The Former Trump Presidency Thread

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 12:34 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:Let the in-fighting begin!

Let's see how much is talk and how much is walk. I'm afraid to give his Twitter too much credence, but at the same time if I criticize his twitter, I should also accept when my pitchforks are in alignment with his, even if he shouldn't be brandishing a pitchfork at all.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:03 pm

Am I supposed to assume then that children are ok with him?

A majority of U.S. adults had little or no confidence that President-elect Donald Trump would be able to prevent a major scandal in his administration, use military force wisely or handle an international crisis, according to a Gallup poll.

However:

On the other hand, they had confidence in Trump's abilities to work effectively with Congress and to manage the executive branch, albeit to a lesser extent than either Obama or Bush.

He also received high marks for his ability to effectively handle the economy, with 59 percent expressing confidence and 40 percent expressing no confidence. Gallup did not compare those percentages with his predecessors.

But I know, it's too early for polls.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:11 pm

Smoove_B wrote:Am I supposed to assume then that children are ok with him?

A majority of U.S. adults had little or no confidence that President-elect Donald Trump would be able to prevent a major scandal in his administration, use military force wisely or handle an international crisis, according to a Gallup poll.
However:
On the other hand, they had confidence in Trump's abilities to work effectively with Congress and to manage the executive branch, albeit to a lesser extent than either Obama or Bush.

He also received high marks for his ability to effectively handle the economy, with 59 percent expressing confidence and 40 percent expressing no confidence. Gallup did not compare those percentages with his predecessors.
But I know, it's too early for polls.

It is too late for polls. He already won.

NickAragua · Post by **NickAragua** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:29 pm

From Trump's google searches:

How to remove two sided sticky tape from president chair
How to crack password on twitter account
How to keep russian money separate from american money
What is president job
How do I government
Difference between public service and private enterprise
Why do people keep bitching about conflicts of interest
Is Ku Klux Klan really racist
How to take credit for other people's work wikipedia edit
How to make vice president flush toilet on sundays
How to stop vice president from leaving bibles on desk
How to block twitter account
Can country declare bankruptcy and start shell country in cayman islands

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:31 pm

Defiant wrote:
In one of their first moves of the new Congress, House Republicans have voted to gut their own independent ethics watchdog — a huge blow to cheerleaders of congressional oversight and one that dismantles major reforms adopted after the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Monday's effort was led, in part, by lawmakers who have come under investigation in recent years.

Despite a warning from Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), House Republicans adopted a proposal by Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) to put the Office of Congressional Ethics under the jurisdiction of the House Ethics Committee.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/h ... ght-233111

Oops, people are watching.

House GOP Reverses Course On Gutting Office Of Congressional Ethics

NickAragua · Post by **NickAragua** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:36 pm

Defiant wrote:
Defiant wrote:
In one of their first moves of the new Congress, House Republicans have voted to gut their own independent ethics watchdog — a huge blow to cheerleaders of congressional oversight and one that dismantles major reforms adopted after the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Monday's effort was led, in part, by lawmakers who have come under investigation in recent years.

Despite a warning from Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), House Republicans adopted a proposal by Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) to put the Office of Congressional Ethics under the jurisdiction of the House Ethics Committee.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/h ... ght-233111
Oops, people are watching.

House GOP Reverses Course On Gutting Office Of Congressional Ethics

Well, like him or not, when Donald Trump schools you on PR, you damn well better listen.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:40 pm

Two positive Trump pieces of news in one day (and he's not in office)

http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/f ... /96102086/

Let's hope the love is enduring and that somewhere along the line I also become pleasantly surprised about things like health care, Russia and NATO, the Supreme Court, banking, and Education... Oh not to forget and equal protection under the laws.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 2:46 pm

LordMortis wrote:Two positive Trump pieces of news in one day (and he's not in office)

http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/f ... /96102086/

Let's hope the love is enduring and that somewhere along the line I also become pleasantly surprised about things like health care, Russia and NATO, the Supreme Court, banking, and Education... Oh not to forget and equal protection under the laws.

What makes you think that the Ford decision has anything to do with Trump? Especially since they said it was independent of Trump. Until the actual policies become shaped it seems likely that no company is changing many manufacturing decisions. They have no idea what the business impact will be. Though I have to admit that Trump has changed the calculus - he is going to claim every positive thing that happens no matter why it happened. And I'm reasonably sure he'll teflon away from any of the negative impacts.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 2:57 pm

malchior wrote:
LordMortis wrote:Two positive Trump pieces of news in one day (and he's not in office)

http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/f ... /96102086/

Let's hope the love is enduring and that somewhere along the line I also become pleasantly surprised about things like health care, Russia and NATO, the Supreme Court, banking, and Education... Oh not to forget and equal protection under the laws.
What makes you think that the Ford decision has anything to do with Trump? Especially since they said it was independent of Trump. Until the actual policies become shaped it seems likely that no company is changing many manufacturing decisions. They have no idea what the business impact will be. Though I have to admit that Trump has changed the calculus - he is going to claim every positive thing that happens no matter why it happened. And I'm reasonably sure he'll teflon away from any of the negative impacts.

