Trump's leadership team

[Simon]

The nasty, personal smear campaign against Betsy DeVos

 

http://natl.io/hxIrT6 via @rickhess99

Thank you for reminding me why I finally cancelled my subscription to that gawdawful rag a couple yeas ago.

[TakeYouToTasker]

They should probably think a bit more about attacking the first cabinet appointment who has her own private army and intelligence service.

 

Just seems like good advice.

"Mom, can I borrow the Navy?

[Benjamin Franklin]

The board was so much more readable while he was on his hiatus.

Use the ignore. Don't respond. He stays because Tom and others give him love.

[meazza]

"Mom, can I borrow the Navy?

 

It's not like anyone has used it anyways.

[B-Man]

Not the Cabinet...........................but still important.

 

 

Donald Trump will be able to fill more than 100 federal court positions when he takes office - almost double the number Obama could after winning in 2008
by Liam Quinn and Libby Plummer

 

Original Article

 

[Koko78]

Not the Cabinet...........................but still important.

 

 

Donald Trump will be able to fill more than 100 federal court positions when he takes office - almost double the number Obama could after winning in 2008

by Liam Quinn and Libby Plummer

 

Original Article

 

 

Thank you Harry Reid for going 'nuclear' and eliminating the filibuster for those federal court picks!

[Tiberius]

Trump's latest tweet:

 

The world was gloomy before I won - there was no hope. Now the market is up nearly 10% and Christmas spending is over a trillion dollars!

 

 

Dear Leader is sure full of himself and his useful idiots swallow it gleefully

[keepthefaith]

Trump's latest tweet:

 

 

Dear Leader is sure full of himself and his useful idiots swallow it gleefully

Trump is full of himself. If only Obama could have run for a 3rd term, he would have won so say he.

Edited December 27, 2016 by keepthefaith

[Nanker]

Trump is full of himself. If only Obama could have run for a 3rd term, he would have won so say he.

The idiot probably doesn't realize what a dagger in the back that claim is to Hillary. Then again does Obamacare? Probably not. He's going out as the biggest loser in terms of foreign policy that the US has ever had. Stabbed Israel in the back, created ISIS by pulling our troops out of Iraq, cheered the Muslim Brotherhood to victory over Mubarak in Egypt, Russian Reset, Ukraine capitulation, Red line in his shorts for Syria, Arms for ISIS allies, Fast & Furious, open southern border, etc., etc., etc. He's the biggest putz on the world stage.

[B-Man]

JOURNALISM: Washington Post unwittingly destroys the “Sessions is a racist” slander.

[B-Man]

ABC NewsVerified account ‏@ABC 1h1 hour ago

JUST IN: Pres.-elect Trump selects Thomas Bossert to serve as Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

 

[GG]

I was attempting to use the word "fortunes" in two different ways to point up a difference; that clearly went over like a lead zeppelin.

Anyhoo, I question your chosen example of what constitutes lunacy, To me the lunacy is the regularly cavalier dismissal of anything that can't be quantified and the marginalization of any person or idea which doesn't adhere to the idea that personal enrichment is the central tenet of our nation

 

 

As evidenced by the wonderful condition in which we find our country and culture after 30+ years of naked greed and unchecked self-interest?

 

Spare me that canard, it's nothing more than a way to justify limitless avarice. Just the fact that you even need such a bullshlt rationalization to legitimize that type of self-serving gluttony should be enough in itself to expose the complete lack of virtue in that attitude.

 

And I'm not talking about government mandates as much as I am about personal priorities (although I do think the financial industry is one of about four areas that should be firmly regulated). Over the last several decades this nation has turned away from any sense of civic duty or personal responsibility it may have once had, and it's no coincidence that this attitude shift has coincided with a time where our financial institutions and business leaders have been viewing our economy as a zero sum game which exists for no other purpose than to gather as much as they possibly can unto themselves and do so by any means of which they can contrive. It doesn't make our nation stronger or wiser, it doesn't advance the cause of humanity and it sure as shlt hasn't lead to a better outcome for the collective. The fact that it's about to get worse is very, very bad news; and when the whole thing comes crashing down around our ears at some point down the road, not only are the folks that have been gorging themselves at the trough going to be the ones responsible but you guys that have been bending over backwards trying to justify it are going to be right there beside them. But I'm sure your gangsters won't worry themselves too much over it since it's become clear that being the cause of a problem no longer means you'll bear the responsibility for it's outcome.

 

Been meaning to respond to this for a while, and then ran across this article last week that brings up the difference between the era you're talking about and the current world. You may poo poo Trump's sloganisms all you want, but the message is clean and clear. To make America great again, he's bringing back the nostalgia of the period you're talking about. So for kicks, try separating the messenger from the message.

