Trump

[wu_shizzle]

Nope.

To be fair to the Trump Supporters, Breitbart readers, and Obama critics that were constantly telling us how concerning Saudi Arabia was, though, no one from those seven nations has killed a person on US soil since 1975, and the same can't be said for Saudi Arabia.

You made the insinuation that there was some connection between countries that Trump has done business in, and the 7 countries that were listed in the EO.

As far as I know, Trump has no business interests in predominantly Muslim countries like Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, etc... yet there is no ban from those countries.

Trying to link some ulterior financial motive looks like demagoguery.

[Kung Wu]

Yep. I'm sure that wasn't a list he simply rubber stamped and definitely believe he will not backtrack like he has on so many other policies and proposals.

This one must be different because it's what we want to hear, right?

It's one thing to spout off an off-the-cuff opinion during an interview or in the middle of a debate, and then flip flop. It's a completely different thing to actually have one of the most respected conservative think tanks in America help you compile a well thought out list of candidates and put those forward.

Regardless, at the very least, you want your nominee at MINIMUM consistently SAYING he will appoint conservative judges. That's FAR better than KNOWING the opposition won't. I mean, even if he appointed an irritating middle of the road centrist it will be better than what the opposition cooks up. Irritating as hell and political suicide, but still BETTER.

Amirite?

[Play Angry]

Amirite?

Gorsuch is a very good pick. I am glad he followed through on this promise.

[Kung Wu]

Gorsuch is a very good pick. I am glad he followed through on this promise.

Me too. Think Gorsuch will be confirmed though?

[Play Angry]

Me too. Think Gorsuch will be confirmed though?

For sure. There will be the usual grandstanding but in the end I expect him to get 60-65 votes.

Nuclear option won't be necessary IMO.

[CBB_Fan]

Each and every one of Trump's picks are going to be nominated, as each and every one of the Republicans has shown unwavering support. The following are the only exceptions:

John Kelly, Secretary of Homeland Security: J. Sessions (R-AL) - Not Voting
James Mattis, Secretary of Defense: J. Sessions (R-AL) - Not Voting
Elain Chao, Secretary of Transportation: M. McConnell (R-KY) - Present (Chao is McConnell's wife)
Mike Pompeo, CIA Director: R. Paul (R-KY) - Nay
Betty DeVos, Secretary of Education: S. Collins (R-MN) (promised)

Ever other vote at every stage has seen 100% Republican support with no defectors, whether it be subcommittee confirmations or procedural motions so that a vote can be held without a member of the opposing party. And all in all, there Paul's vote against Pompeo is the sole Republican nay.

The nomination of Rex Tillerson and the subcommittee votes on DeVos and Sessions have shown that no Republican Senator is willing to stick their neck out while Trump has 80% Republican approval, for risk of having a pro-Trump candidate primary them.

Gorsuch is more difficult, but he picks up an automatic 55 votes from Republicans + Manchin (D-WV), Heitkamp (D-ND), and Varner (D-VA). The rest of the Democrats may make this the sword they die on, given Trump's massive unpopularity among Democrats and desire for vengeance, but the current mood in the Republican Party might be to continue undoing minority protections to force him through if 5 Democrats don't switch.

Regardless, Gorsuch is the last opportunity for opposition. After that, we are a one-party state.

[Eric]

The only one I have a real problem with is DeVos. Just a garbage choice. It's no secret that I think very little of our president, but credit where credit is due, travelling to Delaware to meet the family as the remains of the soldier killed in Yemen came home showed class I haven't seen from Trump before.

[CBB_Fan]

The only one I have a real problem with is DeVos. Just a garbage choice. It's no secret that I think very little of our president, but credit where credit is due, travelling to Delaware to meet the family as the remains of the soldier killed in Yemen came home showed class I haven't seen from Trump before.

Chao, Kelly, Pompeo, and especially Mattis are excellent choices.

DeVos, Pruitt, and Perry seem like they were picked not to lead their departments but to destroy them. Tillerson has a lack of experience and conflict of interest issues, BUT to his credit he has dealt with the conflict of interest by selling his $181M in Exxon shares and putting the money in a blind trust with the stipulation that the trust cannot buy Exxon shares, a foil to Trump. Sessions, well I've said a lot about him so I'll try to stay short. He's the Senator most linked to white nationalism and he has allegations of racist comments to and around black colleagues, as well as of targeted persecution of civil rights groups.

Just for comparison Obama had the following Republican picks:

Robert Gates - Defense, confirmed
Judd Gregg - Commerce, declined (would have likely been replaced by a Democrat in the Senate)
James Comey, CIA Director, confirmed

His controversial picks included Tom Daschle for Health and Human Services, Bill Richardson for Commerce, Gina McCarthy for EPA, and Thomas Perez for Labor. However, of the initial picks none of the 6 that went to a roll-call vote were particularly controversial, with the most being Timothy Geithner at 60-34 and the least being Hillary Clinton at 94-2.

