Much like an ill-mannered and ill-tempered child, if he can't have it his way, he is going to break it so nobody can play or use it: Affordable Healthcare Act , NFL, Iran Nuclear Deal, and Puerto Rico. Tillerson was right, he is a F-ing Moron. We have no real leadership, just a giant man-baby. Why would anyone believe what he says or enter into any agreement with the United States when he could decide he doesn't like the terms at any moment? Who leaves millions of people without healthcare coverage or with the prospects of paying increased premiums for healthcare coverage when they didn't have to? Who backs a dictator with nuclear weapons into a corner leaving him with just a few dangerous options? Who seeks to do away with agreements that at bare minimum prevent more nuclear weapons in an area that has been historically home to deep religious divisions and terrorist organizations? What kind of leader sides with groups who advocate for racial purity and worships Nazis? When has a POTUS ever sided with Russia over his own intelligence agencies? When has a POTUS been so antagonistic to a free press to the point that the press is in fear of their physical well-being? When has a POTUS ever been so antagonistic to members of his own party? When has a POTUS sought to cut U.S. citizens off from help in their time of need? When has a POTUS ever criticized an honored war hero or a Gold Star family? When has a POTUS known less about the people, issues, and government which he is tasked to lead?

calbear93 said:

---

bearister said:

---

"Donald Trump engages in conduct 3-5 times a week that would get him fired by any Fortune 500 company." Donny Deutsch on MSNBC

---

As much as I dislike Trump, we need to stop quoting these talking heads as if their biased political opinions are somehow worthy.

---

As an attorney that used to try employment cases, I quoted Donny because I thought it was a particularly astute and extremely accurate observation. It also perfectly underscores the horror of the fact his conduct, which would get him fired from most jobs, does not result in his discharge from the position that wields the most power in the world. However, he may trigger the exercise of the 25th Amendment eventually.

Trump will go down as the worst president in American history. Consider the embarrassment it's already been and then remember we have at least 3.5 more years of this. It's not at all unlikely that he is re-elected as long as he still has the support of the Republican base, even if his approval ratings continue to be abysmal, his personal character continues to be trash, and his administration continues to be a joke (not to mention, Russia). The total Republican dominance in national government representation despite actually being the popular minority party is a statement about how undemocratic our federal government is, and there's a decent chance it keeps him in power despite losing the popular vote once again.

I hope Bernie runs for the Democratic nomination and wins. If this term becomes the all-time cluster**** I believe it will be, he could actually become president. Though he has critical disadvantages (socialism is evil to huge numbers of Americans), he also has tremendous advantages against Trump that few other candidates have. Bernie is relatively clean, earnest and direct. He's not going to be put on the defensive in debates for a mountain of personal scandals like Hillary, and will be able to take the offensive in a lot of topics where Hillary wouldn't. Not to mention, he will be personally stronger in competition against Trump. I had a lot more confidence in Hillary as a competitor before the first debate than ever again after. I was surprised to see publications judging it a win for Clinton because I thought she got her *ss kicked. Trump repeatedly put her on the defensive with sharp attacks and her defense was pitiful. Her efforts to take Trump to task might have been even worse. There is a litany of sins to call Trump to account for and I have confidence in Bernie as master inquisitor. He's going to bark Trump's sins out one-by-one (the ones fit for a presidential debate, at least) and Trump will be on the defensive for a change.

More importantly however, I'd rather take a chance on an actual change candidate like Bernie running and winning than taking a more cautious shot with a compromise 'third-way democrat'. There are ideas that need a powerful standard-bearer and Bernie can do that if he becomes president. It will be hard for legislation to get passed, but at least things like universal healthcare, universal housing, universal basic income, egalitarian taxation, full civil rights for all citizens and sane foreign policy, environmental policy, education policy, etc will get into the national conversation.

You lost me after the first paragraph. Bernie may be clean but his wife is not and apparently that matters when you are a democrat. I think it's time for fresh blood and to be honest, if Trump represents change I would be more than happy to go back to a corporate democrat for some semblance of normalcy and competence.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

You lost me after the first paragraph. Bernie may be clean but his wife is not and apparently that matters when you are a democrat. I think it's time for fresh blood and to be honest, if Trump represents change I would be more than happy to go back to a corporate democrat for some semblance of normalcy and competence.

---

Agreed. Bernie helped push the Democrats further left, but he's pretty old. I doubt he's the man to run again and win. But a younger candidate taking up a similar platform and rhetorical style could do it.

