By David Ferguson
The Republican National Committee (RNC) tried to conceal payments it
made during the 2016 election to a shadowy intelligence-gathering firm
for opposition research against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.
Politico reported on Friday
that the RNC paid $41,500 to the Hamilton Trading Group, a
Virginia-based private company run by former CIA operatives. The agency
worked with a former Russian spy to hunt for information that would show
conflicts of interest between Clinton’s role as Secretary of State and
her interests as a private citizen and leader of the Clinton Foundation.
Observers in politics and intelligence noted that it would be odd for
the RNC to make payments to Hamilton Trading given that the group
specializes in matters pertaining to Russia.
“RNC officials and the president and co-founder of Hamilton Trading
Group, an ex-CIA officer named Ben Wickham, insisted the payments, which
eventually totaled $41,500, had nothing to do with Russia,” wrote
Politico’s Kenneth P. Vogel and Eli Stokols.
Wickham and the RNC initially claimed that the payments were in
return for building and security analyses of RNC headquarters in
Washington.
“But RNC officials now acknowledge that most of the cash — $34,100 — went towards intelligence-style reports
that sought to prove conflicts of interest between Democratic
presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State
and her family’s foundation,” Politico said.
HTG produced two dossiers, both of which attempted to make a case
that Clinton directed U.S. interventions in Bulgaria and Israel on
behalf of energy firms that donated to the Clinton Foundation, said
individuals familiar with the documents.
Wickham told Politico in a Thursday interview that he floated the
building inspection story because “any other work we may have done for
them” was covered under a nondisclosure agreement.
“I’m not denying that I wasn’t totally forthcoming, but I’m telling
you why,” Wickham told Politico.
“The security stuff that we did, which
is legitimate, was not covered by any kind of a confidentiality
agreement, so I can discuss that.”
Last June, when the RNC filed financial disclosures with the Federal
Elections Commission (FEC), a $3,400 payment to Hamilton attracted
attention because the firm is not known for building security
consultations, but rather for espionage work related to Russia.
“Adding to the intrigue are the firm’s intelligence connections in Russia, where it was known to perform background checks and provide security services for American officials and companies,” said Politico.
The job was handed to former KGB agent Gennady Vasilenko, who declined to comment on the matter.
Wickham denied that his firm looked into any connections
between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, saying he has
“never had any contact with … Trump or Manafort or their people.”
Politico said the RNC has produced documents detailing a list of
Clinton-related issues it tasked Hamilton Trading with researching.
He said that while his firm is not well-known for building security, it did an assessment for the RNC to protect against a “McVeigh-type” bombing attack or a gun-wielding intruder like the San Bernardino mass shooting.
“We certainly are not widely known, as we have always been a two- to
three-man company and have done little advertising,” Wickham said,
adding that the firm has done anti-terror security consultations for
Amtrak and the International Monetary Fund’s offices in Moscow.
Friday, March 24, 2017
The Russia Scandal Takes A Mind-Blowing Turn That Could Destroy The Republican Party
It wasn't Donald Trump alone who had ties to the Russians during the
2016 campaign. It turns out that the Republican National Committee used a
firm with ties to Russian intelligence to dig up dirt on Hillary
Clinton.
By Sarah Jones
This is truly mind-blowing.
Perhaps you’ve been wondering how establishment Republicans were so happy ignoring the looming treason scandal of their President. It very well could be because they, too, have something Russian to hide.
So it wasn’t Donald Trump alone who had ties to the Russians during the 2016 campaign. It turns out that the Republican National Committee used a firm with ties to Russian intelligence to dig up dirt on Hillary Clinton.
The RNC used former CIA officers’ firm the Hamilton Trading Group, which has “particular expertise” in Russia, to dig up dirt on Clinton according to a Politico report.
“RNC officials and the president and co-founder of Hamilton Trading Group, an ex-CIA officer named Ben Wickham, insisted the payments, which eventually totaled $41,500, had nothing to do with Russia,” Kenneth P. Vogel and Eli Stokols reported.
The RNC claimed the payments were for “security.”
“But RNC officials now acknowledge that most of the cash — $34,100 — went towards intelligence-style reports that sought to prove conflicts of interest between Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State and her family’s foundation.”
Oh.
So the RNC was perfectly comfortable working with a firm that raised eyebrows for its Russian connections, at a time when the intelligence community was telling them that Russia was interfering in the U.S. election.
To say this again, as Putin has bragged about information warfare as the new war, a major U.S. political party sided with a country that declared information warfare, or war if you will, on the U.S.A.
Yes, it is an act of war, it is meant to destroy western democracy in the end.
Russia uses “rigged polls and fake news to sway foreign elections,” the Wall Street Journal reported, on a dossier showing an example of how Russia operated in Bulgaria.
The entire Republican Party had strange ties to a government at war with this country, the country to which Republicans are supposed to be loyal.
Strange things are afloat. No wonder Congressional Republicans are doing everything they can to ignore the screaming treason of the White House. They are quite possibly in on it themselves.
If this scandal comes to a head, that is to say if the intelligence community turns on the Republican Party in an effort to force them to deal with the possible collusion with a hostile foreign power in the White House, the Russia scandal could bring down the Republican Party for a generation.
Republicans should be smart here; this will come out. They should get on the right side of history before it’s too late. Sadly, this party’s elected officials have shown little allegiance to their country.
What is going on here is a scandal that will go down in history. One of two major parties in the U.S. system working with a foreign power that has declared war on the U.S.A. That is not to say they colluded with Russia to bring the U.S. down, but they did work with them as Russia was attacking the election, an act of war. That much is in evidence.
The collusion evidence, the circumstantial collusion evidence, in this case could be as simple as Republicans knew Russians were attacking the U.S. elections when they worked with this firm with ties to Russian intelligence. To be clear, there is not public evidence of direct collusion in terms of quid pro quo right now. There is evidence that the RNC was deceptive about their connections with Russian intelligence in this regard, and that they had it during the campaign.
The fact that the head of the RNC at the time is now in the Trump White House is even more troubling, as Trump has hired people at all points whose contacts with the Russians during the election have already caused one of them to be fired and another to step down from overseeing an investigation into Trump’s ties to Russia.
This should now be amended to the Republican Party’s ties to Russia. Lucky for them, they are in power of both branches of government and trying to get their Supreme Court nominee in as the last gatekeeper in a checks and balances system. The only way this scandal is going to come out is through the intelligence community leaking to the press.
And that’s why Republicans are so outraged about leaks.
But this is not Republicans trying to protect our national security secrets. This is Republicans trying to make sure they cover up the fact that Russia has eyes and ears in the situation room, and has access to our national secrets because of Trump and the GOP.
It was true that going to the extremist corner they did, Republicans could not win a national election without cheating. They knew this, everyone knew this. So it was a shock when Donald Trump, the most extreme of the extreme, won.
But now, it’s not such a shock because it wasn’t won without cheating. It was won with the help of a hostile, aggressive government whose goal is to bring the U.S. down in order to kill the hope of democracy.
By Sarah Jones
This is truly mind-blowing.
Perhaps you’ve been wondering how establishment Republicans were so happy ignoring the looming treason scandal of their President. It very well could be because they, too, have something Russian to hide.
So it wasn’t Donald Trump alone who had ties to the Russians during the 2016 campaign. It turns out that the Republican National Committee used a firm with ties to Russian intelligence to dig up dirt on Hillary Clinton.
The RNC used former CIA officers’ firm the Hamilton Trading Group, which has “particular expertise” in Russia, to dig up dirt on Clinton according to a Politico report.
“RNC officials and the president and co-founder of Hamilton Trading Group, an ex-CIA officer named Ben Wickham, insisted the payments, which eventually totaled $41,500, had nothing to do with Russia,” Kenneth P. Vogel and Eli Stokols reported.
The RNC claimed the payments were for “security.”
“But RNC officials now acknowledge that most of the cash — $34,100 — went towards intelligence-style reports that sought to prove conflicts of interest between Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State and her family’s foundation.”
Oh.
So the RNC was perfectly comfortable working with a firm that raised eyebrows for its Russian connections, at a time when the intelligence community was telling them that Russia was interfering in the U.S. election.
To say this again, as Putin has bragged about information warfare as the new war, a major U.S. political party sided with a country that declared information warfare, or war if you will, on the U.S.A.
Yes, it is an act of war, it is meant to destroy western democracy in the end.
Russia uses “rigged polls and fake news to sway foreign elections,” the Wall Street Journal reported, on a dossier showing an example of how Russia operated in Bulgaria.
The entire Republican Party had strange ties to a government at war with this country, the country to which Republicans are supposed to be loyal.
Strange things are afloat. No wonder Congressional Republicans are doing everything they can to ignore the screaming treason of the White House. They are quite possibly in on it themselves.
If this scandal comes to a head, that is to say if the intelligence community turns on the Republican Party in an effort to force them to deal with the possible collusion with a hostile foreign power in the White House, the Russia scandal could bring down the Republican Party for a generation.
Republicans should be smart here; this will come out. They should get on the right side of history before it’s too late. Sadly, this party’s elected officials have shown little allegiance to their country.
What is going on here is a scandal that will go down in history. One of two major parties in the U.S. system working with a foreign power that has declared war on the U.S.A. That is not to say they colluded with Russia to bring the U.S. down, but they did work with them as Russia was attacking the election, an act of war. That much is in evidence.
The collusion evidence, the circumstantial collusion evidence, in this case could be as simple as Republicans knew Russians were attacking the U.S. elections when they worked with this firm with ties to Russian intelligence. To be clear, there is not public evidence of direct collusion in terms of quid pro quo right now. There is evidence that the RNC was deceptive about their connections with Russian intelligence in this regard, and that they had it during the campaign.
The fact that the head of the RNC at the time is now in the Trump White House is even more troubling, as Trump has hired people at all points whose contacts with the Russians during the election have already caused one of them to be fired and another to step down from overseeing an investigation into Trump’s ties to Russia.
This should now be amended to the Republican Party’s ties to Russia. Lucky for them, they are in power of both branches of government and trying to get their Supreme Court nominee in as the last gatekeeper in a checks and balances system. The only way this scandal is going to come out is through the intelligence community leaking to the press.
And that’s why Republicans are so outraged about leaks.
But this is not Republicans trying to protect our national security secrets. This is Republicans trying to make sure they cover up the fact that Russia has eyes and ears in the situation room, and has access to our national secrets because of Trump and the GOP.
It was true that going to the extremist corner they did, Republicans could not win a national election without cheating. They knew this, everyone knew this. So it was a shock when Donald Trump, the most extreme of the extreme, won.
But now, it’s not such a shock because it wasn’t won without cheating. It was won with the help of a hostile, aggressive government whose goal is to bring the U.S. down in order to kill the hope of democracy.
The Best Single Statement Ever On GOP "Healthcare" - Devastating
Dear Mom,
You won't comprehend this because you have Stage 6 Dementia, but things need to change. The nice congressmen in Washington want to free us from government dependency so we can make better healthcare choices without the stigma of taking handouts from society.
So, Mom, about your Medicaid Aged and Disabled Waiver that pays me a 40 hr/week pittance to care for you at home 24/7: the new HHS Secretary and Medicaid Chief sent our Governor a letter that says people on Medicaid should seek employment if they want to keep those benefits. This may sound unfair considering you're 89, bladder and bowel incontinent, unable to walk unassisted, and often lapse into episodes of uncontrollable whimpering, but if the government decides it's for the best, we'll all need to buck up and contribute our fair share. After all, your 50 year nursing career doesn't necessarily entitle you to a free ride.
I'll probably need to get a "real" job too, because I exploit the system. Never mind that your care would cost the state $78,000 annually in a nursing home versus the $16,000 it pays me; leave the math to those smart fellas in Washington who understand that big government should stop controlling our lives. The important thing is we'll have freedom to choose, and not impose an unfair tax burden on millionaires and the medical industrial complex.
Once I stop taking handouts, I won't be home with you. We should bolster the economy by hiring attendant care, but it costs more than I can earn, and Medicare won't cover it because those warmhearted legislators support family values like looking after our own. You'll enjoy being home alone all day, Mom. You don't really need regular meals or clean Depends, and when you have one of your falls, you can rest quietly on the floor in a puddle of urine until I get off work. Those dear congressmen give us other options, too, such as permanently placing you in a facility to die more quickly and efficiently. Here's another choice: I could stay home and attend you for free! We'll do fine on your Social Security income by sacrificing a few luxuries like groceries, property taxes, electricity, and the car.
