’s 2015 New York Times op-ed on how to arrest Iran’s nuclear program ran under the title “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran”. And Bolton did not just fix his sights on Iran. He beat the war drums if anything louder when it came to North Korea. In September, he told Fox News that “the only diplomatic option left is to end the North Korean regime by effectively having the South take it over”. And in February, he penned an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal suggesting that North Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons already posed a sufficient threat to the United States to justify the use of military force – a logic that could be used to justify an attack by any country at any time on any nuclear weapons state, including the United States. " It is less than surprising that the Bolton announcement unleashed a wave of mainstream commentary that fell largely on a spectrum from worried to panicked. " Against this backdrop, it is less than surprising that the Bolton announcement unleashed a wave of mainstream commentary that fell largely on a spectrum from worried to panicked, though Bolton got some equally predictable support from pro-Trump editorial pages and broadcast outlets. Still, amid the flurry of handwringing, a number of thoughtful commentators emerged to offer deeper and more textured pictures of Bolton, and share a more sanguine perspective on his appointment. Unfortunately, these contrarian arguments fail to wrestle with what is most alarming about Bolton’s past conduct, and only reinforce the burden that will soon fall on people and institutions outside the executive branch – Congress especially – to help steer the country away from the risk of calamitous war. Consider, for example, the following arguments: Bolton is smart, deep, and complex. Start with David Bosco’s useful glimpses into Bolton as a highly intelligent individual with sophisticated views about the United Nations, international law, and great power dynamics who had some significant achievements in multilateral diplomacy. These observations are all fair enough, but unfortunately, none of them answers the core concerns that have been raised about Bolton over the years. Those concerns tend to be less about intellectual ability, or even the capacity to play against type, and more about character and temperament. The record from Bolton’s Bush-era tenure at the State Department is especially damning in this respect, suggesting that he bullied subordinates, sought to have analysts reassigned when they disagreed with him, and developed stratagems for sneaking exaggerated claims about threats emanating from places like Syria and Cuba into official statements. Others called him out on at least some of his transgressions, but he was more junior then. Who will perform this role when he is the national security advisor and answers only to the president? " There is a line between deterrence and aggression, and it is not at all clear which side of it Bolton will land on. " Bolton’s hawkishness will help deter North Korea. Writing in the National Review, David French offers an alternate perspective. He seeks to make a virtue of Bolton’s hawkishness toward North Korea, arguing that bellicosity can have a useful deterrent effect. Certainly, there can be no objection to the United States letting its adversaries know that it will return fire with withering fire. That is the essence of deterrence. But Bolton’s threats against North Korea go beyond deterrence. Bolton has threatened “pre-emptive war” (as though a war that would claim, at minimum, tens of thousands of lives, can appropriately be called “pre-emptive”) and he has called for regime change. Not only that, he has a record that suggests he is serious. It is hard to identify another U.S. foreign policy figure of his prominence who has called so consistently and unabashedly for regime change in so many countries (Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran, and Iraq to name five), while refusing to recognise the Iraq intervention for the disaster it was. Put another way, there is a line between deterrence and aggression, and it is not at all clear which side of it Bolton will land on. The Trump administration has been sabre-rattling for months already and it has worked. This brings us finally to Stephen Hadley, who served as national security advisor in George W. Bush’s second term, and who over the weekend offered a different take on Bolton’s hawkishness. Hadley sought to calm the waters by noting that Bolton cannot himself start a war – only the president can – and also defended the Trump administration’s overall approach to the peninsula by observing that “rattling of the sword with respect to North Korea” had helped persuade China that the status quo was not sustainable. Perhaps, but the problem with brinksmanship is that over time it grows stale. The longer a country makes threats without taking action, the greater the risk that those threats will appear empty. Bolton will be coming in after a year of sabre-rattling and will almost certainly feel the need to up the ante. Perhaps he will do that by asking the Department of Defense to produce new strike plans. Perhaps he will do it by seeking a State Department legal opinion that backs up the tendentious theory he offered in the Wall Street Journal. Perhaps he will expand on the veiled threat he is already made that if the upcoming summit fails to meet unrealistic expectations for denuclearisation then the parties will be on a fast-track to war. Any one of these steps would inch the parties closer to the brink of actual war by making it that much easier for an undisciplined president to make a decision that could literally plunge the world into conflict. Taken together, these arguments offer little if any counterweight to the more alarmist literature about Bolton’s appointment and only underscore the conclusion that this was a genuinely dangerous pick. Unfortunately, there are few senior administration officials – perhaps only James Mattis – with the inclination and the gravitas to check him as he steers U.S. policy toward increasingly perilous waters. The answer, then, must lie with Congress. High-profile Senate Republicans who have already expressed concern about the administration’s approach to North Korea – for example, Corker, Sullivan, and Cornyn – are in a particularly strong place to make a difference. A good first step would be to hold public hearings that highlight the unthinkable humanitarian and economic costs of conflict. Another would be to put down the firmest possible legislative marker that military action other than to defend a genuine armed attack or imminent threat is both illegitimate and unlawful. Those who are inclined to wait and see how Bolton performs in the job should think again. His words and his record are more than clear. There are no other reliable guardrails. It is time for Congress to step up. | |
|
||
