Trump 2017: Year Zero

[Louie_Cypher]

that's ok big guy keep trying i know it's tough, but you can do it my little man, I know, but you know you can't steal second unless you get on first, so dust yourself off put on your big boy pants and get back out there, and remember our little deal, if you stay off twitter and study up on your policies we might let you drive the fire truck, fire truck!, OK Donnie you want me to check under you bed again for that bad old Obama? OK I'll leave the door open a crack for you OK little buddy we got a big day of golf tomorrow so let's turn that frown upside down
-Louie

[GulDukat]

Charles Blow's latest piece.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/o...ollection&_r=0

[theimage13]

No matter how many times the man has failed, and no matter how many articles like this I've read, I still don't personally know a single person who voted for him who has since expressed even the tiniest bit of regret or frustration at the administration thus far.

[Jinsai]

No matter how many times the man has failed, and no matter how many articles like this I've read, I still don't personally know a single person who voted for him who has since expressed even the tiniest bit of regret or frustration at the administration thus far.

I do... I have some relatives who were on the "anyone but Hillary" train, and they regret it. I've had a hard time resisting the urge to say "I told you so."

[allegro]

Except the failure of this newest HC Bill isn't Trump's failure: It's the fractured Republican party's failure. (And, yes, it's that fucking pompous Paul Ryan's failure.)

The Moderate Republicans and the EXTREME Conservative Republicans (which includes Libertarian and Tea Party Republicans) will NEVER agree on ANYTHING, especially not this.

The primary purpose of this HC Bill was a big tax cut for the wealthy disguised as a HC Bill. The secondary purpose was to get rid of anything having to do with Obama, even if it means breaking all parts that don't need fixing.

Trump made a several mistakes, here:

(a) He didn't read the fucking Bill. Insiders said he asked "is this a good Bill?" Because he hadn't read it. Then he got behind it, seemingly unaware of the BIG DIVIDE between the Moderate and Conservative Republicans.

(b) He and Ryan pushed this through too fast. It took nearly TWO YEARS for the ACA to pass. But, the ACA passed with 100% Democrat vote and 0 Republican votes. The Dems weren't split like these Republicans.

(c) Trump ran as a non-Party populist. The minute he got into office, he became controlled by the SUPER Conservative Right, forgetting those voters (NOT overly right-wing Conservative) who got him into office; the ones who wanted him to make deals, "get things done," and fuck the Establishment. But then Trump got into bed with the Republican Right-Wing Establishment.

(d) The rift between the Tea Party and Moderate Republicans is so wide, it's a big big problem. They will NEVER agree on certain issues. EVER. The End

(e) Priebus is now indicating that the way they will "get this done" is the bring together the Democrats and the Moderate Republicans. Yup, that's the only way anything will get done. The ACA has some flaws that need fixing. Realistic Dems admit this is true. Whining about it, like Chuck Schumer yesterday on Sunday News programs, isn't going to help anybody. Fix the fucking thing. Figure out a way for Dems and Moderate Republicans to work together.

[Louie_Cypher]

Except the failure of this newest HC Bill isn't Trump's failure: It's the fractured Republican party's failure. (And, yes, it's that fucking pompous Paul Ryan's failure.)

The Moderate Republicans and the EXTREME Conservative Republicans (which includes Libertarian and Tea Party Republicans) will NEVER agree on ANYTHING, especially not this.

The primary purpose of this HC Bill was a big tax cut for the wealthy disguised as a HC Bill. The secondary purpose was to get rid of anything having to do with Obama, even if it means breaking all parts that don't need fixing.

Trump made a several mistakes, here:

(a) He didn't read the fucking Bill. Insiders said he asked "is this a good Bill?" Because he hadn't read it. Then he got behind it, seemingly unaware of the BIG DIVIDE between the Moderate and Conservative Republicans.

(b) He and Ryan pushed this through too fast. It took nearly TWO YEARS for the ACA to pass. But, the ACA passed with 100% Democrat vote and 0 Republican votes. The Dems weren't split like these Republicans.