"This is the existence of Donald Trump in the wake of President Barack Obama. Trump can't hold a candle to Obama, so he's taking a tiki torch to Obama's legacy. Trump can't get his bad ideas through Congress, but he can use the power of the presidency to sabotage or even sink Obama's signature deeds.
In fact, if there is a defining feature of Trump as "president," it is that he is in all ways the anti-Obama not only on policy but also on matters of propriety and polish. While Obama was erudite, Trump is ignorant. Obama was civil, Trump is churlish. Obama was tactful, Trump is tacky.
There is a thing present in Obama and absent from Trump that no amount of money or power can alter: a sense of elegant intellectualism and taste." Charles Blow, NY Times

The Liar in Chief now says that the past two Presidents failed to contact the families of fallen soldiers by mail, by telephone, or in person. It is unknown whether he has contacted the families of the fallen soldiers in Niger. When confronted with his lie, The Liar in Chief responded that is what someone told him. You would think that this specific type of information would be vetted before a sitting POTUS would attempt to throw two of his predecessors under the bus for not attending to the duties of a Commander In Chief of the U.S. military. Is there no depth that this child will sink to?

Unit2Sucks said:

---

You lost me after the first paragraph. Bernie may be clean but his wife is not and apparently that matters when you are a democrat. I think it's time for fresh blood and to be honest, if Trump represents change I would be more than happy to go back to a corporate democrat for some semblance of normalcy and competence.

---

Relatively clean

Bernie is a politician so of course there's dirt to be thrown, but in proportion to Clinton it's just a mole hill. Trump will not get the mileage he needs out of attacking Bernie personally as he did against Clinton.

I like Bernie for reasons I can't articulate but he would not be a good president. He's more of a bomb thrower than a thoughtful driver of policy. I also recall a number of stories about how poorly he treated individuals in his campaign.

Why doesn't our country deserve a great president? I would like to see someone who is competent, compassionate and respectful of both our cherished traditions and contemporary conditions.

I don't know who the right person is but if we have to pick a senator I'm probably going with Franken or Booker. I don't particularly like Gavin Newsom but I think he would be a lot better than Bernie and would probably win.

What is it with the White House and their inability to tell the truth? Now comes John Kelley who decided to recount a story about the member of Congress who dared criticized Trump's conversation with a Gold Star widow. Kelly recounted his story which occurred at the dedication for a new FBI building. Kelly said that the member of Congress when giving a few words at the dedication went on and on about how she had secured funding for the building by calling the former president and how she delivered for her constituents and did not mentioned the two FBI agents for who the building was named after. It appears that the Sun-Sentinel obtained a video of the dedication and reports that the member of Congress did not mention anything about securing funding for the building, but did mention efforts in getting the building named after the two slain FBI agents, by praising Boehner and Rubio. This is in total contrast to the comments made by John Kelly before the White House Press. Why would Kelly, a man so revered for his service and his family's sacrifice to this country knowing recount an untrue story when the facts could be instantly verified and show his story to be at best untrue and at worst a lie? Why would Kelly risk his reputation which he had so carefully cultivated? What makes this even more bizarre is the White House response that, "Reporters should not be challenging Kelly, a retired Marine Corp General."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/white-house-defends-kellys-defense-of-trump/ar-AAtLI9K

I would not be surprise that part that of General Kelly's speech was prepared by the Moron or someone on his staff. His version of the Florida renaming of the FBI building was completely wrong. He should had been criticizing the Moron for forcing him to rehash the death of his son!

Apparently Kelly forgot to mention that the TRUTH is no longer sacred.

Cave Bear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

You lost me after the first paragraph. Bernie may be clean but his wife is not and apparently that matters when you are a democrat. I think it's time for fresh blood and to be honest, if Trump represents change I would be more than happy to go back to a corporate democrat for some semblance of normalcy and competence.

---

Relatively clean

Bernie is a politician so of course there's dirt to be thrown, but in proportion to Clinton it's just a mole hill. Trump will not get the mileage he needs out of attacking Bernie personally as he did against Clinton.

