Lets see if we can keep this thread a little more civil.

I found this interview very interesting.  A lot of soft balls thrown at Trump, he explained his back pedalling on his more extreme issues as a lot of his claims as opening bids for negotiation purposes.  Which .. whatever .. I still think that those are insincere claims he used to get elected.

He does now come across way more presidential then he did prior to the election.  A lot of his noise, yelling, and rhetoric has been scaled back.

Do respect this one though:

Quote

 

Lesley Stahl: Are you gonna take the salary, the president’s salary?

Donald Trump: Well, I’ve never commented on this, but the answer is no. I think I have to by law take $1, so I’ll take $1 a year. But it’s a -- I don’t even know what it is.

Donald Trump: Do you know what the salary is?

Lesley Stahl: $400,000 you’re giving up.

Donald Trump: No, I’m not gonna take the salary. I’m not taking it.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-donald-trump-family-melania-ivanka-lesley-stahl/

4 hours ago, Mark F said:

what you get when you bow to big business and ignore all else.

"Texas has been a laboratory for Republicans to test their ideas of governance and leadership — and they failed miserably to protect Texans from catastrophe. In 1999, when then-Gov. George W. Bush signed into law an energy deregulation bill pushed by his largest corporate backer, Enron, they promised cheap, reliable energy. It turns out that Texans received neither — as recent weeks have demonstrated, without investments in excess capacity and winterization, the energy supply was not reliable. It also turns out that, according to a Wall Street Journal study, it wasn't cheap either.

Since the implementation of deregulation, Texans have paid $28 billion more for energy than if they had bought it from traditional utilities. "

 

salon

 

So the Texas Republicans experimented with deregulating energy, saying that competition would drive down costs and make things more efficient - 'cause capitalism rules!

Kansas Republicans implemented the wet dream of low low taxes - 'cause capitalism rules!

Both "experiments" turned out to be abject failures.

What else does the right wing even have beyond promises of low taxes and deregulation?

 

Edited March 2, 20214 yr by Wideleft

11 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

So the Texas Republicans experimented with deregulating energy, saying that competition would drive down costs and make things more efficient - 'cause capitalism rules!

Kansas Republicans implemented the wet dream of low low taxes - 'cause capitalism rules!

Both "experiments" turned out to be abject failures.

What else does the right wing even have beyond promises of low taxes and deregulation?

 

Nothing. That's their whole bag. 

Just now, JCon said:

Nothing. That's their whole bag. 

Yeah, I guess I asked that rhetorically.

17 minutes ago, JCon said:

Nothing. That's their whole bag. 

you forgot  number 3, massive increases of national debt. 

these apply in  Canada as well.

29 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

Both "experiments" turned out to be abject failures.

if your goal is take say, 28 billion from the public, and give it to a few people, it has been a success

Edited March 2, 20214 yr by Mark F

9 minutes ago, Mark F said:

you forgot  number 3, massive increases of national debt. 

these apply in  Canada as well.

if your goal is take say, 28 billion from the public, and give it to a few people, it has been a success

Same methodology employed on massive tax cuts, it seems...

Good God... why would you do this? I think Texas has 6.5% of its citizens vaccinated... 

Seriously... wtf is going through his mind? "Well sheeeeiiit, a collapse of our entire power grid not enough to toughen ya up? Freezing homes with no heat in sub zero temps not putting hair on your chest Boy! Water pipes bursting and destroying all your worldly possessions still not enough to make you a STRONG TEXAN? Then how about a Covid super spike to over run the hospitals and raise our death count? That will make you TEXAN TOUGH!"

 

 

Seriously... insane... 

 

 

Edited March 2, 20214 yr by wanna-b-fanboy

2 hours ago, Wideleft said:

So the Texas Republicans experimented with deregulating energy, saying that competition would drive down costs and make things more efficient - 'cause capitalism rules!

Kansas Republicans implemented the wet dream of low low taxes - 'cause capitalism rules!

Both "experiments" turned out to be abject failures.

What else does the right wing even have beyond promises of low taxes and deregulation?

 

Guns and nutcases. Lots and lots of both.

2 hours ago, Wideleft said:

What else does the right wing even have beyond promises of low taxes and deregulation?

lots and lots of isms. 

A Republican lawyer made a stunning admission to the Supreme Court about a voting rights case
   
At the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday an attorney for the Republican National Committee admitted GOP candidates need voter suppression laws, especially those that target minority voters, to win.

The high court was hearing arguments related to the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965, which under Chief Justice John Roberts was gutted to be almost useless in 2013 when he infamously announced, "Our country has changed." The Guardian and HuffPost have written he was suggesting that racism is pretty much over.

It is not.