There's a bonus, Mom. I won't be forced to maintain health insurance! Remember “Obamacare” that saved my life through early cancer screening? The Republicans devised a better plan. Because I'm over 50 and earn $150 per year above the Medicaid cutoff, my annual premium will increase by roughly $6,000, but I can choose to opt out! I'll still have "access” but not be victimized by the enslaving tax subsidy that let me afford coverage for the first time in 25 years. I'm excited about returning to indigent emergency room treatment and boosting insurance industry profits while taxpayers shoulder the cost instead.
With so many great options it's hard to decide, but here's our new plan, Mom. Under Trumpcare, I'll "choose" to lose health coverage, seek a minimum wage job, and dump you in a nursing home. Between the cost of facility care, a couple of ER visits and perhaps one minor surgery for me per year, and the food stamps and heating assistance I'll need once you and your Social Security income leave the household, I estimate we will save the government roughly NEGATIVE $350,000 over the next 5 years! Multiply that by the millions of people who will lose coverage, and you can appreciate what a sensible and economical plan the Republicans have devised.
You'll be proud to receive depersonalized institutional care instead of burdening society in comfort with your family. The facility gets your Social Security check, and Medicare/Medicaid will cover the balance until you hit the newly proposed block grant funding cap. If you're still alive then, we're unsure what will happen, but we can trust Congress to do what's right. I hear they're formulating a plan to ship the poor, elderly, and chronically ill to arctic ice floes. It's called “Trump Tower North: the Last Resort.” You might even get to see polar bears before they become extinct! Won't that be fun?
I'm so happy that the government wants to stop interfering in our lives.
Love,
Your Freeloading Daughter
P.S. Mom, if you do need a job to keep that Medicaid, I thought of a placement for someone who can't function productively, has no grasp of reality, and relies on government entitlements. 435 congressional seats will open up next year. You appear to be perfectly qualified.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/24/1646735/-Dear-Mom-About-your-50-year-nursing-career-Medicaid-Woman-s-post-will-blow-GOP-minds
You won't comprehend this because you have Stage 6 Dementia, but things need to change. The nice congressmen in Washington want to free us from government dependency so we can make better healthcare choices without the stigma of taking handouts from society.
So, Mom, about your Medicaid Aged and Disabled Waiver that pays me a 40 hr/week pittance to care for you at home 24/7: the new HHS Secretary and Medicaid Chief sent our Governor a letter that says people on Medicaid should seek employment if they want to keep those benefits. This may sound unfair considering you're 89, bladder and bowel incontinent, unable to walk unassisted, and often lapse into episodes of uncontrollable whimpering, but if the government decides it's for the best, we'll all need to buck up and contribute our fair share. After all, your 50 year nursing career doesn't necessarily entitle you to a free ride.
I'll probably need to get a "real" job too, because I exploit the system. Never mind that your care would cost the state $78,000 annually in a nursing home versus the $16,000 it pays me; leave the math to those smart fellas in Washington who understand that big government should stop controlling our lives. The important thing is we'll have freedom to choose, and not impose an unfair tax burden on millionaires and the medical industrial complex.
Once I stop taking handouts, I won't be home with you. We should bolster the economy by hiring attendant care, but it costs more than I can earn, and Medicare won't cover it because those warmhearted legislators support family values like looking after our own. You'll enjoy being home alone all day, Mom. You don't really need regular meals or clean Depends, and when you have one of your falls, you can rest quietly on the floor in a puddle of urine until I get off work. Those dear congressmen give us other options, too, such as permanently placing you in a facility to die more quickly and efficiently. Here's another choice: I could stay home and attend you for free! We'll do fine on your Social Security income by sacrificing a few luxuries like groceries, property taxes, electricity, and the car.
There's a bonus, Mom. I won't be forced to maintain health insurance! Remember “Obamacare” that saved my life through early cancer screening? The Republicans devised a better plan. Because I'm over 50 and earn $150 per year above the Medicaid cutoff, my annual premium will increase by roughly $6,000, but I can choose to opt out! I'll still have "access” but not be victimized by the enslaving tax subsidy that let me afford coverage for the first time in 25 years. I'm excited about returning to indigent emergency room treatment and boosting insurance industry profits while taxpayers shoulder the cost instead.
With so many great options it's hard to decide, but here's our new plan, Mom. Under Trumpcare, I'll "choose" to lose health coverage, seek a minimum wage job, and dump you in a nursing home. Between the cost of facility care, a couple of ER visits and perhaps one minor surgery for me per year, and the food stamps and heating assistance I'll need once you and your Social Security income leave the household, I estimate we will save the government roughly NEGATIVE $350,000 over the next 5 years! Multiply that by the millions of people who will lose coverage, and you can appreciate what a sensible and economical plan the Republicans have devised.
You'll be proud to receive depersonalized institutional care instead of burdening society in comfort with your family. The facility gets your Social Security check, and Medicare/Medicaid will cover the balance until you hit the newly proposed block grant funding cap. If you're still alive then, we're unsure what will happen, but we can trust Congress to do what's right. I hear they're formulating a plan to ship the poor, elderly, and chronically ill to arctic ice floes. It's called “Trump Tower North: the Last Resort.” You might even get to see polar bears before they become extinct! Won't that be fun?
I'm so happy that the government wants to stop interfering in our lives.
Love,
Your Freeloading Daughter
P.S. Mom, if you do need a job to keep that Medicaid, I thought of a placement for someone who can't function productively, has no grasp of reality, and relies on government entitlements. 435 congressional seats will open up next year. You appear to be perfectly qualified.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/24/1646735/-Dear-Mom-About-your-50-year-nursing-career-Medicaid-Woman-s-post-will-blow-GOP-minds
This is impeachment territory, and imprisonment territory, for the highest officials in the United States
Trump, Sessions, Manafort, Kushner all directly involved in selling US foreign policy to Russia for 0.5% of Russian oil giant Rosneft.
In a stunning tweet storm this evening, columnist and reporter Seth Abrahamson (Huffington Post, Dallas Morning News, Seattle Times, Washington Post) laid out all the details on the Russia-Trump connection. And folks, this is impeachment territory, and imprisonment territory, for the highest officials in the United States.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/23/1646686/-RussiaGate-blows-WIDE-OPEN-in-Abrahamson-report-High-crimes-and-misdemeanors-by-Trump-Sessions
Thursday, March 23, 2017
Felek's redNAND-free Wii U Hacking Guide
Noob Friendly / Kid Friendly / Idiot Friendly
WIP - Work In Progress, ToDo: Add vWii hacking guide, Add Credits, Brazilian Method, CBHC Installation
PSA: Don't use Wii U.guide!
Before we start [You need]:
WIP - Work In Progress, ToDo: Add vWii hacking guide, Add Credits, Brazilian Method, CBHC Installation
PSA: Don't use Wii U.guide!
Before we start [You need]:
- SDCard [4GB, for Brazillian Method you need 16GB minimum]
- PC/Laptop with SDCard reader
- Brain. I don't take responsibility for your brick
- Blocking Updates [Using TitleDNS!]
- Browserhax [Homebrew Launcher+Files]
- Mocha CFW set up [redNAND free!]
- Haxchi Installation [Offline Homebrew Solution!]
- Brazilian Method [DLC, Updates, Games]
- ColdBootHaxChi Installation [Optional, CFW on boot!]
Republicans Staggering Supreme Court Hypocrisy
Mitch McConnell has a very very short memory. Cenk Uygur and Ana
Kasparian, the hosts of The Young Turks, show you how Republicans are
giant hypocrites.
“If Neil Gorsuch can’t get 60 votes in today's Senate, perhaps no Republican Supreme Court nominee can, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday.
“I haven’t seen a single Democrat … indicate they were prepared to either for cloture or to vote for him,” McConnell told reporters. “If Judge Gorsuch can’t achieve 60 votes in the Senate, could any judge appointed by a Republican president be approved with 60 or more votes in the Senate?”
The Kentucky Republican’s comments underscore just how popular Gorsuch is among Republicans amid an otherwise shaky first two months under Donald Trump’s White House. But they also expose a potentially troubling problem for the GOP: No Democrats have announced support for Gorsuch, and he needs at least eight Democratic votes.”
“If Neil Gorsuch can’t get 60 votes in today's Senate, perhaps no Republican Supreme Court nominee can, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday.
“I haven’t seen a single Democrat … indicate they were prepared to either for cloture or to vote for him,” McConnell told reporters. “If Judge Gorsuch can’t achieve 60 votes in the Senate, could any judge appointed by a Republican president be approved with 60 or more votes in the Senate?”
The Kentucky Republican’s comments underscore just how popular Gorsuch is among Republicans amid an otherwise shaky first two months under Donald Trump’s White House. But they also expose a potentially troubling problem for the GOP: No Democrats have announced support for Gorsuch, and he needs at least eight Democratic votes.”
Chuck Todd Blasts Paul Ryan On GOP Healthcare Plan
Chuck Todd easily blasts Paul Ryan on his lies about the new GOP healthcare plan.
‘A stooge of the president of the United States’: Nancy Pelosi calls for Devin Nunes to step aside
By David Edwards
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Thursday accused House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) of being a “stooge” for Donald Trump after he released information about foreign intelligence surveillance without first telling his Democratic colleagues.
In a press conference on Wednesday, Nunes revealed that intelligence agencies had incidentally intercepted communications from Trump and his associates while conducting surveillance of foreign targets. Nunes then went to the White House to personally brief the president, who said he felt “somewhat” vindicated by the revelations.
At a briefing with reporters on Thursday, Pelosi said that Nunes appeared to be a “willing stooge” of the president.
“He committed a stunt at the White House yesterday raising questions about Chairman Nunes’ impartiality,” Pelosi explained, noting that Nunes had been a part of the Trump transition team.
“The Republicans are grasping at straws,” she continued. “FBI Director Comey confirmed that President Obama did not wiretap President Trump, affirmed an investigation into links and coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.”
According to Pelosi, Nunes made it necessary to move forward with an independent investigation because he had proven himself “a stooge for the president of the United States.”
“I think he had demonstrated very clearly that there is no way that there can be an impartial investigation under his leadership on that committee,” she insisted. “It speaks very clearly to the need for an outside independent commission.”
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Thursday accused House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) of being a “stooge” for Donald Trump after he released information about foreign intelligence surveillance without first telling his Democratic colleagues.
In a press conference on Wednesday, Nunes revealed that intelligence agencies had incidentally intercepted communications from Trump and his associates while conducting surveillance of foreign targets. Nunes then went to the White House to personally brief the president, who said he felt “somewhat” vindicated by the revelations.
At a briefing with reporters on Thursday, Pelosi said that Nunes appeared to be a “willing stooge” of the president.
“He committed a stunt at the White House yesterday raising questions about Chairman Nunes’ impartiality,” Pelosi explained, noting that Nunes had been a part of the Trump transition team.
“The Republicans are grasping at straws,” she continued. “FBI Director Comey confirmed that President Obama did not wiretap President Trump, affirmed an investigation into links and coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.”
According to Pelosi, Nunes made it necessary to move forward with an independent investigation because he had proven himself “a stooge for the president of the United States.”
“I think he had demonstrated very clearly that there is no way that there can be an impartial investigation under his leadership on that committee,” she insisted. “It speaks very clearly to the need for an outside independent commission.”
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
Republicans Are Afraid Trump Is Genuinely Nuts
By Robert Reich
I spent much of this past week in Washington – talking with friends still in government, former colleagues, high-ranking Democrats, a few Republican pundits, and some members of Congress from both sides of the aisle. It was my first visit to our nation’s capital since Trump became president.
My verdict:
1. Washington is more divided, angry, bewildered, and fearful – than I’ve ever seen it.
2. The angry divisions aren’t just Democrats versus Republicans. Rancor is also exploding inside the Republican Party.
3. Republicans (and their patrons in big business) no longer believe Trump will give them cover to do what they want to do. They’re becoming afraid Trump is genuinely nuts, and he’ll pull the party down with him.
