Trump

[WstateU]

Probably should start a '*itch slap' and 'nut kick' thread; here's another one to add to a long list...

Sarah Silverman Walks Back Tweet Urging Military Coup Against Trump

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/sarah-silverman-walks-back-tweet-urging-military-coup-against-trump/ar-AAmA9Se?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

[CBB_Fan]

I'll renew my objection on the label. How about instead, FACTUAL based reporting? A speaker from Breitbart.com? I see him as more the common man.

Are you ok with them reporting left wing radicals, led by Soros funded hired hit men, destroyed property and assaulted the 1st Amendment rights of an invited speaker who had done nothing wrong and hundreds of students interested in his message?

You do not want factual reporting if you want them to report George Soros backed hit men at the protest. You want conspiracy theory. Call an apple an apple and a spade a spade.

[Aargh]

I am very aware that the Washington Post has a liberal lean. Sometimes biased sources get the story right, or close to it.

They are reporting that the info coming out of the White House about phone calls and other info is from sources inside the White House who are on the White House staff. This could get interesting. Trump hasn't been known to take kindly to subordinates who leak info.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/02/the-leaks-coming-out-of-the-trump-white-house-right-now-are-totally-bananas/?utm_term=.c10f9ad58ae6&wpisrc=nl_most-draw10&wpmm=1

[WuDrWu]

You do not want factual reporting if you want them to report George Soros backed hit men at the protest. You want conspiracy theory. Call an apple an apple and a spade a spade.

Yeah, that pretty much went right over your head.

[ShockingButTrue]

Everyone knows ABC is the only reputable news source. I'm still waiting for the results of their fact-finding investigation into the charges of sexual misconduct against the President. Have they located the police reports yet? No?

Who was gullible enough to believe that one?

[Aargh]

Republicans in Congress are considering eliminating interest as a tax deduction for budsinesses. Trump has a slightly different plan he's backing. His plan would eliminate the deduction for some manufacturing, but preserve it for real estate development. The Wall Street Journal cites "conservative" estimates of the tax saving for "Trump" organizations at around $8 million a year under Trump's plan.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-tax-plan-could-preserve-millions-in-savings-for-his-businesses-1485691210?mod=e2fb

[WuDrWu]

Republicans in Congress are considering eliminating interest as a tax deduction for budsinesses. Trump has a slightly different plan he's backing. His plan would eliminate the deduction for some manufacturing, but preserve it for real estate development. The Wall Street Journal cites "conservative" estimates of the tax saving for "Trump" organizations at around $8 million a year under Trump's plan.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-...91210?mod=e2fb

Pretty much ANY and ALL tax deductions are going to benefit Trump's businesses. So if you're going to imply that every decision he makes is strictly because he personally benefits, can we get that out of the way now so we don't have to revisit it for 4-8 years? Thank you.

[Aargh]

Pretty much ANY and ALL tax deductions are going to benefit Trump's businesses. So if you're going to imply that every decision he makes is strictly because he personally benefits, can we get that out of the way now so we don't have to revisit it for 4-8 years? Thank you.

I have no problem with either eliminating or maintaining the interest deduction for businesses. I do raise my eyebrows a bit when Trump comes up with a plan that picks winners (real estate development) and losers (manufacturing), when his family's interest expense is for real estate development.

[CBB_Fan]

I have decided, however, to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence. Now I simply concede the point. They are right. We do expect some things in return. - Betsy DeVos, Roll Call, 9/6/97

Betty DeVos confirmed as Secretary of Uneducation. Pretty much confirms that the Senate is a solid block and that no Republican dares dissent without party approval; either of the two Republican dissenters could have stopped DeVos in subcommittee. 1-2 will oppose as directed to gain favor in their state without costing the Republicans a victory but the party as a whole is monolithic.

[SB Shock]

Betty DeVos confirmed as Secretary of Uneducation. Pretty much confirms that the Senate is a solid block and that no Republican dares dissent without party approval; either of the two Republican dissenters could have stopped DeVos in subcommittee. 1-2 will oppose as directed to gain favor in their state without costing the Republicans a victory but the party as a whole is monolithic.

It not like the Democrats when Obama was elected were dissenting on his cabinet picks.

[Aargh]

Both parties tend to vote in blocks. That totally stifles a representative government. It becomes more important to vote the party line than to vote for anything constituents may want.

Failure to vote the party line means that the party will not support your bills or your constituents. It's a form of extortion. Do what you're told by the party bosses or you won't have any campaign funds from the party, your military bases will be shuttered, and any bills you dare propose will die in committee.

[CBB_Fan]

It not like the Democrats when Obama was elected were dissenting on his cabinet picks.