Tuesday's arguments discussed the landmark Voting Rights Act and "an Arizona law that disqualified ballots cast in the wrong precinct," as Mother Jones reports.

The Brennan Center, as The Washington Post, reporting on today's Supreme Court hearing notes, is tracking over 250 bills Republicans are pushing in more than half the states across the country that are designed to take the "voter fraud" lies Donald Trump and his supporters have been pushing for nearly a year and turn them into "legal" voter suppression.

The Supreme Court has changed dramatically in the nearly eight years since it suggested racism isn't a big deal anymore – and not for the better.  But it was the court's newest member, and one of the most right-wing yet, who asked a revealing question.

"What's the interest of the Arizona RNC here in keeping, say, the out-of-precinct ballot disqualification rules on the books?"

That law forces the state to throw out voter ballots if cast in the wrong precinct.  The question was asked by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The answer stunned many.

"Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats," the lawyer, Michael Carvin, responded, as Mother Jones reports. "Politics is a zero-sum game," he added.

"It's the difference between winning an election 50-49 and –" he continued, but Justice Barrett wouldn't even let him finish his sentence, perhaps for fear of what else he would say.

10 minutes ago, Tracker said:

A Republican lawyer made a stunning admission to the Supreme Court about a voting rights case
   
At the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday an attorney for the Republican National Committee admitted GOP candidates need voter suppression laws, especially those that target minority voters, to win.

The high court was hearing arguments related to the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965, which under Chief Justice John Roberts was gutted to be almost useless in 2013 when he infamously announced, "Our country has changed." The Guardian and HuffPost have written he was suggesting that racism is pretty much over.

It is not.

Tuesday's arguments discussed the landmark Voting Rights Act and "an Arizona law that disqualified ballots cast in the wrong precinct," as Mother Jones reports.

The Brennan Center, as The Washington Post, reporting on today's Supreme Court hearing notes, is tracking over 250 bills Republicans are pushing in more than half the states across the country that are designed to take the "voter fraud" lies Donald Trump and his supporters have been pushing for nearly a year and turn them into "legal" voter suppression.

The Supreme Court has changed dramatically in the nearly eight years since it suggested racism isn't a big deal anymore – and not for the better.  But it was the court's newest member, and one of the most right-wing yet, who asked a revealing question.

"What's the interest of the Arizona RNC here in keeping, say, the out-of-precinct ballot disqualification rules on the books?"

That law forces the state to throw out voter ballots if cast in the wrong precinct.  The question was asked by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The answer stunned many.

"Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats," the lawyer, Michael Carvin, responded, as Mother Jones reports. "Politics is a zero-sum game," he added.

"It's the difference between winning an election 50-49 and –" he continued, but Justice Barrett wouldn't even let him finish his sentence, perhaps for fear of what else he would say.

This is a feature. The Supreme Court will ensure that white supremacy stays. 

12 minutes ago, Tracker said:

A Republican lawyer made a stunning admission to the Supreme Court about a voting rights case
   
At the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday an attorney for the Republican National Committee admitted GOP candidates need voter suppression laws, especially those that target minority voters, to win.

The high court was hearing arguments related to the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965, which under Chief Justice John Roberts was gutted to be almost useless in 2013 when he infamously announced, "Our country has changed." The Guardian and HuffPost have written he was suggesting that racism is pretty much over.

It is not.

Tuesday's arguments discussed the landmark Voting Rights Act and "an Arizona law that disqualified ballots cast in the wrong precinct," as Mother Jones reports.

The Brennan Center, as The Washington Post, reporting on today's Supreme Court hearing notes, is tracking over 250 bills Republicans are pushing in more than half the states across the country that are designed to take the "voter fraud" lies Donald Trump and his supporters have been pushing for nearly a year and turn them into "legal" voter suppression.

The Supreme Court has changed dramatically in the nearly eight years since it suggested racism isn't a big deal anymore – and not for the better.  But it was the court's newest member, and one of the most right-wing yet, who asked a revealing question.

"What's the interest of the Arizona RNC here in keeping, say, the out-of-precinct ballot disqualification rules on the books?"

That law forces the state to throw out voter ballots if cast in the wrong precinct.  The question was asked by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The answer stunned many.

"Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats," the lawyer, Michael Carvin, responded, as Mother Jones reports. "Politics is a zero-sum game," he added.

"It's the difference between winning an election 50-49 and –" he continued, but Justice Barrett wouldn't even let him finish his sentence, perhaps for fear of what else he would say.

Other than Barret's interjection to minimize the stupid... I don't see how this is news... this is exactly how GQP wins elections... not based on policies, but based on voter suppression, gerrymandering and culture wars.