| 03-30-18 09:14am - 2365 days | #319 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Fake news: Trump hates Amazon. (Maybe because Jeff Bezos has more money than Trump has.) Trump attacks Amazon for using the United States Post Office. Maybe Trump should shut down Amazon, causing tremendous losses for Jeff Bezos. And maybe Trump should shut down the USPS, for losing money. After all, Trump is a famous businessman. Whose businesses have often used bankruptcy. So why not force the USPS into bankruptcy? And stop it from losing money? People should stop mocking President Trump. He is the President. No matter how many stupid mistakes he might make. No matter how much he might lie and steal. Until he is tried and found guilty for criminal activity, he is an innocent man. ------ ------ Politics Donald Trump Gets Mocked After Showing He Really Doesn’t Know What The Post Office Does HuffPost Ed Mazza,HuffPost 7 hours ago President Donald Trump on Thursday returned to one of his favorite targets, President Donald Trump on Thursday returned to one of his favorite targets, attacking online retail giant Amazon over taxes, its effect on brick-and-mortar stores and one other thing that caused some head-scratching. Trump said Amazon uses “our Postal System as their Delivery Boy.” That has people wondering: Isn’t the United States Postal Service supposed to be in the delivery business? It’s in their mission: “The Postal Service mission is to provide a reliable, efficient, trusted and affordable universal delivery service that connects people and helps businesses grow.” The USPS says on its website that it’s “the only delivery service that reaches every address in the nation,” and notes that it delivers 47 percent of the world’s mail. Trump seems to imply that the company’s heavy use of the USPS is, as he tweeted, “causing tremendous loss to the U.S.” While the USPS has for years been losing money, including a $2.7 billion net loss for the 2017 fiscal year, package delivery is one of the few bright spots. “That’s actually the solution right now,” former Postmaster General Jack Potter told The Wall Street Journal. “It’s well justified that they deliver those packages, and they make money on it.” While Trump has attacked Amazon for its use of the USPS before, its contract by law is reviewed and has to be profitable, CBS News notes. That has people wondering what, exactly, is wrong with Amazon using the USPS as a “delivery boy.” This article originally appeared on HuffPost. | |
|
||
| 03-30-18 10:00am - 2365 days | #320 | |
|
Jade1 (0)
Active User Posts: 103 Registered: Mar 28, '18 |
O....k  | |
|
||
| 03-30-18 11:31am - 2365 days | #321 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that Donald Trump is not a nice man. And that he picks people to serve who use their office for their own gain. And that are mainly not qualified to serve. And that Trump is not qualified to serve. Many people believe that Trump's administration is on track to become the most corrupt in US history. No joke. Not fake news. | |
|
||
| 03-30-18 11:38am - 2365 days | #322 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
The Washington Post Democracy Dies in Darkness The Plum Line Opinion The Trump presidency: On track to becoming the most corrupt in U.S. history? by Paul Waldman January 16, 2018 (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post) Is Donald Trump the most corrupt president in American history? We may not be able to give him that title quite yet — after all, he’s only been president for a year. But he sure is working hard at it. In the endless outpouring of craziness emerging from this administration, where allegations that the president of the United States paid a porn star $130,000 in hush money to keep quiet about an adulterous affair get almost no media attention, you may have missed some recent stories that go to the heart of the conduct of Trump and his administration. So let’s round them up: A report out today from Public Citizen details how foreign governments, corporations and trade associations have been patronizing Trump’s properties since he took office. You might say, “Well there’s not necessarily any quid pro quo there,” which is true. But it’s also true that everyone knows that Trump is a man of uncommon greed and pettiness, and if you’re coming to Washington or holding an event, you might as well line Trump’s pockets while you do it, whether you’re the government of Saudi Arabia or the American Petroleum Institute, as a gesture of good will that might pay off later. As an Asian diplomat told The Post right after the election, “Why wouldn’t I stay at his hotel blocks from the White House, so I can tell the new president, ‘I love your new hotel!’ Isn’t it rude to come to his city and say, ‘I am staying at your competitor’?” A review by BuzzFeed of all Trump Organization condominium sales since the 1980s shows that 1,300 sales totaling $1.5 billion were made in cash by anonymous shell companies. “Those two characteristics signal that a buyer may be laundering money, the Treasury Department has said in a series of statements since 2016.” According to an investigation by USA Today, “President Trump’s companies sold more than $35 million in real estate in 2017, mostly to secretive shell companies that obscure buyers’ identities.” The use of these shell companies exploded once Trump became the Republican nominee for president. “In the two years before the nomination, 4 percent of Trump buyers utilized the tactic. In the year after, the rate skyrocketed to about 70 percent.” Eric Trump has repeatedly claimed that his foundation, recently rechristened “Curetivity,” is able to hold fundraising events at Trump properties for free, but as the Daily Beast reports, this is false. In 2016, Curetivity paid Trump properties nearly $150,000, meaning that if you went to a charity golf tournament the group held, part of your tax-deductible contribution went into the president’s bank account. McClatchy reports that foreign governments in places such as Indonesia and Panama have suddenly become eager to accommodate Trump properties, doing things like building roads and sewer systems to maximize the value of a property. “And in other countries, governments have donated public land, approved permits and eased environmental regulations for Trump-branded developments, creating a slew of potential conflicts as foreign leaders make investments that can be seen as gifts or attempts to gain access to the American president through his sprawling business empire.” That’s just what’s been reported in the past two weeks. Read These Comments newsletter The best conversations on The Washington Post At this point we should say that there are a variety of activities that might go under the heading of “corruption.” We used to refer to it as graft — using the offices of government for financial gain, whether through bribery or other means — but it doesn’t stop there. Actions can be corrupt even if they’re legal, and we also talk about corruption in a broader sense that encompasses non-financial wrongdoing as well. Many would consider Richard Nixon the most corrupt president in history, but his most serious crimes didn’t involve lining his pockets. He twisted the apparatus of government to his own personal ends, ends that were often about self-protection. 