---

The Republicans are absolutely terrific at smearing Democrats (and other opponents, like John McCain in the South Carolina Primary against W) based on the fakest of news that magically appeals to enough of their fact free voters to make the difference in elections, i.e.,

Kerry, a decorated and wounded soldier was Swift Boated into a coward;

Gore, who, among politicians, had the vision to help develop the internet through political nurturing, was lied into being a liar by attributing to him something he never said,

McCain fathered (horrors) a mixed-race child

(not to mention the decades long smearing of Hillary with a mountain of fake news about murder conspiracies, lesbian orgies, etc., etc., etc., that got eaten up as Gospel by enough voters to give her an uphill battle just to start with).

Two things:

(1) If they can do that to them, successfully, they can do it to anyone.

(2) Given that history, largely supported and perpetrated by the big Republican donors, who seem to metastasize as time goes on, i.e., the Kochs, the Mercers, Sinclair, etc., etc., etc., etc., why would they even need any, me-too, participation by the Russians to accomplish the enough-shift in the electorate through, again another mountain of fake news, that turned the last national election?

One of the most startling pieces of news to me recently is the freely-admitted revelation that the Republicans had the massive advantage of long-developed targeting techniques given to them by Facebook employees embedded in their campaign, which massive advantage was achieved, very simply, because the Democrats were too stupid to take up Facebook's offer to provide them with the same skills, support, etc.

Fishy Whitefish (twitter thread) -- Anyone is familiar with government contracting?

BearChemist said:

---

Fishy Whitefish (twitter thread) -- Anyone is familiar with government contracting?

---

Shocking that the government is inefficient and wastes tax payers' money.

Hang on, I think when he called out the no audit clause he left out the "of the labor rates" part. This is the first I'm seeing of this contract, but I read that to mean that the entities can't look at how much profit whitefish was making on labor markup. I'm not saying that's good or bad (and I admit I don't know much, if anything, about FAR), but before making a stink about a specific provision, it would be best to be accurate about the critique.

The fact that this small shop received this large contract feels like something straight from that movie War Dogs, but doesn't surprise me at all given how dysfunctional our government is, and particularly under the new regime. This is the same type of stuff that the republicans made such a big deal out of in connection with Haiti and Bill Clinton. I'm sure we're only scratching the surface of the type of graft going on in this administration given that they have absolutely no respect for transparency or upholding public trust. Why would they when the only people they care about (their base) believe 100% of what they say, regardless of credible evidence challenging its veracity.

calbear93 said:

---

BearChemist said:

---

Fishy Whitefish (twitter thread) -- Anyone is familiar with government contracting?

---

Shocking that the government is inefficient and wastes tax payers' money.

---

Shocking that the waste and inefficiency comes through its kleptocratic relationship with private industry

Cave Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearChemist said:

---

Fishy Whitefish (twitter thread) -- Anyone is familiar with government contracting?

---

Shocking that the government is inefficient and wastes tax payers' money.

---

Shocking that the waste and inefficiency comes through its kleptocratic relationship with private industry

---

Also shocking that it seems to get worse in Republican administrations.

mikecohen said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

You lost me after the first paragraph. Bernie may be clean but his wife is not and apparently that matters when you are a democrat. I think it's time for fresh blood and to be honest, if Trump represents change I would be more than happy to go back to a corporate democrat for some semblance of normalcy and competence.

---

Relatively clean

Bernie is a politician so of course there's dirt to be thrown, but in proportion to Clinton it's just a mole hill. Trump will not get the mileage he needs out of attacking Bernie personally as he did against Clinton.

---

The Republicans are absolutely terrific at smearing Democrats (and other opponents, like John McCain in the South Carolina Primary against W) based on the fakest of news that magically appeals to enough of their fact free voters to make the difference in elections, i.e.,

Kerry, a decorated and wounded soldier was Swift Boated into a coward;

Gore, who, among politicians, had the vision to help develop the internet through political nurturing, was lied into being a liar by attributing to him something he never said,

McCain fathered (horrors) a mixed-race child

(not to mention the decades long smearing of Hillary with a mountain of fake news about murder conspiracies, lesbian orgies, etc., etc., etc., that got eaten up as Gospel by enough voters to give her an uphill battle just to start with).

Two things:

(1) If they can do that to them, successfully, they can do it to anyone.

(2) Given that history, largely supported and perpetrated by the big Republican donors, who seem to metastasize as time goes on, i.e., the Kochs, the Mercers, Sinclair, etc., etc., etc., etc., why would they even need any, me-too, participation by the Russians to accomplish the enough-shift in the electorate through, again another mountain of fake news, that turned the last national election?