(c) Trump ran as a non-Party populist. The minute he got into office, he became controlled by the SUPER Conservative Right, forgetting those voters (NOT overly right-wing Conservative) who got him into office; the ones who wanted him to make deals, "get things done," and fuck the Establishment. But then Trump got into bed with the Republican Right-Wing Establishment.

(d) The rift between the Tea Party and Moderate Republicans is so wide, it's a big big problem. They will NEVER agree on certain issues. EVER. The End

(e) Priebus is now indicating that the way they will "get this done" is the bring together the Democrats and the Moderate Republicans. Yup, that's the only way anything will get done. The ACA has some flaws that need fixing. Realistic Dems admit this is true. Whining about it, like Chuck Schumer yesterday on Sunday News programs, isn't going to help anybody. Fix the fucking thing. Figure out a way for Dems and Moderate Republicans to work together.

I feel that we're living in the age of myth's the myth of American exceptionalism the myth of Regan it makes no sense look around at 90% of the other civilized world and go hey how about we do something like that? god forbid we become to European when we have a puppet of the Kremlin in the white-house,political parties as sports teams or elections as some "alt" American idol as was said in the Bowery boy's "wise-up" schools out idiot
-Louie

[bobbie solo]

Who are these mythical moderate Republicans? You can count them on one hand in the Senate, and maybe two hands in the House.

[Aladdinsanity]

Who are these mythical moderate Republicans? You can count them on one hand in the Senate, and maybe two hands in the House.

We have plenty of mythical "moderate" Dems who'll largely bend over and take it from conservatives to appeal to a conservative voter base, that's for sure.

[allegro]

Who are these mythical moderate Republicans? You can count them on one hand in the Senate, and maybe two hands in the House.

See Tuesday Group which killed this new HC Bill (along with the Conservative "Freedom Caucus"). See also Main Street Partnership.

Tuesday Group statement:

"After careful deliberation, I cannot support the bill and will oppose it. I believe this bill, in its current form, will lead to the loss of coverage and make insurance unaffordable for too many Americans, particularly for low-to-moderate income and older individuals," the group's leader Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA)

Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner is a Moderate Republican. (I voted for him.)

[Louie_Cypher]

there in hiding with the tax and spend democrats liberal media school indoctrination compassionate conservatism and various other bull shit you've been force fed
-Louie

[Louie_Cypher]

the Freedom Caucus" is a bunch of good "ole' boy's whose book of the month is "the handmaids tale" every month who are so far right thy make Jerry Falwell look like a gay pot smoking war protesting hippy, and whiter than a polar bear eating a saltine cracker covered with vanilla ice-cream in a snowstorm underneath highway construction floodlights watching re-runs of friends on fox
-Louie

[allegro]

the Freedom Caucus" is a bunch of good "ole' boy's whose book of the month is "the handmaids tale" every month who are so far right thy make Jerry Falwell look like a gay pot smoking war protesting hippy, and whiter than a polar bear eating a saltine cracker covered with vanilla ice-cream in a snowstorm underneath highway construction floodlights watching re-runs of friends on fox
-Louie

I don't think they are the Religious Right; they're REALLY into LIMITED Government and "fiscal responsibility." It includes some Tea Party members. It's a really small but RIDICULOUSLY POWERFUL group.

Most media reports refer to the Freedom Caucus as a group of hard-line conservatives. While they are certainly conservative, ideology is not what makes the Freedom Caucus special. The group is distinctive because of its members’ willingness to risk their offices, political relationships, and even the basic functioning of the federal government to stay true to their values.

The core leaders of the group describe themselves as principled constitutionalists who refuse to be corrupted by Washington. They see themselves as “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” politicians, principled lawmakers who refuse to play the corrupt game of politics.

[Louie_Cypher]

not corrupt? correct me if I'm wrong but I believe they are part of the Koch brothers super PAC let's just be honest and have some truthfulness and call them by their real name the asshole caucus
-Louie

[allegro]

not corrupt? correct me if I'm wrong but I believe they are part of the Koch brothers super PAC let's just be honest and have some truthfulness and call them by their real name the asshole caucus
-Louie

I do not subscribe to the group-think the Koch brothers are the evil assholes that the Liberals portray them to be.