4. Many Republicans are also angry at Paul Ryan, whose replacement bill for Obamacare is considered by almost everyone on Capitol Hill to be incredibly dumb.
5. I didn’t talk with anyone inside the White House, but several who have had dealings with it called it a cesspool of intrigue and fear. Apparently everyone working there hates and distrusts everyone else.
6. The Washington foreign policy establishment – both Republican and Democrat – is deeply worried about what’s happening to American foreign policy, and the worldwide perception of America being loony and rudderless. They think Trump is legitimizing far-right movements around the world.
7. Long-time civil servants are getting ready to bail. If they’re close to retirement they’re already halfway out the door. Many in their 30s and 40s are in panic mode.
8. Republican pundits think Bannon is even more unhinged than Trump, seeking to destroy democracy as we’ve known it.
9. Despite all this, no one I talked with thought a Trump impeachment likely, at least not any time soon – unless there’s a smoking gun showing Trump’s involvement in Russia’s intrusion into the election.
10. Many people asked, bewilderedly, “how did this [Trump] happen?” When I suggest it had a lot to do with the 35-year-long decline of incomes of the bottom 60 percent; the growing sense, ever since the Wall Street bailout, that the game is rigged; and the utter failure of both Republicans and Democrats to reverse these trends – they gave me blank stares.
Robert B. Reich has served
in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor
under President Bill Clinton. His latest book is "Saving Capitalism: For
the Many, Not the Few." His website is www.robertreich.org
I spent much of this past week in Washington – talking with friends still in government, former colleagues, high-ranking Democrats, a few Republican pundits, and some members of Congress from both sides of the aisle. It was my first visit to our nation’s capital since Trump became president.
My verdict:
1. Washington is more divided, angry, bewildered, and fearful – than I’ve ever seen it.
2. The angry divisions aren’t just Democrats versus Republicans. Rancor is also exploding inside the Republican Party.
3. Republicans (and their patrons in big business) no longer believe Trump will give them cover to do what they want to do. They’re becoming afraid Trump is genuinely nuts, and he’ll pull the party down with him.
4. Many Republicans are also angry at Paul Ryan, whose replacement bill for Obamacare is considered by almost everyone on Capitol Hill to be incredibly dumb.
5. I didn’t talk with anyone inside the White House, but several who have had dealings with it called it a cesspool of intrigue and fear. Apparently everyone working there hates and distrusts everyone else.
6. The Washington foreign policy establishment – both Republican and Democrat – is deeply worried about what’s happening to American foreign policy, and the worldwide perception of America being loony and rudderless. They think Trump is legitimizing far-right movements around the world.
7. Long-time civil servants are getting ready to bail. If they’re close to retirement they’re already halfway out the door. Many in their 30s and 40s are in panic mode.
8. Republican pundits think Bannon is even more unhinged than Trump, seeking to destroy democracy as we’ve known it.
9. Despite all this, no one I talked with thought a Trump impeachment likely, at least not any time soon – unless there’s a smoking gun showing Trump’s involvement in Russia’s intrusion into the election.
10. Many people asked, bewilderedly, “how did this [Trump] happen?” When I suggest it had a lot to do with the 35-year-long decline of incomes of the bottom 60 percent; the growing sense, ever since the Wall Street bailout, that the game is rigged; and the utter failure of both Republicans and Democrats to reverse these trends – they gave me blank stares.
Advice To Democrats: Comey Has Given You Your Battle Plan On Gorsuch
Posted by Rude One
It doesn't get any easier than this, dear Democrats. You want something to rally around? You want something that can give you a principled stand against the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court? Here you go.
Today, FBI Director James "But Her Emails" Comey stated, in as plain a language as one could ask from a rat-faced ratfucker, the FBI is investigating "the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts."
Roll that around in your head for a moment. The FBI. Is investigating. Trump campaign. Russia. Coordination. Think about the fact that when the FBI was investigating Hillary Clinton, the Republican National Committee declared that it "should be disqualifying for anyone seeking the presidency, a job that is supposed to begin each morning with a top secret intelligence briefing."
Put aside any snark about Trump and his inability to sit through an intelligence briefing or having intelligence. Instead, ponder the idea that the Republican Party declared Clinton unqualified for the presidency because of an FBI investigation. Not the conclusion of it. Not the finding of any criminal activity. The investigation, which, to be as fair as possible to bastards, does seem suspicious as hell in any situation.
Also today, the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch got under way in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Under normal circumstances, Gorsuch would just be a garden variety conservative cockknob, but these are not normal circumstances since Merrick Garland should have been confirmed last year.
But, as we know, the GOP is made up of syphilitic lepers who spread their diseases to democracy every chance they get with their scabby genitals. So they created a new rule: No Supreme Court confirmations in the last year before an election. It makes no sense at all. And Democrats should have gone to the motherfuckin' barricades on that, but, alas, they did not, because they are Democrats. So here we are with Gorsuch.
So here's a chance at redemption, dear, dumb, defeated Democrats in the Senate. A simple plan for a vile time. It goes like this: You cannot consider the Supreme Court nominations of Donald Trump until he is cleared by the FBI (and any other U.S. intelligence agency investigating him) of possible collusion with a foreign power to affect the presidential election. The Gorsuch hearings should be shut down until that time. In fact, you should say that you don't believe anyone nominated for a lifetime appointment by Trump should be considered by the Senate until the investigation is done, but you don't have the filibuster to use on other positions.
Go even further. State that anyone who does believe that Trump's SCOTUS nominees should be confirmed is, in essence, also colluding with the Russians, if the FBI discovers Trump has done so. Ask GOP senators if they're willing to take that risk.
See how easy this is? Take the playing field away from the Republicans. Force them to react. Force them to own Trump. Force them to eat his failure and choke on his corruption. Democrats have a stronger anti-confirmation case now than Republicans ever did with Obama.
At the end of the day, they're probably gonna nuke the SCOTUS filibuster rule if Democrats don't roll over and offer to let the GOP fuck them. So make it hurt. Make them just this side of traitors and make them fuckin' sweat awaiting the outcome of the investigation to see if they're nudged across the line.
All you gotta do is stop fucking colluding, too, Democrats.
It doesn't get any easier than this, dear Democrats. You want something to rally around? You want something that can give you a principled stand against the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court? Here you go.
Today, FBI Director James "But Her Emails" Comey stated, in as plain a language as one could ask from a rat-faced ratfucker, the FBI is investigating "the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts."
Roll that around in your head for a moment. The FBI. Is investigating. Trump campaign. Russia. Coordination. Think about the fact that when the FBI was investigating Hillary Clinton, the Republican National Committee declared that it "should be disqualifying for anyone seeking the presidency, a job that is supposed to begin each morning with a top secret intelligence briefing."
Put aside any snark about Trump and his inability to sit through an intelligence briefing or having intelligence. Instead, ponder the idea that the Republican Party declared Clinton unqualified for the presidency because of an FBI investigation. Not the conclusion of it. Not the finding of any criminal activity. The investigation, which, to be as fair as possible to bastards, does seem suspicious as hell in any situation.
Also today, the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch got under way in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Under normal circumstances, Gorsuch would just be a garden variety conservative cockknob, but these are not normal circumstances since Merrick Garland should have been confirmed last year.
But, as we know, the GOP is made up of syphilitic lepers who spread their diseases to democracy every chance they get with their scabby genitals. So they created a new rule: No Supreme Court confirmations in the last year before an election. It makes no sense at all. And Democrats should have gone to the motherfuckin' barricades on that, but, alas, they did not, because they are Democrats. So here we are with Gorsuch.
So here's a chance at redemption, dear, dumb, defeated Democrats in the Senate. A simple plan for a vile time. It goes like this: You cannot consider the Supreme Court nominations of Donald Trump until he is cleared by the FBI (and any other U.S. intelligence agency investigating him) of possible collusion with a foreign power to affect the presidential election. The Gorsuch hearings should be shut down until that time. In fact, you should say that you don't believe anyone nominated for a lifetime appointment by Trump should be considered by the Senate until the investigation is done, but you don't have the filibuster to use on other positions.
Go even further. State that anyone who does believe that Trump's SCOTUS nominees should be confirmed is, in essence, also colluding with the Russians, if the FBI discovers Trump has done so. Ask GOP senators if they're willing to take that risk.
See how easy this is? Take the playing field away from the Republicans. Force them to react. Force them to own Trump. Force them to eat his failure and choke on his corruption. Democrats have a stronger anti-confirmation case now than Republicans ever did with Obama.
At the end of the day, they're probably gonna nuke the SCOTUS filibuster rule if Democrats don't roll over and offer to let the GOP fuck them. So make it hurt. Make them just this side of traitors and make them fuckin' sweat awaiting the outcome of the investigation to see if they're nudged across the line.
All you gotta do is stop fucking colluding, too, Democrats.
Paul Ryan dreamed about screwing over poor people back in college
"So, the health care entitlements are the big, big, big drivers of our
debt. There are three. Obamacare, Medicaid, and Medicare. Two out of
three are going through Congress right now. So, Medicaid—sending it back
to the states, capping its growth rate. We’ve been dreaming of this
since you and I were drinking out of a keg."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/03/17/paul_ryan_s_college_dream_was_to_kick_poor_people_off_medicaid.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/03/17/paul_ryan_s_college_dream_was_to_kick_poor_people_off_medicaid.html
Monday, March 20, 2017
The GOP has become the party of white nationalism
By Michael A. Cohen
Scott Olson/Getty Images/File
Representative Steve King of Iowa spoke to guests at the Iowa Freedom Summit in January 2015.
There is no greater challenge in covering national politics these days than simply trying to keep up with the daily outrages emanating from Washington. Take, for example, the fact that, two weeks ago, all we were talking about was the fact that Jeff Sessions, the attorney general and nation’s highest law enforcement official, lied to Congress. This week you hear only crickets on Sessions.
But here’s one story that should not fall through the cracks: Representative Steve King of Iowa.
Earlier this week King shared an article on Twitter offering his support for the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who has based his political ascendancy on bashing Muslim immigrants. King added the words, “Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny. We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.”
These comments are catnip to white nationalists.
In fact, former Ku Klux Klan imperial wizard David Duke retweeted King with the words “GOD BLESS STEVE KING.”
Not surprisingly, the reaction from Democrats was one of revulsion and demands for an apology.
King, however, was undeterred.
On Monday, King repeated his offensive words and added, “You’ve got to keep your birth rate up and that you need to teach your children your values and, in doing so, then you can grow your population and you can strengthen your culture, you can strengthen your way of life.”According to King, he wants to see an America that is “homogenous” and one where “we look a lot the same.”
This is not King’s first time at the racist rodeo. Back in July he raised questions about the contributions of nonwhite people to “civilization.”
A virulent opponent of immigration, King has called for an electrified fence to be built on the US-Mexico border to give electric shocks to those trying to enter the country. Back in 2013 he said that for every successful child of an undocumented immigrant there are 100 more drug mules with “calves the size of cantaloupes” from hauling drugs. King also has been photographed with a Confederate battle flag in his congressional office.
To put it simply, Steve King is a racist.
And yet, it seems that being a racist — one who has repeatedly made prejudicial comments about blacks and Hispanics — is not the kind of thing that gets you drummed out of the modern Republican Party. Indeed, it seems to have no impact at all.
After King’s cantaloupe comment, then-House Speaker John Boehner called the congressman’s words “deeply offensive and wrong.” Current Speaker Paul Ryan’s reaction to King’s latest remarks was more muted. “I disagree with that statement,” Ryan said. He added, “I’d like to think that he misspoke and it wasn’t really meant the way that that sounds and hopefully he’s clarified that.”
But when it comes to mealy-mouthed condemnations of blatantly racist and xenophobic comments, Ryan can’t hold a candle to White House spokesman Sean Spicer, who said, “The president believes that this is not a point of view that he shares.”
Several Hispanic Republican congressmen condemned King’s remarks, but most Republicans have been silent. Calls to censure King or strip him of his chairmanship of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Rights have been ignored.
While some might be inclined to dismiss King as a fringe figure, the very fact that so few Republicans are willing to criticize him speaks volumes. They clearly don’t want to alienate those voters who agree with King’s racist remarks. It’s yet one more reminder of the extent to which white nationalism and open racism have become normalized within the modern Republican Party.