3:14 Manila Trump partner still touting ties to U.S. president A Trump real estate project illustrates the questions that can arise about the intersection of President Trump’s business interests and his work as president. (Video: Bastien Inzaurralde/Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post) What distinguishes Trump from all his predecessors is the fact that he barely conceals his intentions. After a lifetime spent not only manipulating the economic, legal, and political systems to increase his wealth but publicly bragging about his ability to do so, there was little doubt that he’s continue in the same vein as president. He refused to divest himself from his businesses, then held a press conference standing next to piles of what were almost certainly stacks of blank paper inside blank folders that he claimed were the “documents” he had to sign to effect the transfer of those businesses to his sons. But as the director of revenue management for the Trump Hotel in Washington wrote to an acquaintance in an email obtained by the Daily Beast, “DJT is supposed to be out of the business and passed on to his sons, but he’s definitely still involved.” This too surprises no one. That’s not to mention that the Republican tax bill could barely have been designed better to maximize the benefits to Trump himself, particularly the dramatic cut in taxes on “pass-through” companies, which will be worth many millions of dollars to the president, because the Trump Organization is essentially a collection of hundreds of pass-throughs. Of course, we don’t know exactly how much he’ll gain, because unlike every other president and presidential candidate in decades, Trump continues to refuse to release his tax returns. This despite the fact that there is no president in history whose finances are in more urgent need of public examination. Even if we don’t know all the details, we know that Trump and his family are making out like bandits. And we know that he has set a tone that those below him will take to heart, one that says conflicts of interest are no big deal, ethics are for losers, and you should grab what you can. As historian Robert Dallek put it last November: “Like Nixon, Trump has created a culture in his administration in which people feel comfortable with corruption. Trump himself has shown a complete indifference to democratic norms, to rule of law, and that sends a pretty clear signal to the people beneath him.” So it’s no accident that, for instance, one Cabinet member after another seems to think that flying commercial is for suckers. And I promise you, before this presidency is over we will hear many more stories of underlings who figured that there are no more rules and their time in government is a great time to get rich. Before Trump came along, the idea that any president of either party would use the presidency as a nonstop business opportunity was almost too absurd to contemplate. Now most people find it barely worthy of getting upset about, especially when there’s so much else going on. But if the Democrats take back one or both houses of Congress in the fall, they should make investigating the corruption of President Trump and this administration a top priority. Only if it’s exposed and there are consequences can we reinstate the norm that presidents ought to have a higher motivation than using the Oval Office to make themselves richer. Paul Waldman is a contributor to The Plum Line blog, and a senior writer at The American Prospect. | |
|
||
| 03-30-18 12:18pm - 2365 days | #323 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Politics as usual: US Attorney General Sessions is head of Justice Department. He is working with an investigation into the FBI and Justice Department for any wrongdoings. As head of the Justice Department, Sessions should be investigated for any crimes committed under his leadership. Maybe now would be a good time to fire Sessions, until the public has confidence in the integrity of the Justice Department. Donald Trump, do not hesitate to fire a man who might have committed crimes. You know your sworn duty. You were elected on campaign promises to clean the swamp in Washington. Start cleaning. ---------- ---------- Politics U.S. prosecutor reviewing Republican complaints against FBI: Sessions Reuters By Sarah N. Lynch,Reuters 20 hours ago By Sarah N. Lynch WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions revealed that Utah's top federal prosecutor is investigating a variety of Republican allegations of misconduct at the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation, according to a letter to lawmakers released on Thursday. However, Sessions stopped short of appointing a second special counsel, despite repeated requests by Republican lawmakers to do so, saying he wanted to wait for the results of the review from John Huber, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah. Democrats in Congress have repeatedly criticized Republican requests for a special counsel, saying they are merely a tactic to distract from and undermine Special Counsel Robert Mueller's ongoing probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Huber's review covers a wide range of issues that Republicans have complained about since last year, from how the FBI handled investigations related to Hillary Clinton, to claims that the FBI made missteps when it sought a warrant to conduct surveillance on a former adviser to Donald Trump's 2016 election campaign. Sessions' announcement on Huber comes just one day after the Justice Department's inspector general revealed that he too would be reviewing whether the FBI and Justice Department followed the law when they applied for the surveillance warrant on Carter Page, who briefly served as a national security adviser to Trump's campaign. A Justice Department spokesman said Huber first began investigating various claims in the fall of 2017. "Mr. Huber is conducting his work from outside the Washington, D.C. area and in cooperation with the inspector general," Sessions wrote to Senator Charles Grassley, Congressman Bob Goodlatte and Congressman Trey Gowdy, who all chair committees that are conducting probes into alleged FBI abuses. He added: "I receive regular updates from Mr. Huber and upon the conclusion of his review, will receive recommendations as to whether ... any matters merit the appointment of a Special Counsel." (Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch; editing by Grant McCool and Tom Brown) | |
|
||
| 03-30-18 12:44pm - 2365 days | #324 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Donald Trump would have handled this better. The police shot and killed an unarmed Stephon Clark. They fired 20 times. If Trump had been chasing the suspect, he would not have needed a gun. However, as a superb marksman, if Trump fired 20 times, all 20 bullets would have been instantly fatal. The actual police only hit the suspect 8 times, out of 20 shots fired. Trump would have done it differently. He would have instructed the suspect to stop running and face him, then shot the suspect from the front. Shooting someone in the back is usually considered cowardly. Especially if they are unarmed. Omalu (the doctor who did a private autopsy on Clark) said that Clark “was not facing the officers” when he was killed. Benjamin Crump, an attorney for Clark’s family who spoke before Omalu on Friday, said the autopsy findings contradicted the police narrative of Clark’s death. Six of the eight shots struck Clark in the back, while a seventh bullet hit him “slightly to the side of his body, but to the back of the side,” Omalu said. ---------- ---------- The Washington Post Democracy Dies in Darkness Post Nation Stephon Clark was shot eight times, mostly in his back, according to autopsy requested by his family by Mark Berman March 30 at 3:07 PM How the Stephon Clark shooting unfolded Body camera and helicopter footage provides more information of the night