The Koch brothers are socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. Which, in my opinion, is still better than being socially conservative and financially conservative. The Koch brothers are Libertarians. They're pretty smart, thoughtful guys. They don't have a religious agenda. They nearly SOLELY push for a small Federal government and responsible spending.

Here's an interesting interview with Charles Koch.

The Koch brothers loudly opposed the new HC bill but they didn't fund the Freedom Caucus to defeat it.

[Louie_Cypher]

i agree with the above post and will happily admit if I am wrong or misrepresent i could not find any info that the Koch's funded the freedom caucus the best reliable info I found was here http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...nd-whos-in-it/ but no money mentioned
-Louie

[onthewall2983]

I feel like the massive regret will come once he's been in for awhile and we're used to him. Familiarity breeds contempt after all.

[Jinsai]

I feel like the massive regret will come once he's been in for awhile and we're used to him. Familiarity breeds contempt after all.

the reason a lot of people will never admit they're wrong applies here: stubborn pride. It's a common personality trait with narcissists, and it's no secret who the narcissists favored in the last election: The biggest narcissist of all time. Those people fear knowing that someone else is right when they say "I told you so" more than almost anything else.

[onthewall2983]

That could very well be true but I could see even some of those breaking off, in their own way.

[Louie_Cypher]

hope springs enternal
http://www.echoingthesound.org/commu...877#post347877
-Louie

[Louie_Cypher]

i guess the cool thing if we get sick from the environment being destroyed at least we won't have health care.
isn't banning Sally Yates from testifying obstruction, wasn't Nixon impeached for obstruction, just curious
-Louie

[allegro]

i guess the cool thing if we get sick from the environment being destroyed at least we won't have health care.
isn't banning Sally Yates from testifying obstruction, wasn't Nixon impeached for obstruction, just curious

Nixon wasn't impeached; he resigned before that happened. But, he was voted as guilty (by the House Judiciary Committee) of a few things, (Obstruction of Justice, Abuse of Power, Contempt of Congress.)

[Jinsai]

Nixon wasn't impeached; he resigned before that happened. But, he was voted as guilty (by the House Judiciary Committee) of a few things, (Obstruction of Justice, Abuse of Power, Contempt of Congress.)

It's a technicality though really. He only resigned because he didn't want to bear the shame of eating that precedent as his legacy. Ultimately though, he effectively did his legacy a greater disservice when he went on to agree to the Frost interview.

[allegro]

It's a technicality though really. He only resigned because he didn't want to bear the shame of eating that precedent as his legacy. Ultimately though, he effectively did his legacy a greater disservice when he went on to agree to the Frost interview.

It's not a technicality; he wasn't impeached. I remember it fairly well, even though I was a kid. Nixon's reputation was already pretty much dead before this happened, and Watergate was the final nail in the coffin.

See this.

In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee recommended Articles of Impeachment to the full House of Representatives, but Nixon resigned before the House voted on the Articles.

Hence, Nixon was not impeached during the Watergate scandal. The only Presidents ever to have been impeached were Andrew Johnson (1867) and Bill Clinton (1998), both of whom were acquitted in their Senate trials.

See also this.

The United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" (Article I, section 2) and that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments .... [but] no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present" (Article I, section 3). The president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States are subject to impeachment.

Here is the timeline and all of the details regarding Watergate, for people who weren't around or aren't entirely familiar.

On August 5, 1974, the long sought after audio tapes provided the "smoking gun" which revealed President Nixon had been deeply involved in the coverup and had ordered Haldeman to halt the FBI investigation just six days after the Watergate break-in."...call the FBI and say that we wish, for the country, don't go any further into this case, period..." -- Nixon to Haldeman, June 23, 1972.)

That revelation resulted in a complete collapse of support for Nixon in Congress. On Friday, August 9, Nixon resigned the presidency and avoided the likely prospect of losing the impeachment vote in the full House and a subsequent trial in the Senate. He thus became the only U.S. President ever to resign. Vice President Gerald R. Ford succeeded him and a month later granted Nixon a full pardon for any crimes he might have committed while President.