Indeed, earlier this month, the Huffington Post ran a disturbing piece on the grotesque, virulently racist book “The Camp of the Saints,” which top White House advisor Steve Bannon has used to describe the influx of nonwhite, Muslim refugees into Europe. The book describes the destruction of white, Christian Europe, by nonwhite immigrants led by an Indian demagogue. In the book, Europe is overrun by poor, nonwhite migrants.
Bannon’s endorsement of this grotesque piece of literature is at pace with the policies he’s promoted since becoming the president’s top strategist: from the travel-ban executive order that specifically targets Muslims to its focus on building a wall on the US-Mexico, all to keep out nonwhite immigrants.
Guess who else recently plugged “The Camp of the Saints.” Yup: Steve King.
Even after a campaign in which Donald Trump ran on an unambiguous platform of racism, xenophobia, and intolerance, it has, somehow, become inappropriate to identify the role that white nationalism plays in defining and uniting the modern Republican Party. Yet when people like Steve King continue to play leadership roles in the GOP and avoid condemnation for racist remarks, what more evidence do we need that many GOP voters, rather than being turned off by the open embrace of race-based appeals from Republican leaders, find them attractive. Steve King is not some fringe figure — he’s the mainstream of the modern Republican Party.
That’s one story that cannot be ignored.
Michael A. Cohen’s column appears regularly in the Globe. Follow him on Twitter @speechboy71.
Scott Olson/Getty Images/File
Representative Steve King of Iowa spoke to guests at the Iowa Freedom Summit in January 2015.
There is no greater challenge in covering national politics these days than simply trying to keep up with the daily outrages emanating from Washington. Take, for example, the fact that, two weeks ago, all we were talking about was the fact that Jeff Sessions, the attorney general and nation’s highest law enforcement official, lied to Congress. This week you hear only crickets on Sessions.
But here’s one story that should not fall through the cracks: Representative Steve King of Iowa.
Earlier this week King shared an article on Twitter offering his support for the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who has based his political ascendancy on bashing Muslim immigrants. King added the words, “Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny. We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.”
These comments are catnip to white nationalists.
In fact, former Ku Klux Klan imperial wizard David Duke retweeted King with the words “GOD BLESS STEVE KING.”
Not surprisingly, the reaction from Democrats was one of revulsion and demands for an apology.
King, however, was undeterred.
On Monday, King repeated his offensive words and added, “You’ve got to keep your birth rate up and that you need to teach your children your values and, in doing so, then you can grow your population and you can strengthen your culture, you can strengthen your way of life.”According to King, he wants to see an America that is “homogenous” and one where “we look a lot the same.”
This is not King’s first time at the racist rodeo. Back in July he raised questions about the contributions of nonwhite people to “civilization.”
A virulent opponent of immigration, King has called for an electrified fence to be built on the US-Mexico border to give electric shocks to those trying to enter the country. Back in 2013 he said that for every successful child of an undocumented immigrant there are 100 more drug mules with “calves the size of cantaloupes” from hauling drugs. King also has been photographed with a Confederate battle flag in his congressional office.
To put it simply, Steve King is a racist.
And yet, it seems that being a racist — one who has repeatedly made prejudicial comments about blacks and Hispanics — is not the kind of thing that gets you drummed out of the modern Republican Party. Indeed, it seems to have no impact at all.
After King’s cantaloupe comment, then-House Speaker John Boehner called the congressman’s words “deeply offensive and wrong.” Current Speaker Paul Ryan’s reaction to King’s latest remarks was more muted. “I disagree with that statement,” Ryan said. He added, “I’d like to think that he misspoke and it wasn’t really meant the way that that sounds and hopefully he’s clarified that.”
But when it comes to mealy-mouthed condemnations of blatantly racist and xenophobic comments, Ryan can’t hold a candle to White House spokesman Sean Spicer, who said, “The president believes that this is not a point of view that he shares.”
Several Hispanic Republican congressmen condemned King’s remarks, but most Republicans have been silent. Calls to censure King or strip him of his chairmanship of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Rights have been ignored.
While some might be inclined to dismiss King as a fringe figure, the very fact that so few Republicans are willing to criticize him speaks volumes. They clearly don’t want to alienate those voters who agree with King’s racist remarks. It’s yet one more reminder of the extent to which white nationalism and open racism have become normalized within the modern Republican Party.
Indeed, earlier this month, the Huffington Post ran a disturbing piece on the grotesque, virulently racist book “The Camp of the Saints,” which top White House advisor Steve Bannon has used to describe the influx of nonwhite, Muslim refugees into Europe. The book describes the destruction of white, Christian Europe, by nonwhite immigrants led by an Indian demagogue. In the book, Europe is overrun by poor, nonwhite migrants.
Bannon’s endorsement of this grotesque piece of literature is at pace with the policies he’s promoted since becoming the president’s top strategist: from the travel-ban executive order that specifically targets Muslims to its focus on building a wall on the US-Mexico, all to keep out nonwhite immigrants.
Guess who else recently plugged “The Camp of the Saints.” Yup: Steve King.
Even after a campaign in which Donald Trump ran on an unambiguous platform of racism, xenophobia, and intolerance, it has, somehow, become inappropriate to identify the role that white nationalism plays in defining and uniting the modern Republican Party. Yet when people like Steve King continue to play leadership roles in the GOP and avoid condemnation for racist remarks, what more evidence do we need that many GOP voters, rather than being turned off by the open embrace of race-based appeals from Republican leaders, find them attractive. Steve King is not some fringe figure — he’s the mainstream of the modern Republican Party.
That’s one story that cannot be ignored.
Michael A. Cohen’s column appears regularly in the Globe. Follow him on Twitter @speechboy71.
Trump Is The Biggest Failure In History As His Disapproval Rating Skyrockets To 58%
Donald Trump has set a record that has never
been reached before in the history of polling as his disapproval rating
has reached 58% - two months into his time in office.
By Jason Easley
Donald Trump has set a record that disapproval rating that has never been reached before in the history of polling as his disapproval rating has reached 58% two months into his time in office.
Here is the latest Gallup Daily Tracking Poll of Trump’s approval rating:
Trump’s approval rating has plunged to 37% as his disapproval rating has soared to 58%.
Never in US history has a president been this unpopular so early in his first term. Trump has lost 2 points in approval and gained three disapproval points since the CBO revealed that 24 million people would lose their health insurance under Trumpcare.
Trump has the worst job approval numbers since Gallup began tracking presidents in 1945. At this same point during his first term, President Obama’s job approval rating was in the low 60's. George W. Bush’s approval rating was in the low 50's. It took Ronald Reagan a year to have an approval rating as bad as Trump’s, and it was a year into Richard Nixon’s second term before he hit the low that Trump is at.
The practical political lesson for Democrats is that they should not shy away from linking Congressional Republicans to their unpopular president. What should be frightening for elected Republicans is that things will probably get much worse for Trump in the future. The first few months of his term are supposed to be the most popular point of his presidency.
How low can Donald Trump go? It is possible that he may set records for unpopularity that will stand for decades.
Trump promised to make America great, but instead, he has been a complete failure as president.
By Jason Easley
Donald Trump has set a record that disapproval rating that has never been reached before in the history of polling as his disapproval rating has reached 58% two months into his time in office.
Here is the latest Gallup Daily Tracking Poll of Trump’s approval rating:
Trump’s approval rating has plunged to 37% as his disapproval rating has soared to 58%.
Never in US history has a president been this unpopular so early in his first term. Trump has lost 2 points in approval and gained three disapproval points since the CBO revealed that 24 million people would lose their health insurance under Trumpcare.
Trump has the worst job approval numbers since Gallup began tracking presidents in 1945. At this same point during his first term, President Obama’s job approval rating was in the low 60's. George W. Bush’s approval rating was in the low 50's. It took Ronald Reagan a year to have an approval rating as bad as Trump’s, and it was a year into Richard Nixon’s second term before he hit the low that Trump is at.
The practical political lesson for Democrats is that they should not shy away from linking Congressional Republicans to their unpopular president. What should be frightening for elected Republicans is that things will probably get much worse for Trump in the future. The first few months of his term are supposed to be the most popular point of his presidency.
How low can Donald Trump go? It is possible that he may set records for unpopularity that will stand for decades.
Trump promised to make America great, but instead, he has been a complete failure as president.
Sunday, March 19, 2017
Young Americans: Most see Trump as an illegitimate president
WASHINGTON — Jermaine Anderson keeps going back to the same memory of Donald Trump, then a candidate for president of the United States, referring to some Mexican immigrants as rapists and murderers.
"You can't be saying that (if) you're the president," says Anderson, a 21 year old student from Coconut Creek, Florida.
That Trump is undeniably the nation's 45th president doesn't sit easily with young Americans like Anderson who are the nation's increasingly diverse electorate of the future, according to a new poll.
A majority of young adults — 57 percent — see Trump's presidency as illegitimate, including about three-quarters of blacks and large majorities of Latinos and Asians, the GenForward poll found.
GenForward is a poll of adults age 18 to 30 conducted by the Black Youth Project at the University of Chicago with the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.
A slim majority of young whites in the poll, 53 percent, consider Trump a legitimate president, but even among that group 55 percent disapprove of the job he's doing, according to the survey.
"That's who we voted for. And obviously America wanted him more than Hillary Clinton," said Rebecca Gallardo, a 30 year old nursing student from Kansas City, Missouri, who voted for Trump.
Trump's legitimacy as president was questioned earlier this year by U.S. Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga.: "I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected. And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton."
Trump routinely denies that and says he captured the presidency in large part by winning states such as Michigan and Wisconsin that Clinton may have taken for granted.
Overall, just 22 percent of young adults approve of the job he is doing as president, while 62 percent disapprove.
Trump's rhetoric as a candidate and his presidential decisions have done much to keep the question of who belongs in America atop the news, though he's struggling to accomplish some key goals.
Powered by supporters chanting, "build the wall," Trump has vowed to erect a barrier along the southern U.S. border and make Mexico pay for it — which Mexico refuses to do. Federal judges in three states have blocked Trump's executive orders to ban travel to the U.S. from seven — then six — majority-Muslim nations.
In Honolulu, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson this week cited "significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus" behind the revised travel ban, citing Trump's own words calling for "a complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."
And yes, Trump did say in his campaign announcement speech on June 6, 2015: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best ...They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." He went further in subsequent statements, later telling CNN: "Some are good and some are rapists and some are killers."
It's extraordinary rhetoric for the leader of a country where by around 2020, half of the nation's children will be part of a minority race or ethnic group, the Census Bureau projects. Non-Hispanic whites are expected to be a minority by 2044.
Of all of Trump's tweets and rhetoric, the statements about Mexicans are the ones to which Anderson returns. He says Trump's business background on paper is impressive enough to qualify him for the presidency. But he suggests that's different than Trump earning legitimacy as president.
![Graphic shows results of GenForward poll on younger Americans’ attitudes toward Donald Trump and his presidency; 2c x 4 inches; 96.3 mm x 101 mm;]({"default":{"load":"default","w":"36","h":"40","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BByldsw.img?h=400&w=360&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f"}})
© The Associated Press Graphic shows results of GenForward poll on younger Americans attitudes toward Donald Trump and his presidency.
"I'm thinking, he's saying that most of the people in the world who are raping and killing people are the immigrants. That's not true," said Anderson, whose parents are from Jamaica.
Megan Desrochers, a 21 year old student from Lansing, Michigan, says her sense of Trump's illegitimacy is more about why he was elected.
"I just think it was kind of a situation where he was voted in based on his celebrity status verses his ethics," she said, adding that she is not necessarily against Trump's immigration policies.
The poll participants said in interviews that they don't necessarily vote for one party's candidates over another's, a prominent tendency among young Americans, experts say. And in the survey, neither party fares especially strongly.
Just a quarter of young Americans have a favorable view of the Republican Party, and six in 10 have an unfavorable view. Majorities of young people across racial and ethnic lines hold negative views of the GOP.
The Democratic Party performs better, but views aren't overwhelmingly positive. Young people are more likely to have a favorable than an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party by a 47 percent to 36 percent margin. But just 14 percent say they have a strongly favorable view of the Democrats.