[Kung Wu]

Hmmm ... someone at the NSA tapping the President's phone?

https://twitter.com/DRUDGE/status/826960083552759809

[pinstripers]

I don't know (nor do I care) how many attended Trump's
inauguration.
But I can tell you exactly how many people attended
Hillary's inauguration.
And that's the only number that matters.

[ShockingButTrue]

I don't know (nor do I care) how many attended Trump's
inauguration.
But I can tell you exactly how many people attended
Hillary's inauguration.
And that's the only number that matters.

Thank God!!!

[ShockerPrez]

Do people in here actually post infowars and beirbart news as legitmate sources of information? Cause that is scary.

Im not taking a side either way on this.

Just wondering if there is a news outlet anywhere that both the right and the left would agree is legit.

Is there?

[jdshock]

Im not taking a side either way on this.

Just wondering if there is a news outlet anywhere that both the right and the left would agree is legit.

Is there?

I really like the Economist. But some conservatives might think it's too liberal now. They haven't endorsed a Republican for president since GWB.

I also think the Christian Science Monitor has a lot less bias than some other organizations.

[CBB_Fan]

If you are looking for accurate information, the following is a pretty good guide, abridged and edited slightly from the original source:

1. Stay away from cable news. It's all infotainment Really they just want you to keep watching the ads. It's not worth your effort to spend time sorting the wheat from the chaff here.


2. Don't believe anything on Facebook or any social communication channel without independent verification. Something in your Facebook feed sounded outrageous? Probably because it's not true. Even the things you want to believe.


3. Newspapers are still the best source of well-reported, factual information. Sure, they get it wrong occasionally, but they also have set-in-stone correction policies and publish said corrections as soon as possible.


4. Your hometown paper is a good source of info on local political issues, elections, candidates and scandal/corruption/etc. Sure, it's likely anemic and doesn't do huge, hard-hitting investigative journalism, but you should pay for their web access subscription anyways. It's likely the only source of information about your schools, your city council, and the things that effect you most directly.


5. For national and international news, go the major metro papers. The New York Times, along with the LA Times and Washington Post, etc. can get access and sources that no other organization can. Pick one and subscribe online. (I would put ChristianScienceMonitor in this category).


6. Go International. Checkout the U.K.-based Guardian, which has really stepped up it's U.S. coverage in the last few years. Check out the BBC. For a really different perspective, check Al Jazeera, the Doha, Quatar based agency that pumps out some solid reporting.


7. PBS. Fund drives, endowments and public funding sources mean the pressure to please advertisers and gain 'eyeballs' is less intense. This results in a sometimes dry reporting style, but tends to be packed with information.


8. NPR & PRI. Again, public funding means less pressure to please advertisers. Some argue that NPR has gotten soft on corporate reporting as public funding has fallen off.


9. fivethirtyeight.com for data-related reporting, like polling and surveys. These guys are actual statisticians and data scientists that also happen to do reporting. Most of the time, data-reporting is done by journalist with journalism degrees.


10. If you're really hardcore, look for the insider publications. Wall Street Journal is kind of in this category, targeting traders and NYC bankers, but it's become a bit more mainstream now. Autonews.com is a good one for the automotive industry, for example, or poynter.org for news about journalism.


How do you know if a story is biased? Well, good luck. The Hostile Media Effect pretty much guarantees that you'll feel as though some stories are biased. The best thing to do for this is seek out alternative news sources from around the country and world, and make up your own mind.


Take a look at Fox News, or Brietbart even. What are their sources, how does their reporting jive with the other news agencies? If they differ, Why do you think they differ? Is there an agenda?


Undoubtedly many of these news sources are run by large corporate organizations. Reporting is an expensive, resource intensive, and potentially very dangerous endeavor. It's hard to avoid big money, which is why public-funded sources, as well as international sources are important.


Also, understand how news agencies like the AP work. These are usually well-reported, well-vetted articles, but pay attention and realize that when you're reading an AP story in your local newspaper, it's likely that same story has been chopped up and printed in every newspaper in the country and often across the world. This isn't bad, but it can sometimes make it difficult to find different sources of the same event.


IF YOU ONLY DO ONE THING, avoid listening to the talking heads on TV. These are people whom the shows producers know are good at talking on live television, are fairly predictable and will be able to prattle on about what-ifs and maybes for hours if needed. Don't let them replace your own thoughts with theirs.

[WuShock16]

Im not taking a side either way on this.

Just wondering if there is a news outlet anywhere that both the right and the left would agree is legit.

Is there?

I've seen this graphic before. Is this agreeable?