One of the most startling pieces of news to me recently is the freely-admitted revelation that the Republicans had the massive advantage of long-developed targeting techniques given to them by Facebook employees embedded in their campaign, which massive advantage was achieved, very simply, because the Democrats were too stupid to take up Facebook's offer to provide them with the same skills, support, etc.

---

This is something I'd love to see Republicans defend themselves against. Just off the top of my head I can recall the smear campaigns of Nixon against Voorhees and Douglas, the smear campaigns of Bush against McCain and Kerry and the birther smear campaign against Obama.

I can't recall anything comparable from Democrats against Republicans

sycasey said:

---

Strykur;842856431 said:

---

I think what comes next after Trump will be worse.

---

---

How is that worse?

drizzlybears brother said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Strykur;842856431 said:

---

I think what comes next after Trump will be worse.

---

---

How is that worse?

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Hang on, I think when he called out the no audit clause he left out the "of the labor rates" part. This is the first I'm seeing of this contract, but I read that to mean that the entities can't look at how much profit whitefish was making on labor markup. I'm not saying that's good or bad (and I admit I don't know much, if anything, about FAR), but before making a stink about a specific provision, it would be best to be accurate about the critique.

The fact that this small shop received this large contract feels like something straight from that movie War Dogs, but doesn't surprise me at all given how dysfunctional our government is, and particularly under the new regime. This is the same type of stuff that the republicans made such a big deal out of in connection with Haiti and Bill Clinton. I'm sure we're only scratching the surface of the type of graft going on in this administration given that they have absolutely no respect for transparency or upholding public trust. Why would they when the only people they care about (their base) believe 100% of what they say, regardless of credible evidence challenging its veracity.

---

My familiarity was with DOD Public Works contracts, which mostly followed FAR guidance, however when a national emergency is declared FAR guidelines go into the dumper. Unfortunately some Contracting Officers continue the practices after the emergency ends.

One typical stipulation is that DOL does a wage audit of Government Contractors to make sure employers are paying DOL wages. This is likely what the no-audit clause is about. In most cases contractors can get away with paying below DOL wages, even if audited. The big kicker is that this work should involve Davis-Bacon wages for construction trades (following DOL guidance) however the contractor can pay much lower Service Contract Act wages and pocket the difference with impunity if there is not DOL labor rate audit.

AS far as the award itself is concerned. Remember contracting officers are awarded based on the volume of contracts awarded, not the contract effectiveness in using taxpayer dollars. I once saved $200 million by proving that a contract was improperly awarded. That won me no friends amongst our contracting office who had to repeat a two years study, unfunded.

Finally, few, if any contracting officers are willing to declare a company unfit for the job until after they show up and prove it by failure. Outsourced the base police at a top secret facility to a contractor who couldn't carry guns; the other contractors knew and protested, but we fired the police force and when the contractor showed up on day one without guns; the Contracting Officer fired him too.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Strykur;842860702 said:

---

I read somewhere that Trump thinks Bannon is a leaker? This kind of blows my mind.

---

Are you genuinely surprised? He's a mole for the Mercers who is there to keep Trump honest. Well "honest" is obviously not the right word but take my words seriously not literally.

---

Could never understand the dynamics of the Bannon/Mercers relationship until now. Mercers own a big chunk of Breitbart and are in a long-term dispute with the IRS over a $7B tax bill.

Mercers initially supported Cruz, but figured Bannon and Kellyanne could persuade Trump to make their pesky tax spat go poof. Bannon's now out, so he can't help the Mercers and they cut ties.

BearDevil said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Strykur;842860702 said:

---

I read somewhere that Trump thinks Bannon is a leaker? This kind of blows my mind.

---

Are you genuinely surprised? He's a mole for the Mercers who is there to keep Trump honest. Well "honest" is obviously not the right word but take my words seriously not literally.

---

Mercers initially supported Cruz...

---

Yeah, the photo of Cruz' dad on the Grassy Knoll kinda burned that relationship.

This Mercer?

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/7bktk0/one_year_on_donald_trump_is_still_an_illegitimate/?st=J9R6FHG8&sh=1047e1d0

Has trickle down Economics ever worked in this country? Will we see wage increases due to cutting corporate taxes? Will the public at large get on board with the tax cuts being pushed for corporations? How will the issue of deducting local and state taxes get past members from California, New York and others?

The problem, in a nutshell.

sycasey said:

---

The problem, in a nutshell.