Views of the Democratic Party are most favorable among young people of color. Roughly six in 10 blacks, Asians and Latinos hold positive views of the party. Young whites are somewhat more likely to have unfavorable than favorable views, 47 percent to 39 percent.
As for Trump, eight in 10 young people think he is doing poorly in terms of the policies he's put forward and seven in 10 have negative views of his presidential demeanor.
"I do not like him as a person," Gallardo says of Trump. She nonetheless voted for Trump because she didn't trust Clinton. "I felt like there wasn't much choice."
___
The poll of 1,833 adults age 18-30 was conducted on Feb. 16 through March 6 using a sample drawn from the probability-based GenForward panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. young adult population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
The survey was paid for by the Black Youth Project at the University of Chicago, using grants from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Ford Foundation.
Respondents were first selected randomly using address-based sampling methods, and later interviewed online or by phone.
Saturday, March 18, 2017
Trump budget cuts meals on wheels to fund defense contractors
"The preliminary outline for President Donald Trump's 2018 budget could
slash some funding for a program that provides meals for older,
impoverished Americans.
The budget blueprint suggests cutting funds for the Department of Housing and Urban Development by about $6.2 billion, a 13.2% decrease from its 2017 funding level.
Here's what Trump wants cut
Almost half of those savings will come by eliminating the $3 billion Community Development Block Grant program, which provides money for a variety of community development and anti-poverty programs, including Meals on Wheels."
The budget blueprint suggests cutting funds for the Department of Housing and Urban Development by about $6.2 billion, a 13.2% decrease from its 2017 funding level.
Here's what Trump wants cut
Almost half of those savings will come by eliminating the $3 billion Community Development Block Grant program, which provides money for a variety of community development and anti-poverty programs, including Meals on Wheels."
Mick Mulvaney defends meals on wheels cuts
"At a news conference Thursday, Mick Mulvaney, President Trump’s budget
chief, defended proposed cuts to the Meals on Wheels program, which
provides food aid to needy senior citizens, by saying the program is one
of many that is “just not showing any results.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/16/trump-budget-chief-says-meals-on-wheels-is-not-showing-any-results-hes-wrong/?utm_term=.076df1fe6814
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/16/trump-budget-chief-says-meals-on-wheels-is-not-showing-any-results-hes-wrong/?utm_term=.076df1fe6814
Thursday, March 16, 2017
Jaws Drop As Trump WH Claims Starving Seniors By Killing Meals On Wheels Is Compassionate
Trump Budget Director Mick Mulvaney told reporters today that
eliminating food for senior citizens via the Meals On Wheels program was
the compassionate thing to do because if a program can't demonstrate
results, it should get cut.
By Jason Easley
When Mulvaney was asked about the elimination of funding for Meals On Wheels, he answered, “I think you know that Meals On Wheels is not a federal program. It’s part of that Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) that we give to the states, and then many states make the decision to use that money on Meals On Wheels. What I can tell you about CDBG's is that’s what we fund. Right? So we spend $150 billion on those programs since the 1970's. The CDBGs have been identified as programs since I think the second Bush administration as ones that we just not showing any results. We can’t do that anymore. We can’t spend money on programs just because they sound good. Meals On Wheels sounds great. Again, that’s a state decision to fund that particular portion, but to take the federal money and to give that to the states, and say look we want to give you federal money for programs that don’t work. I can’t defend that anymore.”
Later Mulvaney was asked if this is a hard-hearted budget. He answered, “I don’t think so. In fact, I think it is one of the most compassionate things we can do to. You’re only focusing on half of the equation. Right? You’re focusing on recipients of the money. We’re trying to focus on both the recipients and the folks who give us the money in the first place, and I think it’s fairly compassionate to go to them and say look, we’re not going to ask you for your hard earned money anymore.”
In other words, screw the starving elderly and the kids who are going to go without afterschool programs, people like Donald Trump aren’t giving you their “hard earned” money anymore.
Meals on Wheels helps 2.4 million seniors have access to food while being able to stay in their own homes. The results for the program can be seen in both nutritional terms and increased independence for millions of Americans. Meals on Wheels saves taxpayers $34 billion a year in healthcare costs.
This is a vital program for America’s communities, and anyone who claims otherwise is not telling the truth. The selfish argument about taxpayers isn’t going to fly in this case.
The Trump administration has gone from being out of touch with America to trying to starve Americans.
By Jason Easley
When Mulvaney was asked about the elimination of funding for Meals On Wheels, he answered, “I think you know that Meals On Wheels is not a federal program. It’s part of that Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) that we give to the states, and then many states make the decision to use that money on Meals On Wheels. What I can tell you about CDBG's is that’s what we fund. Right? So we spend $150 billion on those programs since the 1970's. The CDBGs have been identified as programs since I think the second Bush administration as ones that we just not showing any results. We can’t do that anymore. We can’t spend money on programs just because they sound good. Meals On Wheels sounds great. Again, that’s a state decision to fund that particular portion, but to take the federal money and to give that to the states, and say look we want to give you federal money for programs that don’t work. I can’t defend that anymore.”
Later Mulvaney was asked if this is a hard-hearted budget. He answered, “I don’t think so. In fact, I think it is one of the most compassionate things we can do to. You’re only focusing on half of the equation. Right? You’re focusing on recipients of the money. We’re trying to focus on both the recipients and the folks who give us the money in the first place, and I think it’s fairly compassionate to go to them and say look, we’re not going to ask you for your hard earned money anymore.”
In other words, screw the starving elderly and the kids who are going to go without afterschool programs, people like Donald Trump aren’t giving you their “hard earned” money anymore.
Meals on Wheels helps 2.4 million seniors have access to food while being able to stay in their own homes. The results for the program can be seen in both nutritional terms and increased independence for millions of Americans. Meals on Wheels saves taxpayers $34 billion a year in healthcare costs.
This is a vital program for America’s communities, and anyone who claims otherwise is not telling the truth. The selfish argument about taxpayers isn’t going to fly in this case.
The Trump administration has gone from being out of touch with America to trying to starve Americans.
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
Texans Receive Notices To Sell Or Have Their Land Taken
By Rika Christensen
on March 15, 2017 1:44 am
Texas landowners along the U.S.-Mexico border have begun receiving notices from the federal government saying that they’re coming to either buy, or take, parcels of land for Trump’s pointless border wall. According to the Texas Observer, landowners are receiving “Declarations of Taking” notices that offer a price for the piece that the government wants. If the landowners refuse that, then they may see those parts of their property taken via eminent domain.
One landowner, Yvette Salinas, got her notice back in January. She’d been dreading it for a while because of George W. Bush’s focus on a border fence. Under Obama, she’d been able to relax a bit because he focused on patrolling and monitoring the border in ways that didn’t include taking land and building a wall.
Now, with Trump in office, this shit has just gotten real. Whether any of these preparations happened while Obama was still in office or not, it’s Trump who is pushing the wall forward as quickly as he can. It’s one of his focal points, and it will be his government that buys up or takes the land.
The introduction in Salinas’ letter reads like this:
Under Trump, though, Los Ebanos seems to have become a focal point. The government has already completed surveys and planning for a wall there. Despite increasing problems with costs, the fact that crossings are down, and the fact that Republicans are voicing their discomfort with the idea, Trump keeps hammering the wall as the way to secure the border.
It’s impossibly stupid. People who live along the border prefer the technological surveillance and the presence of the U.S. Border Patrol to a wall because they believe that’s more effective and costs a hell of a lot less. And they don’t have to give up pieces of land that have been in their families for generations for that.
They also know people will still cross whether there’s a wall or not.
Salinas doesn’t want to sell that bit of land but she doesn’t know what to do. The community doesn’t want to allow the wall to be built through there, either, but neither can they afford to have the U.S. government sue them, and they risk having their land taken without compensation if they try to fight.
Texas landowners along the U.S.-Mexico border have begun receiving notices from the federal government saying that they’re coming to either buy, or take, parcels of land for Trump’s pointless border wall. According to the Texas Observer, landowners are receiving “Declarations of Taking” notices that offer a price for the piece that the government wants. If the landowners refuse that, then they may see those parts of their property taken via eminent domain.
One landowner, Yvette Salinas, got her notice back in January. She’d been dreading it for a while because of George W. Bush’s focus on a border fence. Under Obama, she’d been able to relax a bit because he focused on patrolling and monitoring the border in ways that didn’t include taking land and building a wall.
Now, with Trump in office, this shit has just gotten real. Whether any of these preparations happened while Obama was still in office or not, it’s Trump who is pushing the wall forward as quickly as he can. It’s one of his focal points, and it will be his government that buys up or takes the land.
The introduction in Salinas’ letter reads like this:
“The United States of America is acquiring property along its border with Mexico in order to construct a fence and related improvements designed to secure the border, as required by the Secure Fence Act of 2006.”They offered Salinas and her family $2,900 for 1.2 acres of land – the same amount for the same land that the government offered her under George W. Bush years earlier. The tiny community in which she lives—Los Ebanos—lies entirely within the floodplain of the Rio Grande. That land is protected by a treaty with Mexico that forbids the building of structures that could force floodwaters into other communities, and has been an obstacle towards border wall construction.
Under Trump, though, Los Ebanos seems to have become a focal point. The government has already completed surveys and planning for a wall there. Despite increasing problems with costs, the fact that crossings are down, and the fact that Republicans are voicing their discomfort with the idea, Trump keeps hammering the wall as the way to secure the border.
It’s impossibly stupid. People who live along the border prefer the technological surveillance and the presence of the U.S. Border Patrol to a wall because they believe that’s more effective and costs a hell of a lot less. And they don’t have to give up pieces of land that have been in their families for generations for that.
They also know people will still cross whether there’s a wall or not.
Salinas doesn’t want to sell that bit of land but she doesn’t know what to do. The community doesn’t want to allow the wall to be built through there, either, but neither can they afford to have the U.S. government sue them, and they risk having their land taken without compensation if they try to fight.
Rachel Maddow Stands Tall And Refuses To Back Down When Threatened By Donald Trump
Rachel
Maddow refused to bow to Donald Trump's baseless threats. After the
Trump White House had threatened her, the MSNBC host reported on a leak
of Trump's 2005 tax return.
It’s true that the unauthorized release of federal tax returns is a criminal offense, however Maddow argued on the air that releasing the tax returns was a matter of public interest, given that every single president has done so since Nixon except for this one, who just so happens to be under scrutiny for his foreign ties. Thus MSNBC was exercising its First Amendment right.
Trump promised to release his tax returns if elected, and then once elected had his surrogates announce that no one cared. Polls disagree with the Trump administration’s claims on the matter of his tax returns. Americans think they do matter and they want to see them.
“You know you are desperate for ratings when you are willing to violate the law to push a story about two pages of tax returns from over a decade ago” and said it was “totally illegal to steal and publish tax returns,” a statement from the White House charged oddly, given that Rachel Maddow’s ratings are skyrocketing right now given her coverage of Trump’s Russia scandal.
Maddow discussed a 2 page 1040 tax filing said to be Trump’s and confirmed by the White House, produced by David Cay Johnston, who noted that it could have been Trump himself who leaked the documents to him because Trump has a habit of doing that.
The Trump White House picked the worst enemy in Rachel Maddow. They seem to have a real feel for making enemies of media outlets – like the New York Times and Washington Post – that will not back down to them.
Rachel Maddow is the last person Donald Trump should want to get into any kind of pissing match with, and if he’s looking for a “liberal” to kick around, an easy foil if you will, he picked the wrong one. Maddow is way, way, way too smart and knowledgeable to be intimidated by Donald Trump’s White House.
Rachel Maddow Terrifies Trump By Warning That The Tax Return Leaked To Her Won’t Be The Last
Rachel Maddow had a terrifying message for Donald Trump. The 2005 tax
return that was leaked to her may be the first, but it won't be the
last.
By Jason Easley
Maddow said, “The greater concern. The worry that this president may be financially beholden to an individual, to an institution, to a country, and now that he’s president we won’t know if he tries to use the resources and power of our country to pay off that entity to whom he is beholden. We can’t know any of that without getting his tax returns. That’s why presidents release their tax returns. That’s why there will continue to be unrelenting pressure to find Donald Trump’s tax returns, to expose Donald Trump’s tax returns, and that pressure will remain every single day that he is president and until he releases them that pressure will never let up, and that’s why somebody has decided to leak this portion of his 2005 tax return, which is how and why we got it tonight, and I am sure it is only the start, but it’s a start.”