Sacramento police shot and killed Stephon Clark, an unarmed father of two. (Joyce Koh/The Washington Post) Stephon Clark, the unarmed 22-year-old killed by Sacramento police officers earlier this month, was shot eight times, with most of the bullets hitting him in the back, according to an independent autopsy requested by his family’s attorneys. Bullets struck Clark in the neck, back and thigh, breaking bones and piercing his lung, said Bennet Omalu, a forensic pathologist. The bullets combined to make Clark “bleed massively,” Omalu said. “His death wasn’t instantaneous,” Omalu, who is best known for his role in highlighting concussive damage to football players, said at a news conference Friday. Instead, Omalu said, “Death took about three to 10 minutes.” Omalu announced his findings amid continuing public anger over Clark’s death. A day earlier, hundreds of mourners gathered to grieve for Clark at an emotional funeral that alluded to the tensions lingering in the community. Clark, a black man and a father of two, was fatally shot on March 18 by Sacramento police officers. Police in the California capital said they were responding that night to a call about someone breaking into vehicles. The shooting was captured on footage recorded by body cameras and a helicopter video. This footage showed Clark running to the back yard of his grandmother’s house, where officers fired 20 times at him. Officials have not said how many times they believe Clark was struck. The officers said they fired thinking Clark had a gun, but police have since said he was holding only an iPhone. Omalu said that Clark “was not facing the officers” when he was killed. Benjamin Crump, an attorney for Clark’s family who spoke before Omalu on Friday, said the autopsy findings contradicted the police narrative of Clark’s death. Police did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the autopsy findings or Crump’s comment Friday. Six of the eight shots struck Clark in the back, while a seventh bullet hit him “slightly to the side of his body, but to the back of the side,” Omalu said. [ Sharpton joins hundreds of mourners to demand justice for Stephon Clark amid outrage over fatal police shooting ] “You could reasonably conclude that he received seven gunshot wounds from his back,” said Omalu, who conducted his autopsy on Tuesday and finished his report Wednesday. Omalu said all seven of these bullets could have been fatal on their own. An eighth bullet that struck Clark in the thigh suggested that the 22-year-old “was either on the ground or falling close to the ground” when that shot hit him, Omalu said. While he spoke, Omalu pointed to a diagram of the autopsy findings, which showed that most of the bullets struck Clark on the right side of his body, including one that appeared to hit him near his armpit. Omalu’s news conference served as a grim reminder of the devastation gunfire can wreak upon the human body. A bullet that struck Clark’s right arm shattered his bone “into tiny bits,” Omalu said. Another injured his spinal cord; others “perforated” his chest cavity and lungs, he said. The Sacramento County Coroner’s Office did not immediately respond to a message seeking details on Clark’s autopsy earlier Friday. County records showed only the date of Clark’s death and described him as a 22-year-old black man. [ ‘Our city is hurting’: Protesters swarm downtown Sacramento following deadly police shooting ] Clark is one of at least 269 people fatally shot by police so far this year, according to The Washington Post’s database tracking such deaths. Since The Post began to track these shootings in January 2015, the Sacramento police have fatally shot six people. Including Clark, five of the six have been black men. The release of the video footage capturing Clark’s death has given way to repeated protests in Sacramento. Demonstrators have blocked fans from entering NBA games, marched on the city’s streets and gathered Tuesday night at a City Council meeting to protest. Stevonte Clark, wearing a shirt with his brother’s face on it, sat at the council’s dais during the meeting and chanted his brother’s name. Mayor Darrell Steinberg, in an interview the following day, said he was “extremely conscious” of the concerns many have expressed regarding police accountability in recent years. “There is deep pain and anguish” in Sacramento, he said. “It’s our job to bear some of that pain, and to help translate the anguish and grieving and the historic pain [of black communities] into tangible and real change.” Mourners hug before funeral services for Stephon Clark on Thursday. (Jeff Chiu/AP) Clark’s relatives and civil rights leaders have called for full transparency in the investigation into his death as well as charges for the two officers involved. Just under 1,000 people are shot and killed by police officers each year, according to The Post’s database. Just a handful of those shootings each year lead to criminal charges, and convictions are even more rare, which has prompted intense criticism from civil rights activists across the country. The Sacramento police department is conducting an investigation into Clark’s death, while the Sacramento County district attorney’s office is also conducting its own review. Earlier this week, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) and Sacramento Police Chief Daniel Hahn announced that the state Department of Justice would provide independent oversight of the police investigation into the shooting. [ ESSAY: Police are still killing black people. Why isn’t it news anymore? ] That announcement came the same day that Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry said his office would not pursue criminal charges against two Baton Rouge police officers who fatally shot Alton Sterling in 2016, one of many that have prompted intense protests nationwide in recent years. Hahn said he had confidence in his department’s ability to investigate the shooting but felt that, given “the extremely high emotions, anger and hurt in our city,” it was best for the community and the police force alike to have the state step in. “Our city is at a critical point right now, and I believe this will … help build faith and confidence in the investigation from our community,” Hahn said. Alex Horton contributed to this report, which was first published at 2:17 p.m. and has been updated. Edited on Mar 30, 2018, 12:48pm | |
|
||