---

Disgusting and idiotic idol worshiping. We need more sunshine all around and we need to accept how dark all of our hearts truly are. We need to move away from the dark places that Trump, Bannon and his likes will take us and reclaim true conservative principles and personal accountability.

Conservative principles are whatever the current iteration of the Republican Party says they are. I don't think any party is looking back 50-60 years to determine what their principles are. Certainly not the Democrats, who were where the Jim Crow legislators primarily were during that period of time and probably not the Republicans either. The Republicans' biggest issue is practicing what they preach.

In fairness to Moore, who is a neanderthal and entirely deplorable, the laws in Alabama support old men engaging in intercourse with 16 year olds.

It's disgusting, but not a crime.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

In fairness to Moore, who is a neanderthal and entirely deplorable, the laws in Alabama support old men engaging in intercourse with 16 year olds.

It's disgusting, but not a crime.

---

She was 14, but, no matter what, people who know better who are defending him because he is in the same political clan are sellouts.

Yogi Bear said:

---

Conservative principles are whatever the current iteration of the Republican Party says they are. I don't think any party is looking back 50-60 years to determine what their principles are. Certainly not the Democrats, who were where the Jim Crow legislators primarily were during that period of time and probably not the Republicans either. The Republicans' biggest issue is practicing what they preach.

---

You mean like the Democrats who pretend to be feminist but then rape and otherwise sexually assault women?

And that's your opinion on what the conservative principles are. I don't think necessarily a very informed or reasonable opinion at that, but you can have it and keep it. I doubt any Republican would give one ounce of weight to what you say are conservative principles (or anything you claim to believe really), but if that makes you feel better about yourself and gives you a sense of identity without actually having to judge yourself, go at it. I wasn't addressing the comment to people like you who are so fixated on your alleged liberal views that logic and reason has no place anyway.

It was really more just venting with fellow moderate conservatives that we have to take back our party and put principle above winning an election and remember what made us conservatives in the first place (and it wasn't the non-sense nationalism and selfishness but it was smaller government, fiscal responsibility, personal accountability, individual dignity, protection of family values, unity as human beings instead of divisions based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender).

calbear93 said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

Conservative principles are whatever the current iteration of the Republican Party says they are. I don't think any party is looking back 50-60 years to determine what their principles are. Certainly not the Democrats, who were where the Jim Crow legislators primarily were during that period of time and probably not the Republicans either. The Republicans' biggest issue is practicing what they preach.

---

You mean like the Democrats who pretend to be feminist but then rape and otherwise sexually assault women?

---

Which Democrats are you referring to? (I actually know already, but I want to see you defeat your own point).

Quote:

---

And that's your opinion on what the conservative principles are. I don't think necessarily a very informed or reasonable opinion at that, but you can have it and keep it. I doubt any Republican would give one ounce of weight to what you say are conservative principles (or anything you claim to believe really), but if that makes you feel better about yourself and gives you a sense of identity without actually having to judge yourself, go at it. I wasn't addressing the comment to people like you who are so fixated on your alleged liberal views that logic and reason has no place anyway.

---

I actually didn't say anything on what conservative principles are, but thanks for the rant.

Quote:

---

It was really more just venting with fellow moderate conservatives that we have to take back our party and put principle above winning an election and remember what made us conservatives in the first place (and it wasn't the non-sense nationalism and selfishness but it was smaller government, fiscal responsibility, personal accountability, individual dignity, protection of family values, unity as human beings instead of divisions based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender).

---

Well, that ties into practicing what you preach. Conservatives say they're for those things, but they aren't. Conservatives don't believe in smaller government at all. They believe in things like eliminating the EPA and cutting medical care, but they don't actually believe in a smaller budget because what they really believe in is bigtime defense spending at the expense of those other things and with a large deficit (something else they say they want to reduce, but not really). Personal accountability is a vague meaningless term. Family values is code for anti-abortion and anti-LGBT which isn't family values at all. And no party promotes more division among non-white, non-Christian, non-heterosexuals than the Republican Party.

Agreed. Just responding to the point about the older teenagers which in Alabama is a way of life apparently.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

In fairness to Moore, who is a neanderthal and entirely deplorable, the laws in Alabama support old men engaging in intercourse with 16 year olds.

It's disgusting, but not a crime.

---

She was 14, but, no matter what, people who know better who are defending him because he is in the same political clan are sellouts.

---