The news isn’t what is on Trump’s 1040 from 12 years ago. The big story is that a tax return was published. Every news organization in the United States and others around the world have been trying to get their hands on Trump’s tax returns.
The fact that somebody was able to get one of Trump’s returns out to the public suggests that there are more of them out there, and it is only a matter of time before others reveal the secrets that this president has worked so hard to keep hidden.
Maddow got a 1040, but eventually, a whole tax return or returns will be made public. Trump isn’t worried about the details of what Rachel Maddow made public. What terrifies Trump is that his tax return secrecy has been shattered and the real damage is yet to come.
By Jason Easley
Maddow said, “The greater concern. The worry that this president may be financially beholden to an individual, to an institution, to a country, and now that he’s president we won’t know if he tries to use the resources and power of our country to pay off that entity to whom he is beholden. We can’t know any of that without getting his tax returns. That’s why presidents release their tax returns. That’s why there will continue to be unrelenting pressure to find Donald Trump’s tax returns, to expose Donald Trump’s tax returns, and that pressure will remain every single day that he is president and until he releases them that pressure will never let up, and that’s why somebody has decided to leak this portion of his 2005 tax return, which is how and why we got it tonight, and I am sure it is only the start, but it’s a start.”
The news isn’t what is on Trump’s 1040 from 12 years ago. The big story is that a tax return was published. Every news organization in the United States and others around the world have been trying to get their hands on Trump’s tax returns.
The fact that somebody was able to get one of Trump’s returns out to the public suggests that there are more of them out there, and it is only a matter of time before others reveal the secrets that this president has worked so hard to keep hidden.
Maddow got a 1040, but eventually, a whole tax return or returns will be made public. Trump isn’t worried about the details of what Rachel Maddow made public. What terrifies Trump is that his tax return secrecy has been shattered and the real damage is yet to come.
Trump Freaks Out After Rachel Maddow Shows His Tax Returns To The Country
Trump said Rachel Maddow's reporting on Tuesday night was "totally illegal."
In a statement released a short time ago, the White House said this:
You know you are desperate for ratings when you are willing to violate the law to push a story about two pages of tax returns from over a decade ago.First of all, with or without this exclusive reporting by Maddow, her ratings would have been just fine. As Jason Easley wrote yesterday, her audience is rapidly growing and even beat Fox News last week among key viewers.
Before being elected President, Mr. Trump was one of the most successful businessmen in the world with a responsibility to his company, his family and his employees to pay no more tax than legally required. That being said, Mr. Trump paid $38 million dollars even after taking into account large scale depreciation for construction, on an income of more than $150 million dollars, as well as paying tens of millions of dollars in other taxes such as sales and excise taxes and employment taxes and this illegally published return proves just that. Despite this substantial income figure and tax paid, it is totally illegal to steal and publish tax returns. The dishonest media can continue to make this part of their agenda, while the President will focus on his, which includes tax reform that will benefit all Americans.
What was particularly striking, though, is that the White House accused Maddow of breaking the law by revealing this portion of Trump’s tax documents. Or, as they called her reporting, “totally illegal.”
But as Maddow pointed out during Tuesday’s program, sharing the returns – which were lawfully obtained – is part of a journalist’s first amendment rights, though we probably shouldn’t expect Trump to know anything about those since he has spent nearly every day of his first two months in office either attacking the press or avoiding them.
Still, Maddow fought back:
It’s clear that the MSNBC star hit a nerve in the Trump White House by revealing something that no one in the media has yet been able to – his tax returns, even if it was just a portion.
Perhaps the president is just angry because he’s afraid this is only the beginning of what could be more leaks into his financial background, which could show more than Trump’s earnings – but where the money came from.
Rachel Maddow Shatters Trump’s World By Exposing His Tax Returns On Live TV
Maddow's
exclusive reporting on Tuesday finally gave the American people a
much-deserved glimpse behind the curtain when it comes to Trump's
finances.
Maddow revealed just some of Trump’s tax documents from 2005, which were acquired by David Cay Johnston.
Video:
The tax returns Maddow exposed on Tuesday showed that Trump made $150 million in 2005 and paid $36.5 million (or 24 percent) in taxes when those in his income bracket were required to pay 35 percent that year.
As Johnston also noted on MSNBC, Trump made $418,000 a day in 2005.
Unfortunately, while the documents showed how much Trump earned in income and paid in taxes, it still doesn’t show the source of that income – which is the most important part of this story, due to Trump’s questionable ties to Russia.
Throughout the campaign and during his first two months in the White House, Trump and his team have stubbornly refused to release any of his tax returns – unprecedented for a presidential candidate and, now, president.
Maddow’s exclusive reporting on Tuesday finally gave the American people a much-deserved glimpse behind the curtain when it comes to Trump’s finances. Hopefully, this is just the beginning of more to come.
Monday, March 13, 2017
INDIVISIBLE
A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR RESISTING THE TRUMP AGENDA
Former congressional staffers reveal best practices for making Congress listen.
Donald
Trump is the biggest popular-vote loser in history to ever call himself
President. In spite of the fact that he has no mandate, he will attempt
to use his congressional majority to reshape America in his own racist,
authoritarian, and corrupt image. If progressives are going to stop
this, we must stand indivisibly opposed to Trump and the Members of
Congress (MoCs) who would do his bidding. Together, we have the power to resist — and we have the power to win.
We know this because we’ve seen it before. The authors of this guide are former congressional staffers who witnessed the rise of the Tea Party. We saw these activists take on a popular president with a mandate for change and a supermajority in Congress. We saw them organize locally and convince their own MoCs to reject President Obama’s agenda. Their ideas were wrong, cruel, and tinged with racism— and they won.
We believe that protecting our values, our neighbors, and ourselves will require mounting a similar resistance to the Trump agenda — but a resistance built on the values of inclusion, tolerance,
and fairness. Trump is not popular. He does not have a mandate. He does not have large congressional majorities. If a small minority in the Tea Party could stop President Obama, then we the majority can stop a petty tyrant named Trump.
To this end, the following chapters offer a step-by-step guide for individuals, groups, and organizations looking to replicate the Tea Party’s success in getting Congress to listen to a small, vocal, dedicated group of constituents. The guide is intended to be equally useful for stiffening Democratic spines and weakening pro-Trump Republican resolve.
We believe that the next four years depend on Americans across the country standing indivisible against the Trump agenda. We believe that buying into false promises or accepting partial concessions will only further empower Trump to victimize us and our neighbors. We hope that this guide will provide those who share that belief with useful tools to make Congress listen.
https://www.indivisibleguide.com/web
We know this because we’ve seen it before. The authors of this guide are former congressional staffers who witnessed the rise of the Tea Party. We saw these activists take on a popular president with a mandate for change and a supermajority in Congress. We saw them organize locally and convince their own MoCs to reject President Obama’s agenda. Their ideas were wrong, cruel, and tinged with racism— and they won.
We believe that protecting our values, our neighbors, and ourselves will require mounting a similar resistance to the Trump agenda — but a resistance built on the values of inclusion, tolerance,
and fairness. Trump is not popular. He does not have a mandate. He does not have large congressional majorities. If a small minority in the Tea Party could stop President Obama, then we the majority can stop a petty tyrant named Trump.
To this end, the following chapters offer a step-by-step guide for individuals, groups, and organizations looking to replicate the Tea Party’s success in getting Congress to listen to a small, vocal, dedicated group of constituents. The guide is intended to be equally useful for stiffening Democratic spines and weakening pro-Trump Republican resolve.
We believe that the next four years depend on Americans across the country standing indivisible against the Trump agenda. We believe that buying into false promises or accepting partial concessions will only further empower Trump to victimize us and our neighbors. We hope that this guide will provide those who share that belief with useful tools to make Congress listen.
https://www.indivisibleguide.com/web
Sunday, March 12, 2017
Trump likely fired US Attorney Bharara to sabotage ‘troublesome’ investigations
By David Ferguson
Saturday evening, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin appeared by phone to discuss the firing of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara with anchor Ana Cabrera.
Mediaite.com said that Toobin believes Bharara was axed because he was pursuing lines of investigation that would prove “troublesome” to the Trump administration.
“The question arises,” Toobin said, “Is there something either that the Trump administration doesn’t want Preet Bharara to pursue, or are there things he knows that he might disclose later that could be troublesome for the Trump administration?”
Bharara was fired by Attorney Gen. Jeff Sessions after he refused to comply with a Justice Department order for 46 U.S. Attorneys appointed by the Obama administration to vacate their posts immediately.
The call for the resignations came less than 24 hours after Fox News host and indefatigable Trump booster Sean Hannity called for a “purge” of federal officials appointed by the Obama administration.
Bharara has a reputation as a Wall Street enforcer and was looking into criminal allegations against Fox News. In 2012, Bharara’s office successfully extradited and prosecuted Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout, who was known as “the merchant of death.”
He is believed to have been investigating connections between Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Russian government. In his statement after the firing, Bharara said, “I did not resign. Moments ago I was fired. Being the US Attorney in SDNY will forever be the greatest honor of my professional life.”
Saturday evening, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin appeared by phone to discuss the firing of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara with anchor Ana Cabrera.
Mediaite.com said that Toobin believes Bharara was axed because he was pursuing lines of investigation that would prove “troublesome” to the Trump administration.
“The question arises,” Toobin said, “Is there something either that the Trump administration doesn’t want Preet Bharara to pursue, or are there things he knows that he might disclose later that could be troublesome for the Trump administration?”
Bharara was fired by Attorney Gen. Jeff Sessions after he refused to comply with a Justice Department order for 46 U.S. Attorneys appointed by the Obama administration to vacate their posts immediately.
The call for the resignations came less than 24 hours after Fox News host and indefatigable Trump booster Sean Hannity called for a “purge” of federal officials appointed by the Obama administration.
Bharara has a reputation as a Wall Street enforcer and was looking into criminal allegations against Fox News. In 2012, Bharara’s office successfully extradited and prosecuted Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout, who was known as “the merchant of death.”
He is believed to have been investigating connections between Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Russian government. In his statement after the firing, Bharara said, “I did not resign. Moments ago I was fired. Being the US Attorney in SDNY will forever be the greatest honor of my professional life.”
Saturday, March 11, 2017
'I Might As Well Have Not Voted': Details Of GOP Health Plan Leave Trump Voter Appalled
By Brad Reed
Donald Trump this week signaled his support for the House Republicans’ new health care bill — but it looks like that legislation is going over like a lead balloon with his base.
Not only are the Trump diehards at Breitbart News bashing the plan as “Obamacare 2.0,” but even some casual voters are worried about the president’s plan.
ABC News this week talked with North Carolina resident Martha Brawley, a 55 year old woman who cast a ballot for the first time in her life for Donald Trump. Brawley says that she voted for the president on the hopes that he could bring down the cost of health care — but she’s been appalled so far by what she’s seen from the Republican Congress.
“I voted for Trump hoping that he would change the insurance so I could get good health care,” she told ABC News. “I might as well have not voted.”
Brawley was particularly upset when she learned that, under Trumpcare, she would receive a paltry $3,500 tax credit to buy insurance. At the moment, she gets a federal subsidy of around $8,688 to buy insurance from Obamacare.
“All these people who talk in politics have insurance,” she told ABC News. “People like me don’t.”
Donald Trump this week signaled his support for the House Republicans’ new health care bill — but it looks like that legislation is going over like a lead balloon with his base.
Not only are the Trump diehards at Breitbart News bashing the plan as “Obamacare 2.0,” but even some casual voters are worried about the president’s plan.
ABC News this week talked with North Carolina resident Martha Brawley, a 55 year old woman who cast a ballot for the first time in her life for Donald Trump. Brawley says that she voted for the president on the hopes that he could bring down the cost of health care — but she’s been appalled so far by what she’s seen from the Republican Congress.
“I voted for Trump hoping that he would change the insurance so I could get good health care,” she told ABC News. “I might as well have not voted.”
Brawley was particularly upset when she learned that, under Trumpcare, she would receive a paltry $3,500 tax credit to buy insurance. At the moment, she gets a federal subsidy of around $8,688 to buy insurance from Obamacare.