| 03-30-18 03:32pm - 2365 days | #325 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Trump ran on a campaign promise to reduce the corruption in Washington. As an honorable man, would he allow appointees to engage in unethical behavior? Of course he would not. Here's an article which suggests that Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA, might have broken the law. That means, if true, that he is a criminal. Trump will have to look into the matter, and decide if he has to fire the EPA head. But not to worry: Trump loves to say "You're fired" to his appointees. --------- --------- Good Morning America EXCLUSIVE: Pruitt's EPA security broke down door to lobbyist condo Good Morning America MATTHEW MOSK, JOHN SANTUCCI and STEPHANIE EBBS,Good Morning America 21 minutes ago Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt’s protective detail broke down the door at the Capitol Hill condo where he was living, believing he was unconscious and unresponsive and needed rescue, in a bizarre incident last year that the EPA has for months refused to discuss, according to sources and police radio traffic obtained by ABC News. The incident occurred in the late afternoon on March 29, 2017 at the Capitol Hill address Pruitt was renting, which was co-owned by the wife of a top energy lobbyist. A Capitol Police officer called 911 at the behest of Pruitt’s security detail, which had tried unsuccessfully to reach him by phone, and by banging on the building’s front door, according to police recordings obtained by ABC News. “They say he’s unconscious at this time,” the 911 operator is told, according to the recordings. “I don’t know about the breathing portion.” Credit: Washington D.C. Office of Unified Communications Responding fire units from a Capitol Hill station house mobilized. “Engine three, Medic two respond to unconscious person,” the radio transmission said. The protective detail then broke down the building’s glass-paneled front door and ascended two flights to Pruitt’s $50-a-night bedroom, where two sources tell ABC News he was found groggy, rising from a nap. It is unclear what led to the panic that caused the response. Pruitt declined medical attention, and a police report was never filed. The EPA eventually agreed to reimburse the condo owner for the damage to the door, a source familiar with the arrangement told ABC News. EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox did not respond to requests for information on the incident or the reimbursement payments. The previously unreported incident occurred while Pruitt was living at Capitol Hill condo co-owned by the wife of a top energy lobbyist. Vicki Hart and her husband, lobbyist, J. Steven Hart, both confirmed the events, but neither would say how much the damage to the door cost to repair. The EPA has since reimbursed Pruitt's former landlord, Vicki Hart, for the cost of the door. ABC News first reported Thursday that Pruitt had lived in the condo in 2017, during his first six months in Washington. The condo is in a prime location – less than a block from the U.S. Capitol complex – and other apartments in the building complex have rented for as much as $5,000-a-month, according to a source familiar with a neighboring lease. The EPA allowed Bloomberg News to review copies of canceled checks that Pruitt paid to the condo owner. The news outlet reported that the checks show varying amounts paid on sporadic dates -- not a traditional monthly "rent payment" of the same amount each month, according to Bloomberg. In all, Pruitt paid $6,100 over six months to the limited liability corporation for the Capitol Hill condo co-owned by Vicki Hart, whose husband J. Steven Hart is chairman of a top D.C. lobbying firm and who is registered to lobby for several major environmental and energy concerns. Two sources told ABC News that Pruitt’s daughter also used the apartment in 2017 during her tenure as a White House summer intern. “The rental agreement was with Scott Pruitt,” Vicki Hart told ABC News. “If other people were using the bedroom or the living quarters, I was never told, and I never gave him permission to do that.” The EPA did not respond to requests for comment or clarification on the living arrangement with Pruitt’s daughter. McKenna Pruitt, now a law student, could not be reached by phone or email. PHOTO: Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt attends a meeting with state and local officials in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., Feb. 12, 2018. (Carolyn Kaster/AP, FILE) Wilcox released a statement from EPA Senior Counsel for Ethics Justina Fugh Friday, saying she did not “conclude that this is a prohibited gift at all. It was a routine business transaction and permissible even if from a personal friend.” Wilcox did not say when Fugh reviewed the matter or what led her to look into it. Bryson Morgan, who is in private practice and served as Investigative Counsel at the U.S. House of Representatives Office of Congressional Ethics, said he thought it raised red flags. “I think it certainly creates a perception problem, especially if Mr. Hart was seeking to influence the agency,” Morgan said. Gift rules prohibit executive branch employees from accepting items of value, Morgan said in an interview prior to the EPA’s release of the details. In addition to traditional gifts, those rules apply to favorable terms on a lease. EXCLUSIVE: EPA chief Pruitt joined by family in condo tied to lobbyist 'power couple' Pruitt arranged condo deal through energy lobbyist, source says Democrats want details of Pruitt’s DC condo tied to lobbyist 'power couple' “It’s not just if he is paying market rent,” Morgan said. “A short-term lease is expensive. Is he given the ability to end it any day? Is this an arrangement any other person could get on the open market? My assumption would be this situation does not involve the hallmarks of a specific fair market transaction,” he said in an interview conducted before the checks were revealed. The new disclosure comes as Democrats in Congress are demanding that Pruitt disclose to them more details about his 2017 use of the Capitol Hill home. U.S. Rep. Don Beyer, a Virginia Democrat, called on Pruitt to resign over his failure to disclose the rental deal tied to an energy lobbyist. “As he has done over and over again, he showed contempt for transparency, ethical guidelines, and the public interest,” Beyer said. “Pruitt must resign. If he refuses to do so he should be fired immediately.” Hart is the chairman of lobbying firm Williams and Jensen that lobbies on EPA policies like the Clean Air Act, according to its website. The firm also lobbied on issues related to the export of liquefied natural gas and represented Cheniere Energy Inc., which owned the only active Liquid Natural Gas export plant in the United States at the time. Pruitt traveled to Morocco last December and the EPA said in a press release that liquid natural gas exports were a topic of discussion during that trip. Last year, Cheniere Energy Inc. reported paying Hart’s firm $80,000. Hart’s firm specifically lobbied on “issues related to the export of liquefied natural gas (LNG), approval of LNG exports and export facilities.” The firm also lists on its website that it lobbies on other EPA policies like the Clean Air Act. Hart was registered with several companies to lobby on energy issues, but he told ABC News on Friday that he never contacted the EPA for clients. “I made no lobby contacts at the EPA in 2017 or 2018,” Hart said. The EPA did not respond to ABC News' questions about whether Hart's lobbying firm had any involvement in arranging meetings during Pruitt's trip to Morocco. Cheniere Energy spokeswoman Rachel Carmichel told ABC News the company ended its relationship with Hart’s firm in December 2017. The spokeswoman went on to say Cheniere was unaware of the relationship between Pruitt and the lobbyist and had not used Hart’s firm to have conversations with the EPA. Another lobbying client of Hart’s, the railroad Norfolk Southern, spent $160,000 last year on lobbying Congress on “issues affecting coal usage, oil production, and transportation, including EPA regulation.” Norfolk Southern also declined to comment when reached by ABC News. Craig Holman, an ethics specialist at Public Citizen, a non-partisan watchdog group, wrote to the EPA Inspector General Thursday to request an investigation into the rental arrangement. If the rental arrangement was anything other than a market rate deal, he wrote, “it would at least constitute a violation of the federal statutes and executive branch rules prohibiting gifts to covered officials from prohibited sources.” “Since Administrator Pruitt is already involved in allegations of accepting gifts of travel, the question arises whether a sense of entitlement may have led him to violate the gift rules on this rental arrangement as well,” Holman wrote. The head of the nonprofit watchdog group the Environmental Integrity Project and former EPA Director of Civil Enforcement Eric Shaffer called on the EPA's inspector general and Congress to look into the issue. “Does this explain why Pruitt flew to Morocco to pitch natural gas exports, which isn’t really an EPA concern?” Schaeffer wrote in a statement. The EPA inspector general's office is aware of the report, according to spokesman Jeff Lagda. The agency's inspector general is already looking into the cost of Pruitt's travel and whether the agency followed all proper procedures. | |