1 hour ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Other than Barret's interjection to minimize the stupid... I don't see how this is news... this is exactly how GQP wins elections... not based on policies, but based on voter suppression, gerrymandering and culture wars.

It is news because the GOP is no longer trying to pretend that they are a party of the people.

For anyone who thinks I have, over the course of a lot of time....... exaggerated the supine cowardliness and gutlessness of GOP leaders....
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/541376-pence-breaks-silence-to-criticize-2020-elections

Unreal....

32 minutes ago, do or die said:

For anyone who thinks I have, over the course of a lot of time....... exaggerated the supine cowardliness and gutlessness of GOP leaders....
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/541376-pence-breaks-silence-to-criticize-2020-elections

Unreal....

Pence also has aspirations on becoming POTUS one day and the puckering of Dear Leader's arse must be done to achieve this

2 minutes ago, bustamente said:

Pence also has aspirations on becoming POTUS one day and the puckering of Dear Leader's arse must be done to achieve this

When looking around at these Trump wannabees......Pence, Cruz, Hawley, DeSantis.......some real Presidential material right there.   Makes Biden look like FDR.

Fox is covering Dr. Seuss today. No wonder that all that's posted here from the alt-right crowd is nonsense, they're fed crap. 

 

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, JCon said:

Fox is covering Dr. Seuss today. No wonder that all that's posted here from the alt-right crowd is nonsense, they're fed crap. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Imagine if any of these illiterates ever bothering reading Dr. Seuss? He railed against fascists, which is Fox's base. 

Look out for that Bus

 

in other news

 

Edited March 3, 20214 yr by bustamente

Just keep getting crazier and crazier in the Excited States. All of which serves Putin's goal- to undermine Americans' faith in their political systems and lay the groundwork for a dictatorial government to come that will be amenable to Russian influence. 

Shocked I tell you, he seems like such a upstanding guy😁

 

TODAY THE GOVERNOR OF TEXAS DECLARED ALL RESTRICTIONS ON PUBLIC GATHERINGS AND BUSINESSES REVOKED.

BUT.......

 

Sounds like Turtle's wife might be in a bit of trouble

National Guard chief's disturbing testimony blames top Pentagon officials for crucial delay on Jan. 6
   
Maj. Gen. William Walker, the commander of the National Guard in Washington, D.C., delivered disturbing new testimony on Wednesday about the delay in deployment of his forces during the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

He was prepared to send a large number of troops to the Capitol immediately at 1:49 p.m. when he received a "frantic" call for backup from then-Chief of the Capitol Police Steven Sund. Sund was desperate for support as his officers' perimeter had been breached by the mob of Trump supporters, gravely endangering members of Congress counting the votes of the Electoral College. Walker said Sund's voice was "cracking with emotion" and pleaded that there was a "dire emergency at the Capitol."

"He requested the immediate assistance of as many available National Guardsmen that I could muster," Walker said.

It wasn't until three hours and 19 minutes later that Walker would get permission from the Pentagon to deploy the troops, he said. Because D.C. is not a state, the district's National Guard is under the control of the president, who has delegated his command to the Department of Defense. Christopher Milley was serving as the acting secretary of the department after President Trump had removed Secretary Mark Esper following the 2020 election.

In the time between Sund's call to Walker and the arrival of the National Guard, rioter Ashli Babbitt was killed by an officer for breaching a barrier within the building separating the mob from the lawmakers. Officer Brian Sicknick of the Capitol Police was also killed in the clash with protesters, though the exact cause of his death remains unknown.

As the Capitol was breached, the news media watch on with horror as the Capitol Police were overwhelmed, and people quickly began calling for the National Guard to intervene. But scattered reports indicated that there was an unexplained delay in their deployment, raising the disturbing prospect that political influence was responsible for denying Congress necessary protection.

Walker's testimony indicates that this was, indeed, the case.

"It required me to seek authorization from the secretary of the Army and the secretary of Defense to essentially protect my guardsmen," he said. In an "unusual memo," he said, "the secretary of defense, told me I needed his permission to escalate to have that kind of protection." During the previous summer's racial justice protests, Walker said, he had been able to get immediate approval to activate his forces.

And on a call with his supervisors after hearing Sund's pleas, the request was stalled: "The Army senior leaders did not think it would look good."

National Guard chief's disturbing testimony blames top Pentagon officials for crucial delay on Jan. 6 - Alternet.org

12 hours ago, bustamente said:

Sounds like Turtle's wife might be in a bit of trouble

Apparently no less than four of Trump's secretaries (equivalent to our ministers) were identified as potentially having committed illegal acts during their tenures and were referred to the Department of Justice but the DOJ under Bill Barr declined to prosecute. These cases are being reviewed now.