Obama didn't put up DeVos. She is quite literally the least qualified candidate to ever hold a cabinet position while also being one of the most corrupt picks in history. Her sole qualification for the job is the money she spent for it. The money she spent in Michigan in her experiment dropped the state's education outcomes from 13th to 45th and her hearings proved that she was thoroughly and utterly incompetent.

This is not a case of "well they voted for their crappy picks too, so we had too!" Obama had three failed nominations: all withdrew their names. Bill Richardson withdrew his name after federal investigations into his donors. Judd Gregg, a Republican, withdrew his name because of fundamental disagreements with Obama's policies. Finally, Tom Daschle withdrew his name over $220,000 in speaking fees.

Betty DeVos is nothing but a mega-donor to the Republican party, with over $200 million from the DeVos family. She is the first education secretary to not have been a public school parent or student; she may have never set foot in a public school in her life. Anyone that cares should have rejected her.

And yes, some Democrats did vote against Obama's picks. He only had 5 roll call votes as his picks were, to put it simply, less controversial, and of five there were 7 Democratic nays (4 for Geitner). Which means that Democrats broke from the ranks far more often than what we've seen for Trump's picks despite a far more qualified field with fewer ethics issues. For proof, look to the fact that none of those five picks went to a party-line vote; the worst got 9 Republicans and no Republican voted against all five.

There is no equivalency.

[shocka khan]

Obama didn't put up DeVos. She is quite literally the least qualified candidate to ever hold a cabinet position while also being one of the most corrupt picks in history. Her sole qualification for the job is the money she spent for it. The money she spent in Michigan in her experiment dropped the state's education outcomes from 13th to 45th and her hearings proved that she was thoroughly and utterly incompetent.

This is not a case of "well they voted for their crappy picks too, so we had too!" Obama had three failed nominations: all withdrew their names. Bill Richardson withdrew his name after federal investigations into his donors. Judd Gregg, a Republican, withdrew his name because of fundamental disagreements with Obama's policies. Finally, Tom Daschle withdrew his name over $220,000 in speaking fees.

Betty DeVos is nothing but a mega-donor to the Republican party, with over $200 million from the DeVos family. She is the first education secretary to not have been a public school parent or student; she may have never set foot in a public school in her life. Anyone that cares should have rejected her.

And yes, some Democrats did vote against Obama's picks. He only had 5 roll call votes as his picks were, to put it simply, less controversial, and of five there were 7 Democratic nays (4 for Geitner). Which means that Democrats broke from the ranks far more often than what we've seen for Trump's picks despite a far more qualified field with fewer ethics issues. For proof, look to the fact that none of those five picks went to a party-line vote; the worst got 9 Republicans and no Republican voted against all five.

There is no equivalency.

SSDD. Don't let anyone tell you you're government is NOT for sale. And especially Trump. Is this really draining the swamp?
Bush > Erik Prince > DeVos family.
Trump > Betsy DeVos > DeVos family Erik's sister.

If you don't like this, quit buying Amway.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/betsy-dick-devos-family-amway-michigan-politics-religion-214631

You can find the 'family tree' by looking here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Prince

[Eric]

Obama didn't put up DeVos. She is quite literally the least qualified candidate to ever hold a cabinet position while also being one of the most corrupt picks in history. Her sole qualification for the job is the money she spent for it. The money she spent in Michigan in her experiment dropped the state's education outcomes from 13th to 45th and her hearings proved that she was thoroughly and utterly incompetent.

This is not a case of "well they voted for their crappy picks too, so we had too!" Obama had three failed nominations: all withdrew their names. Bill Richardson withdrew his name after federal investigations into his donors. Judd Gregg, a Republican, withdrew his name because of fundamental disagreements with Obama's policies. Finally, Tom Daschle withdrew his name over $220,000 in speaking fees.

Betty DeVos is nothing but a mega-donor to the Republican party, with over $200 million from the DeVos family. She is the first education secretary to not have been a public school parent or student; she may have never set foot in a public school in her life. Anyone that cares should have rejected her.

And yes, some Democrats did vote against Obama's picks. He only had 5 roll call votes as his picks were, to put it simply, less controversial, and of five there were 7 Democratic nays (4 for Geitner). Which means that Democrats broke from the ranks far more often than what we've seen for Trump's picks despite a far more qualified field with fewer ethics issues. For proof, look to the fact that none of those five picks went to a party-line vote; the worst got 9 Republicans and no Republican voted against all five.

There is no equivalency.

Yup. She bought her own trophy and paid for the celebration.

[jdshock]

Apparently the anti-DeVos crowd wakes up pretty early. Three (I'll make it four: boo DeVos!) posts in a row.