|
||
| 03-30-18 07:46pm - 2365 days | #326 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Like I said before, if President Trump had been on the scene, he would have handled it better. Instead of shooting the black man in the back 7 or 8 times, Trump would have ordered the black man to turn around, and shot him in the front. Or, Trump might have rushed the black man, and taken him down in man-to-man combat. Because I read that Trump does not need a gun to take down killers. (Except the black man was not a killer, and the black man was unarmed. Police at first said the black man had a weapon, a gun, a wrench, a tool of some sort: which turned out to be a cell phone. Cell phones can be dangerous, especially if you are around a policeman who has a gun.) ----- ----- Autopsy disputes police account of fatal Sacramento shooting Associated Press DON THOMPSON and SOPHIA BOLLAG,Associated Press 1 hour 16 minutes ago SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Sacramento police shot Stephon Clark seven times from behind, according to autopsy results released Friday by a pathologist hired by Clark's family, a finding that calls into question the department's assertion the 22-year-old black man was facing officers and moving toward them when he was killed. Dr. Bennet Omalu also determined Clark took three to 10 minutes to die. Police waited about five minutes before rendering medical aid. "The proposition that has been presented that he was assailing the officers, meaning he was facing the officers, is inconsistent with the prevailing forensic evidence," Omalu said at a news conference with family attorney Benjamin Crump. He said it was not clear if Clark would have survived had he gotten immediate medical attention. Sacramento police responded with a brief statement that said the department had not yet received an official autopsy report from the Sacramento County coroner's office. It said the coroner's death investigation is independent from the investigation being conducted by police and the state Department of Justice. A day after the March 18 shooting, police distributed a press release that said the officers who shot Clark "saw the suspect facing them, advance forward with his arms extended, and holding an object in his hands." Police video of the shooting doesn't clearly capture all that happened after Clark ran into his grandmother's backyard. He initially moved toward the officers, who are peeking out from behind a corner of the house, but it's not clear he's facing them or that he knows they are there when they open fire after shouting "gun, gun, gun." After 20 shots, officers call to him, apparently believing he might still be alive and armed. They eventually approach and find no gun, just a cellphone. The shooting has produced almost daily angry but peaceful protests in the downtown area of California's capital city. The autopsy heightened calls for justice and skepticism toward police among community activists. "Generally speaking, part of the outrage in the community is not only for this shooting but it's for all police shootings that are happening of unarmed people," said Dale Galipo, another Clark family lawyer. One of the big questions we all have to ask is: 'What do we need to do for these shooting to stop?'" Black Lives Matter Sacramento planned a protest Friday night outside City Hall and other actions were possible. "You'll probably see a little bit of everything," said Berry Accius, a community activist. "But that's not for me to say, it's for the people to decide." Gov. Jerry Brown issued his first statement on the situation Friday, calling it a tragic death that "raises a number of very serious questions and I support the California Attorney General's independent oversight of the investigation." Police were called to the South Sacramento neighborhood on March 18 after a neighbor reported someone was breaking car windows. A police helicopter identified a suspect, who ran as police on the ground gave chase. The helicopter video shows the two officers at the corner of Clark's grandmother's house and Clark on the backyard patio. He moves toward the officers' position as they peer around the corner and open fire. Clark staggers sideways and falls on his stomach as officers continue shooting. Omalu, whose study of a degenerative brain condition in football players prompted the NFL to adopt new safety rules designed to prevent concussions, said any of the six bullets that hit Clark in the back and one in the neck could have been the fatal shot. An eighth bullet went into Clark's thigh. The autopsy was released a day after an emotional funeral service. The Rev. Al Sharpton delivered the eulogy and praised demonstrators for their restraint and urged them to follow the lead of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and his advocacy of nonviolent protest. Later in the day, police in riot gear stood waiting outside the Golden 1 Center as fans wove through barricades and fencing to enter a Sacramento Kings-Indiana Pacers game. Twice since the shooting, demonstrators had blocked thousands of fans from entering the area. But protesters never came to the arena Thursday night, heeding calls from Clark's brother, Stevante Clark, and Black Lives Matter organizers to avoid the arena. Instead, they blocked rush hour traffic on nearby downtown streets. The Kings and their owner have supported the family. Players Vince Carter, Garrett Temple and Doug Christie, a retired player, plan to appear Friday night at a youth forum staged as part of a new partnership with the Build Black Coalition and Black Lives Matter Sacramento to increase education and workforce training for black youth. Former Kings player Matt Barnes attended the funeral and helped pay for it. Associated Press reporters Kathleen Ronayne and Haven Daley in Sacramento and John Antczak and Brian Melley in Los Angeles contributed. | |
|
||
