White House has settled in

Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pence is a born again Prod. He doesn't count
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

Pence is a born again Prod. He doesn't count


...and you can bet Pence is a freak which is why his wife doesn't trust him.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
mikecohen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

iwantwinners said:

okaydo said:

This is unfair. Views change over time. Pence could be pro-porn and adultery nowadays.



not that terrible of an idea. As long as government is involved in marriages and the awarder of benefits to its members, it would be sensible to stipulate rules that uphold the integrity of that contract. It deters destructive behaviors that affect families. It could also deter people from getting married.


That may be the biggest government comment I've seen on Bearinsider.
That, of course, is one of the major core senselessnesses of Republican Orthodoxy that one would tend to see more easily the more educated one is, i.e., the contradiction between (a) the Republican memes of "freedom" and anti-big-and-intrusive government, and (b) the Republican predilection to use the government to enforce the most personally oppressive regimes, especially sexually but, as much if not more, in terms of oppression of social groups disfavored by right wing orthodoxy.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't read Krugman. Smart guy but he's all over the place.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

I don't read Krugman. Smart guy but he's all over the place.


All over the place? Don't fall for the propaganda. Over 20 Years he's been among the most consistent and correct of prognosticators.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B.A. Bearacus said:




....and Bobby D!
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?


B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Really long-winded way of saying "Fuuck You Donald!"
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B.A. Bearacus said:


Really long-winded way of saying "Fuuck You Donald!"
lol.
indeed.

And someone should put out a similar tweet about what a dumby he was to mess up the election and give up Trump in the first place.

I'm sure he feels major contrition, and why he is going to such extremes to flame Trump.
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Should we be worried that Mike Pompeo was sent to North Korea to meet Kim Jong Un
or that the WH left Haley's *ss hanging in the wind when they spoke to Russia and told them not to worry about any additional sanctions after Trump puffed up and bloviated about the repercussions of supporting someone who uses chemical weapons on its own people after Russia complained?
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Smart move sending Pompeo to NK. The Democrats if they all voted no could possibly block his nomination but seeing he is orchestrating NK, a number of chicken s$it Dems will vote to confirm. He's already acting like Secretary of State so I guess he is one.
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

Smart move sending Pompeo to NK. The Democrats if they all voted no could possibly block his nomination but seeing he is orchestrating NK, a number of chicken s$it Dems will vote to confirm. He's already acting like Secretary of State so I guess he is one.
Lets hope it goes as planned so we don't end up with egg all over our face. Since there is no State Dept or US ambassador in South Korea something had to be done, but that still doesn't explain pulling the sanctions on Russia?
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo said:


That is pretty embarrassing for what it says about White people and who/what they will embrace--and an effective admission about the different standards they apply to "one of their own." You can deny that racism is an issue in this country or that the average white person is racist--but how else can you explain the lack of empathy and alignment with their non-white citizens? They are getting what they want and they fundamentally approve in unequal treatment.

I'm white and I see this outlook in many friends and family. It disappoints me greatly.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump now calling this man a liar:

bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Victor Cha senior adviser and Korea Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who was a leading candidate to be Trump's ambassador to South Korea tells Axios future editor Steve LeVine that the shift isn't as abrupt as it looks:

"They have already stated that they would halt all testing while in dialogue. This statement formalizes that promise."
"[T]he statement talks about a test ban, no first use, and no transfer all the trappings of a 'responsible' nuclear weapons state (which is what they ultimately wanted to be accepted as)."
"Thus, this is not a denuclearization statement, it is a statement that DPRK [North Korea] can be a responsible nuclear weapons state."
The key sentence: "No one believes this, but if they can get Trump to agree, that is all they need."
What to watch for, per Cha: "[T]he glaring unanswered question in all of this is what the U.S. will give in return for these up front N.K. concessions."

"We know what we want from DPRK, but no one is scrutinizing what the US administration is thinking of giving up sanctions? peace treaty? normalization? exercises? missile defense?" Axios
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is above average cringeworthy to me:

concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Of course he and the Bushes do not like each other.
I think it's funny how many rifts he has.
Is Melania going as a "I'm with them" move?
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

Victor Cha senior adviser and Korea Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who was a leading candidate to be Trump's ambassador to South Korea tells Axios future editor Steve LeVine that the shift isn't as abrupt as it looks:

"They have already stated that they would halt all testing while in dialogue. This statement formalizes that promise."
"[T]he statement talks about a test ban, no first use, and no transfer all the trappings of a 'responsible' nuclear weapons state (which is what they ultimately wanted to be accepted as)."
"Thus, this is not a denuclearization statement, it is a statement that DPRK [North Korea] can be a responsible nuclear weapons state."
The key sentence: "No one believes this, but if they can get Trump to agree, that is all they need."
What to watch for, per Cha: "[T]he glaring unanswered question in all of this is what the U.S. will give in return for these up front N.K. concessions."