 

You talk about the collective country and humanity, as if that really exists or ever existed. The America Trump is talking about, and I'm assuming you too, was great when the population lived by a different moral code. The bicoasts can laugh at the old fashioned God, Family, Country ethos, and laugh along with the President as he tossed the insult the electorate. Then nobody should be surprised that people don't take slights kindly, and the complaint is that old folks are clinging to an old world, then you better give them something better to believe in and devote their lives to.

 

I'm far from a religious person, but spend a lot of time among people who are, and unequivocally, the religious friends & family are more devoted, caring and charitable than my atheist friends. So don't think that the issues aren't related. You can't slam God & Family, and then wonder why there's far less attention paid to the Country.

[Benjamin Franklin]

I'm far from a religious person, but spend a lot of time among people who are, and unequivocally, the religious friends & family are more devoted, caring and charitable than my atheist friends. So don't think that the issues aren't related. You can't slam God & Family, and then wonder why there's far less attention paid to the Country.

 

I have lots of friends who would identify as atheist/agnostic. Some are amazingly charitable and caring. Some are dicks. Same on the church side.

 

There is probably a correlation study somewhere about who gives more but in my anecdotal experience, there are good people in every belief system. (Except Ozy's.)

[grinreaper]

For what it's worth:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

 

It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.

According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.

In any case, if conservative donations often end up building extravagant churches, liberal donations frequently sustain art museums, symphonies, schools and universities that cater to the well-off. (It’s great to support the arts and education, but they’re not the same as charity for the needy. And some research suggests that donations to education actually increase inequality because they go mostly to elite institutions attended by the wealthy.)

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.

[Chef Jim]

 

I have lots of friends who would identify as atheist/agnostic. Some are amazingly charitable and caring. Some are dicks. Same on the church side.

 

There is probably a correlation study somewhere about who gives more but in my anecdotal experience, there are good people in every belief system. (Except Ozy's.)

There are obviously dicks on both sides but having lived in the Bay Area for 8 years now and being surrounded by atheist dicks they are dickier. It's refreshing when I visit my rural roots in WNY and see the difference between these people and the "for love of God and country" people I grew up with.

[unbillievable]

For what it's worth:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

 

It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.

According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.

In any case, if conservative donations often end up building extravagant churches, liberal donations frequently sustain art museums, symphonies, schools and universities that cater to the well-off. (It’s great to support the arts and education, but they’re not the same as charity for the needy. And some research suggests that donations to education actually increase inequality because they go mostly to elite institutions attended by the wealthy.)

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.

 

There is an ideological variable that isn't accounted for in the study that makes up the difference: Liberals view taxes as a form of charity.

 

Socialists believe that government can (should) completely replace independent charities, so they are more willing to vote for paying higher taxes to build a social safety net. It also explains their lack of volunteer work: Leftists view it as the job of the state; personally abdicating all responsibility.

Edited December 29, 2016 by unbillievable

[boyst]

 

I have lots of friends who would identify as atheist/agnostic. Some are amazingly charitable and caring. Some are dicks. Same on the church side.

 

There is probably a correlation study somewhere about who gives more but in my anecdotal experience, there are good people in every belief system. (Except Ozy's.)

not been to the south have ya? Spend time here. I can show you a world of different 10 miles apart.

[B-Man]

FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMED: Incoming Trump Press Secretary Sean Spicer on the Media: ‘Business as Usual Is Over.’

 

 

 

One more time: In the post-World War II era, the press has enjoyed certain institutional privileges based on two assumptions:

 

(1) That it’s very powerful; and

 

(2) That it will exercise that power responsibly,

 

for the most part. Both assumptions have been proven false in this election cycle. Like many of the postwar institutional accommodations, this one will be renegotiated under Trump.

[IDBillzFan]

FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMED: Incoming Trump Press Secretary Sean Spicer on the Media: ‘Business as Usual Is Over.’

 

Interestingly, one of the few times the mainstream media got its panties twisted by Obama had to do with them sidestepping the media. In situations where a few photographers were usually always available to grab some shots for AP, the Obama WH chose instead to release their own staged photos, and the media pissed itself harder than Ozy watching a black person drink from a public water fountain.

 

I'm not fan of this because the media does have a role to play. The problem is they no longer play that role, but are a media arm for specific parties and elected officials. They did this to themselves, and while I'll get some enjoyment out of watching them go crazy over Trump, it's a bed they made on their own and it's one I hope gets remedied one day.

 

Not holding my breath on this.

[boyst]

FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMED: Incoming Trump Press Secretary Sean Spicer on the Media: ‘Business as Usual Is Over.’

 

 

 

One more time: In the post-World War II era, the press has enjoyed certain institutional privileges based on two assumptions:

 

(1) That it’s very powerful; and

 

(2) That it will exercise that power responsibly,

 

for the most part. Both assumptions have been proven false in this election cycle. Like many of the postwar institutional accommodations, this one will be renegotiated under Trump.