| 03-30-18 09:52pm - 2365 days | #327 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Trump ethics in play: Did Trump have anything to do with this? No, obviously. But this is an example of the way the world works, according to Trump. By that, I mean: you would not believe the payoffs that happen in the real world. And who is paying for this? Taxpayers, usually. Because who pays to support universities, police departments, etc? Taxpayers. A football coach was fired from a university for covering up scandals. This was not only unethical, but criminal. So the coach is fired. But the university gives him $15.1 million after they fire him. Why? ----------- Report: Art Briles was paid $15.1 million by Baylor a month after firing By John TaylorMar 30, 2018, 9:29 PM EDT Even in the midst of one of the worst scandals in college football history, Art Briles still got paid. It had previously been reported that Briles and Baylor had reached on an agreement on a contract settlement, although the dollar amount involved wasn’t disclosed. Friday night, citing Baylor’s IRS filings, Chuck Carlton of the Dallas Morning News is reporting that, one month after Briles was fired as the university’s head football coach Memorial Day weekend of 2016, BU paid the disgraced head coach a $15.1 million settlement. That figure, as obscene as it is given the controversial nature of his departure, is actually a bargain for the university as Briles still had eight years and $39 million remaining on his contract when he was dismissed amidst a sexual assault scandal involving his Bears football program. In late January of 2017, damning details in one of the handful of the lawsuits facing the university emerged, with that suit alleging that 31 Bears football players had committed 52 acts of rape over a period of four years beginning in 2011. Not long after, a legal filing connected to the libel lawsuit filed by a former BU football staffer produced emails and text messages that paint a picture of Briles and/or his assistants as unrestrained rogue elements concerned with nothing more than the image of the football program off the field and its performance on it. The details in a damning document dump included allegations that Briles attempted to circumvent BU’s “judicial affairs folks” when it came to one player’s arrest… and on Briles asking, in response to one of his players brandishing a gun on a female, “she reporting [it] to authorities?”… and asking “she a stripper?” when told one of his players expected a little something extra from a female masseuse… and stating in a text “we need to know who [the] supervisor is and get him to alert us first” in response to a player who was arrested on a drug charge because the apartment superintendent called the police. In reference to a woman who alleged she was gang-raped by several Bears football players, Briles allegedly responded, “those are some bad dudes. Why was she around those guys?” While Briles parted ways with the program May 26, his termination wasn’t official until a month later. In a press release sent out on June 24 of 2016, Baylor announced that it and Briles “have mutually agreed to terminate their employment relationship.” In the release, the university mentions “[b]oth parties acknowledge that there were serious shortcomings in the response to reports of sexual violence by some student-athletes.” Still considered a pariah by many, Briles has not held a coaching job since that “mutual termination” nearly two years ago. In August of last year, it was reported that Lane Kiffin was informally using Briles to help him with his Florida Atlantic offense; the very next day, the FAU head coach very publicly stated Briles is “absolutely not a consultant” for his team. In September of last year, the Hamilton Tiger-Cats of the CFL raised eyebrows, among other things, when it announced that Briles had been hired as the team’s offensive coordinator; a few hours later, the team announced that “Briles will no longer be joining the Hamilton Tiger-Cats as a coach.” In January of this year, it was reported that Briles would be one of the guest speakers at the annual American Football Coaches Association Convention in Charlotte; the next day, following a wave of criticism over the impending appearance, the AFCA did a 180-degree turn and canceled Briles’ session with the coaches in attendance. | |
|
||
| 03-31-18 12:17am - 2365 days | #328 | |
|
Jade1 (0)
Active User Posts: 103 Registered: Mar 28, '18 |
lk2fireone: https://giphy.com/embed/l3q2sbWxP4hJR7qww | |
|
||
| 03-31-18 04:01am - 2365 days | #329 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
@Jade1, very true. I've tried to stay away from the thread, but keep coming back. My hope is that I will overcome my obsession, and move on with my life. I would almost certainly be happier if I could ignore Trump completely.  | |
|
||
| 03-31-18 02:54pm - 2364 days | #330 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
It's quite hard for people who care about our country and it's future to see what's going on in Washington DC and not despair. For decades both parties have squandered chances to fix a lot of deep systemic problems in the country. It's not government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" anymore. "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 03-31-18 10:04pm - 2364 days | #331 | |
|
Jade1 (0)
Active User Posts: 103 Registered: Mar 28, '18 |
What's causing your despair, the budget? Edited on Mar 31, 2018, 10:30pm | |
|
||
| 04-03-18 09:04pm - 2361 days | #332 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
I'm more in despair about the dissolution of our institutions under the Trump administration. Not to mention that many of his policies are poorly considered and will hurt me, my family, my community, and the country. "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 04-03-18 09:20pm - 2361 days | #333 | |
|
Jade1 (0)
Active User Posts: 103 Registered: Mar 28, '18 |
What institutions are newly decomposing? Western values and marriage come to my mind when I think of decomposing institutions but that's not a new thing under Trump so you must mean something else that just happened since he was elected. What are you referring to? Can you specify what these policies are and how they are hurting you? | |
|
||
| 04-04-18 07:52am - 2361 days | #334 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I think that too often Americans are either unwilling to see all the flaws in their Country or they simply aren't able to see them because their educational system has gone out of it's way to avoid pointing them out. Case in point the American Government. I'm sure that when Lincoln said those words. He meant them but the reality is that for that to happen. The people that are elected to office must take those words to heart and uphold the ideas they represent. The reality is that while many do. A large enough of people don't. Simply look at the movie Mr Smith Goes to Washington. That was a movie that is nearly 80 years old and the main concept is still true today than it was in 1939. In fact it is probably significantly worse today. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 04-04-18 08:43am - 2361 days | #335 | |
|
Jade1 (0)
Active User Posts: 103 Registered: Mar 28, '18 |
It's not the role of an educational system to decide what is, or is not a flaw within a country. People should be taught world history and to think for themselves. The US is composed of flawed people like everywhere else on earth. But people make the mistake of comparing it to some non-existent utopia instead of comparing it to the reality everywhere else. People vote with their feet. You don't see people fleeing the US to live elsewhere. Everyone is always trying to get in. There's a reason for that. | |
|
||
| 04-05-18 01:53pm - 2359 days | #336 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