“All these people who talk in politics have insurance,” she told ABC News. “People like me don’t.”
One Brief Example Of The Insane Hypocrisy Of The GOP On The Health Care Bill
Posted by Rude One
It's really one of the weirdest things in the American Health Care Act, the bullshit bill that bullshit Republicans rolled out so their bullshit president could declare that he was St. Donald fighting the Affordable Care Act dragon. From pages 10-16, the bill's authors lay out the conditions by which MegaMillions and Powerball and other winners would have to pay for their own damn health insurance. That new part takes up a tenth of the length of the entire 66 page bill that escaped Mario Kart character Sean Spicer jigged around and pointed at for its brevity, contrasting it with the monstrously huge stack of pages that make up Obamacare (yeah, the black guy's was bigger and you could do more with it).
And the lottery section is just bizarrely precise in talking about the conditions when a lottery winner wouldn't be able to get Medicaid: "a State shall, in determining such eligibility, include such winnings or income (as applicable) as income received— (I) in the month in which such winnings or income (as applicable) is received if the amount of such winnings or income is less than $80,000; (II) over a period of 2 months if the amount of such winnings or income (as applicable) is greater than or equal to $80,000 but less than $90,000; (III) over a period of 3 months if the amount of such winnings or income (as applicable) is greater than or equal to $90,000 but..." You get the idea.
Obsessively detailed, no?
This is easy to mock in a "God, how fucking dumb are they?" kind of way. Except, instead, looking at why this language is in the bill reveals something just a little more sinister about the hypocrisy under which the GOP is operating to commit this health care fuckery.
One of the reasons that Republicans are desperately trying to cram the bill through like a limp cock on an unlubed asshole is because the Congressional Budget Office hasn't finished its scoring of the bill to see what its effects might be. When the CBO is done, it will likely reveal that the AHCA is, as previously mentioned, a bullshit bill that will cost a ton of money and kick millions of people off health insurance. Republicans in the House, at least, are trying to maintain the illusion that they're not just complete twat mites who want to straight up murder people to give the wealthy a tax cut, but, yeah, that's pretty much what's going on.
A cynical reader might be thinking, "Well, sure, everyone loves the CBO when it gives them the numbers they want. What's the big deal?" But that's not quite cynical enough.
See, the lottery exclusion up there was actually first brought up in 2016 because, apparently, there are enough winners to make a big damn difference: "Using the typical per capita cost for Medicaid adults, this provision would reduce direct spending by $475 million over the 2016-2026 period." You know who came up with that nearly half-billion dollars in savings because of a seemingly odd provision? The Congressional Budget Office.
That's the depth of hypocrisy occurring here. The Republicans need the CBO's figures to write their goddamn bill, but they are running scared from the CBO when it comes to the final bill's effects on Americans. That's the incredible dickishness involved here.
It's really one of the weirdest things in the American Health Care Act, the bullshit bill that bullshit Republicans rolled out so their bullshit president could declare that he was St. Donald fighting the Affordable Care Act dragon. From pages 10-16, the bill's authors lay out the conditions by which MegaMillions and Powerball and other winners would have to pay for their own damn health insurance. That new part takes up a tenth of the length of the entire 66 page bill that escaped Mario Kart character Sean Spicer jigged around and pointed at for its brevity, contrasting it with the monstrously huge stack of pages that make up Obamacare (yeah, the black guy's was bigger and you could do more with it).
And the lottery section is just bizarrely precise in talking about the conditions when a lottery winner wouldn't be able to get Medicaid: "a State shall, in determining such eligibility, include such winnings or income (as applicable) as income received— (I) in the month in which such winnings or income (as applicable) is received if the amount of such winnings or income is less than $80,000; (II) over a period of 2 months if the amount of such winnings or income (as applicable) is greater than or equal to $80,000 but less than $90,000; (III) over a period of 3 months if the amount of such winnings or income (as applicable) is greater than or equal to $90,000 but..." You get the idea.
Obsessively detailed, no?
This is easy to mock in a "God, how fucking dumb are they?" kind of way. Except, instead, looking at why this language is in the bill reveals something just a little more sinister about the hypocrisy under which the GOP is operating to commit this health care fuckery.
One of the reasons that Republicans are desperately trying to cram the bill through like a limp cock on an unlubed asshole is because the Congressional Budget Office hasn't finished its scoring of the bill to see what its effects might be. When the CBO is done, it will likely reveal that the AHCA is, as previously mentioned, a bullshit bill that will cost a ton of money and kick millions of people off health insurance. Republicans in the House, at least, are trying to maintain the illusion that they're not just complete twat mites who want to straight up murder people to give the wealthy a tax cut, but, yeah, that's pretty much what's going on.
A cynical reader might be thinking, "Well, sure, everyone loves the CBO when it gives them the numbers they want. What's the big deal?" But that's not quite cynical enough.
See, the lottery exclusion up there was actually first brought up in 2016 because, apparently, there are enough winners to make a big damn difference: "Using the typical per capita cost for Medicaid adults, this provision would reduce direct spending by $475 million over the 2016-2026 period." You know who came up with that nearly half-billion dollars in savings because of a seemingly odd provision? The Congressional Budget Office.
That's the depth of hypocrisy occurring here. The Republicans need the CBO's figures to write their goddamn bill, but they are running scared from the CBO when it comes to the final bill's effects on Americans. That's the incredible dickishness involved here.
Friday, March 10, 2017
Trump Fires All 46 Remaining US Attorneys Out Of Fear That Obama's Out To Get Him
Less
than a week after President Trump made his allegation that President
Obama wiretapped him, he has fired all 46 remaining US attorneys that
were appointed by Obama.
Sarah Isgur Flores, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said in an email that all remaining holdover United States attorneys had been asked to resign, leaving their deputy United States attorneys, who are career officials, in place in an acting capacity.
“As was the case in prior transitions, many of the United States Attorneys nominated by the previous administration already have left the Department of Justice,” she said in the email. “The Attorney General has now asked the remaining 46 presidentially appointed U.S. Attorneys to tender their resignations to ensure a uniform transition.”
Before Trump made his wiretap allegations against the former president, he blamed Obama for the leaks that have plagued his administration.
The mass firings come less than a day after Sean Hannity viewer Trump watched the Fox News host call for a purge of everyone who worked against him in government. Fox News and conservative websites are fueling Trump’s paranoid mentality.
It is not unusual for presidents to replace the US attorneys with their own appointees, but most presidents outside Clinton in 1993, do this gradually. They also don’t gut the attorneys at the Justice Department days after accusing the former administration of wiretapping them.
The Friday massacre style dismissal reeks of Trump administration paranoia. The Trump administration believes that holdovers from the previous administration are the problem.
The mass firing isn’t unprecedented, but it a sign of the mounting instability within with the White House.
Moscow's work didn't end on Nov. 8, 2016
Rachel Maddow Says Helping Trump Become POTUS Was Only The Beginning Of Russia’s Operation
The MSNBC star said events that have unfolded during Trump’s time in
office show that “Russia may now be reaping its reward, maybe getting
what it wants out of the United States government as payback for running
the successful op that helped install the new head of the American
government.”
During the opening of her show, Maddow said that it’s one thing for the Trump campaign and its officials to meet and seemingly work with the Russians during the campaign – but it’s becoming apparent that the election may have just been the opening act of Moscow’s operation.
The new developments that Wikileaks – the same folks that worked with the Russians to expose hacked DNC emails last year – released a trove of classified CIA material is further proof, Maddow says, that the Russians are likely still trying to meddle in U.S. affairs at the direction of Vladimir Putin. Instead of influencing an election, the goal now seems to be disrupting and undermining U.S. intelligence agencies.
Like usual, there is a connection between the latest WikiLeaks release and the President of the United States.
As Maddow pointed out, Trump supporter Nigel Farage, who recently had dinner with Trump, met with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange just two days after the classified CIA information was reportedly released by the organization. When asked why he was visiting Assange, Farage said he “couldn’t remember.”
While the focus is rightfully on Russia’s involvement in last year’s election and what connection the Russians had with the Trump campaign, it’s also important to consider that Moscow now may be influencing our government. In other words, the election may have just been the beginning.
Maddow brings that point home:
Maddow says there is growing evidence that Moscow's work didn't end on Nov. 8, 2016 – that was only the opening act.
During the opening of her show, Maddow said that it’s one thing for the Trump campaign and its officials to meet and seemingly work with the Russians during the campaign – but it’s becoming apparent that the election may have just been the opening act of Moscow’s operation.
The new developments that Wikileaks – the same folks that worked with the Russians to expose hacked DNC emails last year – released a trove of classified CIA material is further proof, Maddow says, that the Russians are likely still trying to meddle in U.S. affairs at the direction of Vladimir Putin. Instead of influencing an election, the goal now seems to be disrupting and undermining U.S. intelligence agencies.
Like usual, there is a connection between the latest WikiLeaks release and the President of the United States.
As Maddow pointed out, Trump supporter Nigel Farage, who recently had dinner with Trump, met with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange just two days after the classified CIA information was reportedly released by the organization. When asked why he was visiting Assange, Farage said he “couldn’t remember.”
While the focus is rightfully on Russia’s involvement in last year’s election and what connection the Russians had with the Trump campaign, it’s also important to consider that Moscow now may be influencing our government. In other words, the election may have just been the beginning.
Maddow brings that point home:
The Russian government attacked our election. The Russian government was in contact with multiple Trump campaign sources while they were doing it. Russian nemeses in the American government – U.S. State Department, CIA – are not faring well since Donald Trump came to power. Is the operation that Russia started during the campaign, is it over? Or are they still running it? Are we still in this now?It’s unsettling to consider the possibility that Russia, after helping put Donald Trump in the White House, is still influencing U.S. affairs. But there is mounting evidence that Moscow’s work didn’t end on Nov. 8, 2016 – that was only the beginning.
Bernie Sanders rips ‘phony billionaire’ Donald Trump: ‘We have a president who is a pathological liar’
By Travis Gettys
Sen. Bernie Sanders
(I-VT) accused President Donald Trump of lying in an effort to undermine
democracy and gather authoritarian powers for himself.
“What he wants, I think, is to end up as leader of a nation which has moved in a significant degree toward authoritarianism where the president of the United States has extraordinary powers, far more so than our Constitution has provided for or the values of the American people support,” Sanders told The Guardian.
Sanders pointed to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the chairman of the House Science Committee, who urged Americans to get “unvarnished” news directly from the president instead of trusting the media.
“That is unprecedented in American history,” Sanders said. “George Bush was a very conservative president, I opposed him every single day. But George Bush did not operate outside of mainstream American political values.”
Sanders faulted the Democratic Party for ignoring the economic displacement of the working class to focus on Wall Street and liberal elites, which he said allowed a “phony billionaire” to win election to the White House.
“There needs to be a fundamental acknowledgement that the model of the Democratic party has been a horrific failure — no ifs, buts and maybes,” Sanders said. “Democrats have lost over 900 legislative seats in states all over this country. There are states where there is virtually no Democratic party at all. When an election takes place the Democrats can’t even put up a candidate for the US Senate.
That’s how pathetic it is.”
Those failures have left the Republican Party as the last defense against Trump’s authoritarian ambitions, Sanders said.
“These are very scary times for the people of the United States and, because the Unites States is the most powerful country on Earth, for the whole word,” he said. “The bad news, the very bad news is that we have a president who is a pathological liar.”
Bernie Sanders (Good Morning America)
“What he wants, I think, is to end up as leader of a nation which has moved in a significant degree toward authoritarianism where the president of the United States has extraordinary powers, far more so than our Constitution has provided for or the values of the American people support,” Sanders told The Guardian.
Sanders pointed to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the chairman of the House Science Committee, who urged Americans to get “unvarnished” news directly from the president instead of trusting the media.
“That is unprecedented in American history,” Sanders said. “George Bush was a very conservative president, I opposed him every single day. But George Bush did not operate outside of mainstream American political values.”
Sanders faulted the Democratic Party for ignoring the economic displacement of the working class to focus on Wall Street and liberal elites, which he said allowed a “phony billionaire” to win election to the White House.
“There needs to be a fundamental acknowledgement that the model of the Democratic party has been a horrific failure — no ifs, buts and maybes,” Sanders said. “Democrats have lost over 900 legislative seats in states all over this country. There are states where there is virtually no Democratic party at all. When an election takes place the Democrats can’t even put up a candidate for the US Senate.