"We know what we want from DPRK, but no one is scrutinizing what the US administration is thinking of giving up sanctions? peace treaty? normalization? exercises? missile defense?" Axios
Good post.
They likely feel they can trick Trump into a NK-favorable deal.
I believe they are right.
If they don't like what is on the table, they will be the ones to walk, not us. And if it makes them look bad, who cares - Kim jung un isn't going to be voted out of command and their into intl reputation can't get worse, so nothing to lose. Meanwhile, trump does have much to lose, so NK will use that against him.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It would make sense that the talks will either
-break down and trump will twitter flame Un, or
- trump will agree to something that everyone but fox howls at, while he and fox will create a triumphant victory.

I think maybe there should be legislation to label commentary as either
- fact reporting
- opinion reporting

The shows should have to place either white or green colored triangle in one corner of the screen, and a 3rd party board should be established to oversee and keep folks tracking properly.
This way, consumers can know what they are feeding themselves.

B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wondering when if ever Trump's advisors will convince him not to acknowledge that his co-conspirators can flip on him. Innocent people can't be flipped on.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is a good read: Are Trump's lawyers selling him a bill of goods, or is he not listening?
Quote:

President Trump is so unwilling to accept reality, and his advisers, even his lawyers, may be afraid of telling him the truth. Either Trump misunderstood what they've told him or his lawyers are making stuff up to pacify him:
  • Ty Cobb said the special counsel investigation would be over last Thanksgiving. Then by the end of the year.
  • Rudolph W. Giuliani tells him he's going to get the Russia investigation to wrap up in the next week or so.
  • One of his lawyers seems to have told Trump he's in no danger if he is not a "target" of the investigation.
  • Trump seems to think everything in Michael Cohen's office and whatever they talked about fall into the category of attorney-client privilege.
  • Trump's lawyers act like it is their decision whether Trump will have to give testimony to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.
These are false, in fact so preposterous that non-lawyers can tell they are nonsense. You don't need to have gone to law school to know:
  • No one has any idea when the Russia probe will end. Trump could fire Mueller, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and the investigation would go on.
  • Giuliani hasn't practiced law in decades, has no ability to influence Mueller and isn't all that helpful with respect to the Southern District of New York, where he ended his stint as U.S. attorney in January 1989.
  • Trump might be a subject of the Russia investigation now, but Mueller can decide he is a target at any time really.
  • "Fixing" isn't covered by the attorney-client privilege, and plotting crimes with your attorney isn't covered either. Most of what Cohen did does not seem to be legal work.
  • Trump can be subpoenaed by the grand jury if he refuses to make himself available for an interview. A court would almost certainly enforce it.
If Trump is buying the hooey he's being fed, he's really much dimmer than his supporters thought. And here's some more bad news his lawyers might not have told him (or if they did, he chooses to forget):
  • James B. Comey's memos don't exonerate Trump. They provide contemporaneous, highly detailed confirmation of his efforts to obstruct the investigation. Oh, and plotting to fire Mueller and then Rosenstein to get rid of the investigation evidences a corrupt intent. Based on information that is already publicly known, there are likely sufficient facts to make a case for obstruction.
  • We already know about collusion the June 9 meeting at Trump Tower with Russian associates. Moreover, Paul Manafort may, according to prosecutors, have been the vital link between the campaign and Kremlin. No one and no document has exonerated Trump of collusion.
  • The dossier has not been discredited. Some portion of it, according to Comey and others, was corroborated.
  • If Trump fires Mueller and/or Rosenstein, there very likely will be mass protests, extreme pressure on the House to impeach and a batch of resignations at the Justice Department. Trump's presidency would effectively be over. (By the way, because Sessions was so worried about Trump firing Rosenstein that he had to suggest he'd quit in protest, Republican lawmakers are flat wrong when they say there's no chance Trump will fire Mueller or Rosenstein.)
  • Trump may get subpoenaed in any number of civil cases (e.g., Summer Zervos's defamation case, Stormy Daniels's defamation case).
The last point is no small matter. Even the Democratic National Committee's lawsuit against Russia's intelligence outfit (GRU), WikiLeaks, Jared Kushner, Donald Trump Jr., Roger Stone, the Trump campaign and others for conspiracy can force Trump and members of his inner circle to turn over documents and sit for depositions where they will have to testify under oath.


B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Looks like Ronny Jackson's nomination to head the VA is about to tank. Being tremendously unqualified is finally catching up to this Trump nominee.