Several highly skilled, intelligent people I know have emigrated from the United States, mostly to the UK or Australia, but also Singapore and New Zealand. They were disgusted by the ignorance and superstition that largely infects American culture. Other of my friends are in the process of looking to move abroad. "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 04-05-18 03:37pm - 2359 days | #337 | |
|
Jade1 (0)
Active User Posts: 103 Registered: Mar 28, '18 |
Several intelligent and highly skilled people I know think they are cats/fairies/otherkins. | |
|
||
| 04-05-18 04:56pm - 2359 days | #338 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
I sincerely doubt the intelligence of anyone who considers themselves a cat/fairy/otherkin. It's kind of magical wish thinking, which tends to be the opposite of reason. My friends who emigrated looked at the United States and other countries, and decided that the opportunities or cultures or societies that they moved to better served their interests. They weighed a lot of issues, and decided that living abroad was the best decision. "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 04-05-18 05:56pm - 2359 days | #339 | |
|
Jade1 (0)
Active User Posts: 103 Registered: Mar 28, '18 |
Sanity and intelligence don't necessarily go hand in hand. Edited on Apr 05, 2018, 06:11pm | |
|
||
| 04-05-18 08:15pm - 2359 days | #340 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
Almost said the same thing myself, Jade1.  "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 04-08-18 09:41pm - 2356 days | #341 | |
|
Jade1 (0)
Active User Posts: 103 Registered: Mar 28, '18 |
Excellent. I can totally understand anyone who wanted to flee the insanity that is California. | |
|
||
| 04-08-18 11:32pm - 2356 days | #342 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
I agree. Let's all move to New York, as soon as Donald Trump opens the Trump Tower (and any of his other hotels) to low-cost housing. After all, didn't President Trump say recently that his EPA chief, Scott Pruitt, was paying market rates for the condo he was renting, at $50 a night? Not only President Trump, but the EPA agency, said that $50 per night was a reasonable price to pay. With assurances like these, I figure I should be able to get affordable housing at Trump Towers (or whatever they are named), because Trump is a man who loves everyone, and wants to help us out with the best deals possible. That reminds me of the lawyer for Trump's personal lawyer. The lawyer said on national TV that when Trump's personal lawyer offered to gut some TV host because of negative remarks she made about Trump, Trump's lawyer was only offering helpful advise. So the TV host replied that was bullshit. She had to hire personal protection after getting death threats from Trump fans. I love the way Trump and his allies use words: the truth shines through.  | |
|
||
| 04-08-18 11:40pm - 2356 days | #343 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Ms. Bowman said the criticism was unjustified, saying that Mr. Pruitt paid what one E.P.A. official called a “market value” rent. However, an examination of Capitol Hill rentals suggests that rates typically are considerably higher and generally do not come with a provision, as Mr. Pruitt’s did, that the renter can pay for only the nights stayed at the condo. | |
|
||
| 04-09-18 01:08am - 2356 days | #344 | |
|
biker (0)
Active User  Posts: 632 Registered: May 03, '08 Location: milwaukee, wi |
Sadly this is only the tip of the iceberg for the crimes Mr. Pruitt committed. Check out his trip to Morocco on the taxpayer dime that had nothing to do with the EPA. Warning Will Robinson | |
|
||
| 04-09-18 01:46am - 2356 days | #345 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
My friends who emigrated did so to leave the United States, not just California. They could have moved to another state, but found those even less palatable than living here in California. California has a liberal reputation, but people in other states tend to ignore that the state is incredibly large and diverse with many different kinds of people in it. There are areas known for being incredibly conservative, and others for being incredibly liberal. And it was within my lifetime that California went from being a solidly Republican state (Nixon and Reagan were both governors of California after all) to one that is solidly Democratic. "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 04-09-18 05:11am - 2356 days | #346 | |
|
Jade1 (0)
Active User Posts: 103 Registered: Mar 28, '18 |
Believe me I know. I'm not sure a heavily in debt, barely functioning state like CA, with the worst quality of life in the country, can survive long term. It's suing itself, some wanting to follow Federal law and some wanting to be reckless and not. I think it will either split and/or the liberal portion collapse eventually. It's a fun business environment where no matter what a company does they are in violation of the law. Anyway, any place that will arrest a waiter for giving a non-solicited straw to a customer is nutso. Edited on Apr 09, 2018, 06:15am | |
|
||
| 04-09-18 12:55pm - 2355 days | #347 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
Wow, you really have a jaundiced view of California. It's not even remotely accurate. "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 04-09-18 01:36pm - 2355 days | #348 | |
|
Jade1 (0)
Active User Posts: 103 Registered: Mar 28, '18 |
Really... Lowest Quality of life? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati...ew-report/384853002/ Counties suing? http://ktla.com/2018/04/03/huntington-beach-city-council-moves-toward-suing-california-for-sanctuary-law/ http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-san-diego-sanctuary-state-20180329-story.html The straw law? https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/california-plastic-straw-law-serves-jail-time-to-restaurant-workers Its debt? https://californiapolicycenter.org/californias-total-state-local-debt-totals-1-3-trillion/ What's not remotely accurate? No one even wants to do business there if they can help it because it's often more trouble than its worth. It's got a nice climate, but that's about it. Edited on Apr 09, 2018, 01:49pm | |
|
||
| 04-09-18 01:49pm - 2355 days | #349 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
You could make similar arguments about any state. I could show tons of articles about bad policies that plague many states, but beating up on California is a Republican wet dream. It won't change hearts and minds. Besides I think that demonizing an entire state is unfair to the many people in that state who have little or no say about how they're governed. So go ahead and smear California all you want. It's a beautiful, diverse state. But that doesn't matter. It's a blue state, so that's all some people need to vent their hate. "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 04-09-18 02:06pm - 2355 days | #350 | |
|
Jade1 (0)
Active User Posts: 103 Registered: Mar 28, '18 |
Correct, it doesn't matter. Beauty and diversity is not protection against stupidity at the state level. Edited on Apr 09, 2018, 02:10pm | |
|
||
| 301-350 of 1629 Posts | < Previous Page | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Page 7 | 8 | 13 | 18 | 23 | 32 | 33 | Next Page > |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