That’s how pathetic it is.”
Those failures have left the Republican Party as the last defense against Trump’s authoritarian ambitions, Sanders said.
“These are very scary times for the people of the United States and, because the Unites States is the most powerful country on Earth, for the whole word,” he said. “The bad news, the very bad news is that we have a president who is a pathological liar.”
Paul Ryan: "Did You Know Insurance Works Like Insurance?"
Posted by Rude One
Blithering ass pimple Paul Ryan, a man who looks like he's perpetually contemplating how he can get away with getting fucked by a horse dick, said one of the stupidest things anyone in politics has said recently, and that's even counting every word out of Donald Trump's dumb, leathery, old man mouth.
Using the filmstrip of the damned that is PowerPoint, Ryan attempted to explain what is so bad about the Affordable Care Act's insurance mandate, and, in doing so, demonstrated that you can make anything seem sinister with a colorful pie chart.
"The fatal conceit of Obamacare is that we’re just gonna make everybody buy our health insurance at the federal government level. Young and healthy people are going to go into the market and pay for the older, sicker people. So the young, healthy person’s going to be made to buy healthcare, and they’re gonna pay for the person, you know, who gets breast cancer in her 40's, or gets heart disease in his 50's," Ryan said.
You following that so far? Now let's have some motherfuckin' pie: "So take a look at this chart. The red slice here are what I would call people with pre-existing conditions, people who have real healthcare problems. The blue is the rest of the people in the individual market, that’s the market where people don’t get health insurance with their jobs, or they buy it themselves. [For the record, the blue is about 80% of the pie] The whole idea of Obamacare is the people in the blue side pay for the people on the red side. The people who are healthy pay for the people who are sick. It’s not working, and that’s why it’s in a death spiral."
In other words, the insurance works, well, just like fuckin' insurance works. Exactly like insurance works. Every kind of insurance. Your car insurance? Homeowner's? Yep. But, hell, let's put insurance aside for a moment.
By Ryan's reasoning, there is no reason for there even to be a society, let alone a government. Some of you don't have children and you pay property taxes, which, in most states, goes to fund schools, which you don't use because, hey, you don't have any fuckin' children.
Jesus fuckballs, this is even more of a scam than health insurance because there's a good chance you're gonna go to a doctor some day. If you never have kids, you never take advantage of the school system. Why the fuck should you have to pay for it?
You know why we pay for schools for other people's kids? Because that's what the fuck you do or your entire society turns to shit (unless we start sending kids back to work all those coal mine jobs that Trump has promised). And that's why you pay for other people's health care. Because if you don't, you will end up paying, through emergency room visits, lost productivity, and more.
My insurance that I've paid during this relatively healthy time of my life is a hedge against the time when I get cancer from the soon-to-be poisoned water or have a heart attack from watching cock knobs like Ryan attempt to explain why the basic model for the existence of insurance is wrong. I'm not gonna forego insurance because I'm paying for someone's chemo now. What a fuckin' tool I'd be.
And, look, we shouldn't even be talking about fuckin' health insurance. We should be talking about a national health care system that eliminates the profiteering corporations. But we're Americans, and, goddammit, we want people to suffer because we think it's better that people have a fantasy idea of "freedom." Motherfucker, we have jobs and shit to do. And Ryan wants you to take the time to figure out how to get the best price on that stent surgery that you need. That's not freedom. That's fucking with people's lives and making them believe they are free when they are just slaves in your chains of market forces.
Towards the end of his TED-talk from hell, Ryan gave away the game, the real reason why the House GOP is attempting this nonsense: "We, as Republicans, have been waiting seven years to do this. We, as Republicans, who fought the creation of this law and accurately predicted that it would not work, ran for office in 2010, in 2012, in 2014 and in 2016 on a promise that we would -- if given the ability, we would repeal and replace this law. How many people running for Congress and the Senate did you hear say that? How many times did you hear President Donald Trump, when he was candidate Donald Trump, say that? This is the closest we will ever get to repealing and replacing Obamacare. The time is here. The time is now. This is the moment. And this is the closest this will ever happen."
We're all just victims of a tautology that has ensnared the GOP. They swore up and down that they would repeal the Affordable Care Act, and now that they can repeal the ACA, they have to repeal the ACA because they said they would repeal the ACA and now they can repeal...
Except they can't unless they get a critical number of Americans to think, "Wait, I shouldn't pay for shit I'm not using right this second," which, sadly, is probably a convincing argument to the selfish pricks who voted for these assholes like Ryan.
(By the way, the ACA isn't in a "death spiral." Premiums have gone up for just 3% of all Americans with health insurance. That's what we're arguing about here. It's all a fucking game.)
Blithering ass pimple Paul Ryan, a man who looks like he's perpetually contemplating how he can get away with getting fucked by a horse dick, said one of the stupidest things anyone in politics has said recently, and that's even counting every word out of Donald Trump's dumb, leathery, old man mouth.
Using the filmstrip of the damned that is PowerPoint, Ryan attempted to explain what is so bad about the Affordable Care Act's insurance mandate, and, in doing so, demonstrated that you can make anything seem sinister with a colorful pie chart.
"The fatal conceit of Obamacare is that we’re just gonna make everybody buy our health insurance at the federal government level. Young and healthy people are going to go into the market and pay for the older, sicker people. So the young, healthy person’s going to be made to buy healthcare, and they’re gonna pay for the person, you know, who gets breast cancer in her 40's, or gets heart disease in his 50's," Ryan said.
You following that so far? Now let's have some motherfuckin' pie: "So take a look at this chart. The red slice here are what I would call people with pre-existing conditions, people who have real healthcare problems. The blue is the rest of the people in the individual market, that’s the market where people don’t get health insurance with their jobs, or they buy it themselves. [For the record, the blue is about 80% of the pie] The whole idea of Obamacare is the people in the blue side pay for the people on the red side. The people who are healthy pay for the people who are sick. It’s not working, and that’s why it’s in a death spiral."
In other words, the insurance works, well, just like fuckin' insurance works. Exactly like insurance works. Every kind of insurance. Your car insurance? Homeowner's? Yep. But, hell, let's put insurance aside for a moment.
By Ryan's reasoning, there is no reason for there even to be a society, let alone a government. Some of you don't have children and you pay property taxes, which, in most states, goes to fund schools, which you don't use because, hey, you don't have any fuckin' children.
Jesus fuckballs, this is even more of a scam than health insurance because there's a good chance you're gonna go to a doctor some day. If you never have kids, you never take advantage of the school system. Why the fuck should you have to pay for it?
You know why we pay for schools for other people's kids? Because that's what the fuck you do or your entire society turns to shit (unless we start sending kids back to work all those coal mine jobs that Trump has promised). And that's why you pay for other people's health care. Because if you don't, you will end up paying, through emergency room visits, lost productivity, and more.
My insurance that I've paid during this relatively healthy time of my life is a hedge against the time when I get cancer from the soon-to-be poisoned water or have a heart attack from watching cock knobs like Ryan attempt to explain why the basic model for the existence of insurance is wrong. I'm not gonna forego insurance because I'm paying for someone's chemo now. What a fuckin' tool I'd be.
And, look, we shouldn't even be talking about fuckin' health insurance. We should be talking about a national health care system that eliminates the profiteering corporations. But we're Americans, and, goddammit, we want people to suffer because we think it's better that people have a fantasy idea of "freedom." Motherfucker, we have jobs and shit to do. And Ryan wants you to take the time to figure out how to get the best price on that stent surgery that you need. That's not freedom. That's fucking with people's lives and making them believe they are free when they are just slaves in your chains of market forces.
Towards the end of his TED-talk from hell, Ryan gave away the game, the real reason why the House GOP is attempting this nonsense: "We, as Republicans, have been waiting seven years to do this. We, as Republicans, who fought the creation of this law and accurately predicted that it would not work, ran for office in 2010, in 2012, in 2014 and in 2016 on a promise that we would -- if given the ability, we would repeal and replace this law. How many people running for Congress and the Senate did you hear say that? How many times did you hear President Donald Trump, when he was candidate Donald Trump, say that? This is the closest we will ever get to repealing and replacing Obamacare. The time is here. The time is now. This is the moment. And this is the closest this will ever happen."
We're all just victims of a tautology that has ensnared the GOP. They swore up and down that they would repeal the Affordable Care Act, and now that they can repeal the ACA, they have to repeal the ACA because they said they would repeal the ACA and now they can repeal...
Except they can't unless they get a critical number of Americans to think, "Wait, I shouldn't pay for shit I'm not using right this second," which, sadly, is probably a convincing argument to the selfish pricks who voted for these assholes like Ryan.
(By the way, the ACA isn't in a "death spiral." Premiums have gone up for just 3% of all Americans with health insurance. That's what we're arguing about here. It's all a fucking game.)
Thursday, March 9, 2017
Rachel Maddow Drops Major Reality Check: Trump-Russia Collusion Looks Increasingly Likely
The
MSNBC host told America to "get back to the main point," which is that
it's slowly looking like the Trump campaign was working with Russia to
topple Hillary Clinton.
In her opening segment, Maddow focused on a so-far unsubstantiated dossier released in January that details damning links between Trump and high-ranking Russian officials. While Trump and his apologists try to muddy the waters, point fingers, and deny any wrongdoing, more and more of that controversial dossier has become verified as truth.
As Maddow said, pieces from that document continue to fall into place, which is slowly raising the likelihood that Russia and Trump’s campaign worked together.
Rachel Maddow notes that while the dossier of intelligence about Donald Trump ties to Russia remains unconfirmed, pieces of it have checked out upon investigation by the press, though the primary government investigators are former Trump campaign officials.
Maddow said:
Forget all the salacious personal stuff. Forget all the stuff that made the White House so mad when this was published. The bottom line of this dossier, the bottom line allegation, the point of it is that the Trump campaign didn’t just benefit from Russia interfering in our presidential campaign. The point of this is that they colluded, they helped, they were in on it. The money quote from this dossier is, “The operation had been conducted with the full knowledge of Trump and senior members of his campaign team.” That’s basically what this whole dossier alleges – that the Trump folks were in on it. There were multiple people close to Trump, involved in the Trump campaign, who were in contact with the Russian government about the Russian government’s attacks on Hillary Clinton, while those attacks were happening, while Russia was waging these attacks. Overall, yes, we still have to describe this as a sheaf of uncorroborated allegations, but little pieces supporting that bottom line thesis really do keep falling in line.Maddow then listed the series of Russian revelations – and secret meetings between Trump associates and the Russian officials – that have come out over the past several weeks, despite initial claims from the president that nobody on his team met with the Russians during the campaign.
It turns out that more than a half-dozen Trump associates are linked to Russia, including Jeff Sessions, Michael Flynn, Carter Page, J.D. Gordon, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and Michael Cohen.
As Maddow noted in her coverage, it was reported by Politico on Tuesday that one of those associates, Carter Page, was given permission by the Trump campaign last year to make a visit to Russia in the heat of the 2016 election cycle.
The president himself even met with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak before giving a campaign speech last year.
All of these bits of information are turning what was previous an unverified dossier into a credible document implicating Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in what would be the biggest political scandal in U.S. history.
Even though there is so much going on in our politics right now, much of it disturbing and distracting, we must not lose focus on this scandal.
Monday, March 6, 2017
'A Low, Low Moment For Washington' | Morning Blow | MSNBC
Over the weekend in a Saturday tweet storm, Trump accused
President Obama of tapping his phones during the 'sacred election
process' and saying it was 'Nixon/Watergate.'
Sunday, March 5, 2017
Katt Williams TOTALLY DESTROYS DONALD CHUMP!!
Katt Williams destroys Donald Trump in this 2017 stand up - jokes on how Donald Trump won the 2016 election, Trump's campaign promise of Mexican paying for the wall, Katt talks about trump speech and behavior, Katt also talks about Trump's hair and groping women/sexual assault and Melania Trump.
Without mentioning directly, Katt made a reference to the Katt Williams fight hinting why he could not wait to start a new year.
Without mentioning directly, Katt made a reference to the Katt Williams fight hinting why he could not wait to start a new year.
Friday, March 3, 2017
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)