I would like to request a recount of Trump's weight once someone replaces Jackson as White House doc.
mikecohen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

This is a good read: Are Trump's lawyers selling him a bill of goods, or is he not listening?
Quote:

President Trump is so unwilling to accept reality, and his advisers, even his lawyers, may be afraid of telling him the truth. Either Trump misunderstood what they've told him or his lawyers are making stuff up to pacify him:
  • Ty Cobb said the special counsel investigation would be over last Thanksgiving. Then by the end of the year.
  • Rudolph W. Giuliani tells him he's going to get the Russia investigation to wrap up in the next week or so.
  • One of his lawyers seems to have told Trump he's in no danger if he is not a "target" of the investigation.
  • Trump seems to think everything in Michael Cohen's office and whatever they talked about fall into the category of attorney-client privilege.
  • Trump's lawyers act like it is their decision whether Trump will have to give testimony to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.
These are false, in fact so preposterous that non-lawyers can tell they are nonsense. You don't need to have gone to law school to know:
  • No one has any idea when the Russia probe will end. Trump could fire Mueller, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and the investigation would go on.
  • Giuliani hasn't practiced law in decades, has no ability to influence Mueller and isn't all that helpful with respect to the Southern District of New York, where he ended his stint as U.S. attorney in January 1989.
  • Trump might be a subject of the Russia investigation now, but Mueller can decide he is a target at any time really.
  • "Fixing" isn't covered by the attorney-client privilege, and plotting crimes with your attorney isn't covered either. Most of what Cohen did does not seem to be legal work.
  • Trump can be subpoenaed by the grand jury if he refuses to make himself available for an interview. A court would almost certainly enforce it.
If Trump is buying the hooey he's being fed, he's really much dimmer than his supporters thought. And here's some more bad news his lawyers might not have told him (or if they did, he chooses to forget):
  • James B. Comey's memos don't exonerate Trump. They provide contemporaneous, highly detailed confirmation of his efforts to obstruct the investigation. Oh, and plotting to fire Mueller and then Rosenstein to get rid of the investigation evidences a corrupt intent. Based on information that is already publicly known, there are likely sufficient facts to make a case for obstruction.
  • We already know about collusion the June 9 meeting at Trump Tower with Russian associates. Moreover, Paul Manafort may, according to prosecutors, have been the vital link between the campaign and Kremlin. No one and no document has exonerated Trump of collusion.
  • The dossier has not been discredited. Some portion of it, according to Comey and others, was corroborated.
  • If Trump fires Mueller and/or Rosenstein, there very likely will be mass protests, extreme pressure on the House to impeach and a batch of resignations at the Justice Department. Trump's presidency would effectively be over. (By the way, because Sessions was so worried about Trump firing Rosenstein that he had to suggest he'd quit in protest, Republican lawmakers are flat wrong when they say there's no chance Trump will fire Mueller or Rosenstein.)
  • Trump may get subpoenaed in any number of civil cases (e.g., Summer Zervos's defamation case, Stormy Daniels's defamation case).
The last point is no small matter. Even the Democratic National Committee's lawsuit against Russia's intelligence outfit (GRU), WikiLeaks, Jared Kushner, Donald Trump Jr., Roger Stone, the Trump campaign and others for conspiracy can force Trump and members of his inner circle to turn over documents and sit for depositions where they will have to testify under oath.



Why does all this remind me of the Russian nobles trying, trying and trying to figure out a way to get rid of Rasputin, 'til one or a group of them, either on their own or delegated, just cut the gordian knot and got him in a room and used all the devices of murder (way more, and for much longer, than it would take for any other person) 'til he finally expired.
mikecohen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
mikecohen said:

Another Bear said:

This is a good read: Are Trump's lawyers selling him a bill of goods, or is he not listening?
Quote:

President Trump is so unwilling to accept reality, and his advisers, even his lawyers, may be afraid of telling him the truth. Either Trump misunderstood what they've told him or his lawyers are making stuff up to pacify him:
  • Ty Cobb said the special counsel investigation would be over last Thanksgiving. Then by the end of the year.
  • Rudolph W. Giuliani tells him he's going to get the Russia investigation to wrap up in the next week or so.
  • One of his lawyers seems to have told Trump he's in no danger if he is not a "target" of the investigation.
  • Trump seems to think everything in Michael Cohen's office and whatever they talked about fall into the category of attorney-client privilege.
  • Trump's lawyers act like it is their decision whether Trump will have to give testimony to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.
These are false, in fact so preposterous that non-lawyers can tell they are nonsense. You don't need to have gone to law school to know:
  • No one has any idea when the Russia probe will end. Trump could fire Mueller, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and the investigation would go on.
  • Giuliani hasn't practiced law in decades, has no ability to influence Mueller and isn't all that helpful with respect to the Southern District of New York, where he ended his stint as U.S. attorney in January 1989.
  • Trump might be a subject of the Russia investigation now, but Mueller can decide he is a target at any time really.
  • "Fixing" isn't covered by the attorney-client privilege, and plotting crimes with your attorney isn't covered either. Most of what Cohen did does not seem to be legal work.
  • Trump can be subpoenaed by the grand jury if he refuses to make himself available for an interview. A court would almost certainly enforce it.
If Trump is buying the hooey he's being fed, he's really much dimmer than his supporters thought. And here's some more bad news his lawyers might not have told him (or if they did, he chooses to forget):
  • James B. Comey's memos don't exonerate Trump. They provide contemporaneous, highly detailed confirmation of his efforts to obstruct the investigation. Oh, and plotting to fire Mueller and then Rosenstein to get rid of the investigation evidences a corrupt intent. Based on information that is already publicly known, there are likely sufficient facts to make a case for obstruction.
  • We already know about collusion the June 9 meeting at Trump Tower with Russian associates. Moreover, Paul Manafort may, according to prosecutors, have been the vital link between the campaign and Kremlin. No one and no document has exonerated Trump of collusion.
  • The dossier has not been discredited. Some portion of it, according to Comey and others, was corroborated.
  • If Trump fires Mueller and/or Rosenstein, there very likely will be mass protests, extreme pressure on the House to impeach and a batch of resignations at the Justice Department. Trump's presidency would effectively be over. (By the way, because Sessions was so worried about Trump firing Rosenstein that he had to suggest he'd quit in protest, Republican lawmakers are flat wrong when they say there's no chance Trump will fire Mueller or Rosenstein.)
  • Trump may get subpoenaed in any number of civil cases (e.g., Summer Zervos's defamation case, Stormy Daniels's defamation case).
The last point is no small matter. Even the Democratic National Committee's lawsuit against Russia's intelligence outfit (GRU), WikiLeaks, Jared Kushner, Donald Trump Jr., Roger Stone, the Trump campaign and others for conspiracy can force Trump and members of his inner circle to turn over documents and sit for depositions where they will have to testify under oath.



Why does all this remind me of the Russian nobles trying, trying and trying to figure out a way to get rid of Rasputin, 'til one or a group of them, either on their own or delegated, just cut the gordian knot and got him in a room and used all the devices of murder (way more, and for much longer, than it would take for any other person) 'til he finally expired - although, contrary to what they had hoped and thought, it did nothing to save the system (which, as we all now know, eventually devolved into something so horrible that even the descendants of Ivan the Terrible couldn't forsee it)
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
An embarrassment to our nation.

"We have a very special relationship, in fact I'll get that little piece of dandruff off... we have to make him perfect, he is perfect."


@bettybowers:

"When the aging gorilla is confronted with the much more virile, new alpha-male, he shows submissiveness by grooming the alpha-male, but the gesture is actually a vain attempt by the old gorilla to humiliate his much younger rival."

Jane Goodall
iwantwinners
How long do you want to ignore this user?
blungld said:

okaydo said:


That is pretty embarrassing for what it says about White people and who/what they will embrace--and an effective admission about the different standards they apply to "one of their own." You can deny that racism is an issue in this country or that the average white person is racist--but how else can you explain the lack of empathy and alignment with their non-white citizens? They are getting what they want and they fundamentally approve in unequal treatment.

I'm white and I see this outlook in many friends and family. It disappoints me greatly.
*** are you talking about. Your identity -- and your view of others -- is so wrapped up in group identities like race, political affiliation/identity that you are woefully unaware of your own biases and moral projections as axiomatically superior.

Those percentages more or less align with race and party affiliations, but you're decrying some sort of unique moral shortcoming here.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In November, America will be the woman in the white hat.
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
iwantwinners said:

blungld said:

okaydo said:


That is pretty embarrassing for what it says about White people and who/what they will embrace--and an effective admission about the different standards they apply to "one of their own." You can deny that racism is an issue in this country or that the average white person is racist--but how else can you explain the lack of empathy and alignment with their non-white citizens? They are getting what they want and they fundamentally approve in unequal treatment.

I'm white and I see this outlook in many friends and family. It disappoints me greatly.
*** are you talking about. Your identity -- and your view of others -- is so wrapped up in group identities like race, political affiliation/identity that you are woefully unaware of your own biases and moral projections as axiomatically superior.

Those percentages more or less align with race and party affiliations, but you're decrying some sort of unique moral shortcoming here.
"Percentages more or less align with race and party affiliations" / "unique moral shortcoming" = chicken/egg
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ladies and Gentlemen, presented for your consideration, the President of the United States:

President Trump, speaking in the Cabinet Room, alongside French President Emmanuel Macron:
"Kim Jong-un, he really has been very open and I think very honorable from everything we're seeing. ... Maybe it will be wonderful and maybe it won't."

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"A study published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [suggests that w]hite, Christian and male voters ... turned to Mr. Trump because they felt their status was at risk" and they felt "a growing sense of racial or global threat."
"The study is not the first to cast doubt on the prevailing economic anxiety theory." Axios
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Haven't read the article yet, but surprising quote:

×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.