Richard Nixon had served a total of 2,026 days as the 37th President of the United States. He left office with 2 1/2 years of his second term remaining. A total of 25 officials from his administration, including four cabinet members, were eventually convicted and imprisoned for various crimes.

Nixon's legacy re China and the programs he created while President (NOAA, EPA, school desegregation) is still intact.

[Jinsai]

It's not a technicality; he wasn't impeached.

I know he was not formally impeached. "Technicality" was probably not the proper word for what I'm trying to say, but honestly I'm frustratingly at a loss to summon up the right word. Nixon resigned of his own will because he knew he would be forced to resign if he didn't. No one wants to bear the shame of being the first person to ever be fired from a job that has so many contingencies and protections in place that it becomes nearly impossible to be fired.

It would be satisfying if Trump were the first president ever to be told "you're fired."

[Louie_Cypher]

trump selling out the internet http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...iww8u1mhuayvi& remember this people
-Louie

[Jinsai]

People believe this bullshit so much that over $200k has been put into various GoFunMe campaigns that promise to buy the Internet history of Congress and make it public. It doesn't work like that! https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...ne-elses.shtml

I think the intent behind the gofundme drive is hopefully scare some GOP congress to get paranoid and believe that this could come around to, at the very least, result in a career-damaging embarrassment and reconsider their decision. Regardless of whether or not the proposal realistically enables that, some of these people aren't so savvy when it comes to internets, so I think the drive might achieve the desired result.

[Louie_Cypher]

I think the intent behind the gofundme drive is hopefully scare some GOP congress to get paranoid and believe that this could come around to, at the very least, result in a career-damaging embarrassment and reconsider their decision. Regardless of whether or not the proposal realistically enables that, some of these people aren't so savvy when it comes to internets, so I think the drive might achieve the desired result.

I think it's important to bring up just so people realize how little privacy they do have in the modern world a friend works in big data and targeted advertising Netflix is constantly working on algorithms to define your viewing habits to sell just wait until they can really scrape mobile data you'll walk down the street and get notifications to buy a hamburger because you're passing a mcD's
don't want to live in this world no more,
want to sail away to a distant shore,
and live like an ape man
-Louie

[allegro]

1. Google and Facebook don't have my Social Security Number (or the contents of my private email); Comcast and AT&T, however, for sure have the former and members of Congress are asserting that the ISPs can sell contents of email (causing this "hysteria").
https://consumerist.com/2017/03/28/h...l-information/

" ... the free market will prevent ISPs from going too far in exploiting customer data"

HAAAAAAAAA HA HA HAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAA Oh you delusional whore.

2. Google and Facebook have an Opt Out privacy option; Comcast and AT&T allegedly will not.

3. Why would anyone be afraid of somebody knowing and selling your search history? The supermarket knows your shopping history, Comcast and AT&T know your television habits, and they all sell that info. I refinanced my HELOC last month and I have received no less than TWENTY pieces of mail relating to bullshit mortgage scams because the County Recorder sold my name on a mailing list, and the DMV sells that info too. This is common, but none of it presents the risk of identity theft or is an invasion of privacy. Web search privacy doesn't exist, never has.

5. These reports (source: members of Congress) indicating the ability to sell your address and SSN and email contents are what's disturbing people. It's not like citizens are jumping to their own made-up conclusions. The hand-wringing is not coming from the public, it's generated by the media and from members of Congress who oppose this action. It is certainly complicated. https://arstechnica.com/information-...o-stop-them/2/

6. There is a bill that's floated around in the House Ways and Means Committee (introduced by a Republican) relating to the protection of Social Security Numbers. The use of SSNs should have never become so commonplace in the first place; it's nuts. SSNs shouldn't even be allowed online anywhere. Then you are commonly asked for the last 4 digits and those are the holy grail; the first 5 are code and are easy to figure out, the final 4 aren't.

7. I guess even a VPN won't totally protect your privacy. https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usato...tory/99776682/.

There's this, though: https://www.letsgetsafe.org

Oh and in Illinois there's this: http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...329-story.html

[Louie_Cypher]

[Louie_Cypher]

thanks for the update good to review and clarify history very rocky times in US history that are kind of glossed over civil rights Nixon, Vietnam china, red scare
-Louie