Maybe because that is what the CEO of Ford said?

“We’re doing this decision based on what’s right for our business,” Ford CEO Mark Fields told Neil Cavuto on Fox Business Network. “As we think about the investments here in Michigan, as you can imagine, Neil, we look at a lot of factors as we make those. One of the factors that we’re looking at is a more positive U.S. manufacturing business environment under President-elect Trump and some of the pro-growth policies he said he’s going to pursue. And so this is a vote of confidence.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01 ... icies.html

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 3:07 pm

Yes - the CEO of Ford tips his hat to the guy coming in. Obviously. Reading between the lines the fact remains they have no business case yet that can price in Trump. They might have guessed some but you don't make investment decisions of this scale based on tweets or vague threats of tariffs like some say. Or a 'positive business environment'. The vast difference in the size of the investment had to play a factor - probably the biggest share. Spend $1.6 Billion in Mexico for a new facility or facelift an existing one for $700M. That was probably the business case right there. And it is going to be run by robots - there aren't going to be 1000s of jobs there.

Again I give Trump credit - he has positioned himself to take credit for every positive change but there has been similar investment decisions under Obama. (Tesla building their factory in the US is a good case). The reason they can is that capital has begun to largely mitigate the labor cost issues here now. I don't think that is a bad thing or more accurately unavoidable but it isn't going to fix the rust belt. Those people are still going to be out of work. They aren't going to be designing and running high tech factories so they can cheer all they want but they still missed the bus.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 3:22 pm

Heh, Ford giveth jobs with one hand and taketh them away with the other. Maybe Trump will force them to return steering wheels and brake pedals to American vehicles.

Fields said Ford will build a battery electric SUV with a 300-mile driving range at the Michigan plant by 2020 -- taking on companies like Tesla Motors Inc (TSLA.O), Volkswagen AG (VOWG_p.DE) and GM -- and will launch production there by 2021 of a fully autonomous vehicle without a steering wheel or a brake pedal for use in ride services fleets.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:38 pm

malchior wrote:Yes - the CEO of Ford tips his hat to the guy coming in. Obviously. Reading between the lines the fact remains they have no business case yet that can price in Trump. They might have guessed some but you don't make investment decisions of this scale based on tweets or vague threats of tariffs like some say.

But the decision was made and several weeks after a closed door meeting it was changed. Ford may not be able to price in Trump but they definitely changed their steering based on his coming in to office. Now the other shoe may drop and suddenly my taxes will be paying $700 million in renovations, but for now it's a win for Trump, as is republican house backpedaling on EOC. I can only hope to keep giving him kudos. More than I don't want him to be my president, I don't want him to fail.

(note: This plan does not change Ford's decision to move small car production to Hermosillo, which I think is a bigger chunk of employment. Also note: Ford is displacing no jobs moving small car production to Mexico, they just aren't adding new jobs and building new US plants.)

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:41 pm

This is the Carrier playbook alm over again. Ford adjusts its plans in exchange for significant tax breaks and regulation reductions. Unclear how many jobs will be saved, especially factoring in automation.

That's the deal - Trump essentially offers public money in exchange for credulous "Trump saves jobs!" headlines.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:46 pm

El Guapo wrote:This is the Carrier playbook alm over again. Ford adjusts its plans in exchange for significant tax breaks and regulation reductions. Unclear how many jobs will be saved, especially factoring in automation.

That's the deal - Trump essentially offers public money in exchange for credulous "Trump saves jobs!" headlines.

No jobs are saved. 700 jobs will be added. No details yet on exchanges of monies. There might just be "an understanding" on how "he is going to reform regulation and taxation", which is largely fueling the stock market as well.

Also Carrier was a flat out lie. The jobs had already been preserved and while they were getting money to stat that was arranged between Pence and Carrier at the state level. Gawd forbid Trump gets Schneider to give away more state money in Michigan to corporate interests. Schneider has already sold us so far down the river, that I have no idea how we're going course correct.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:47 pm

Let's see what happens in a few years when those same companies demand more concessions or they'll "walk".

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:48 pm

It works for professional sports teams.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:56 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:It works for professional sports teams.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:06 pm

Trump seems to love the idea of the president making individual deals with individual companies. Once corporations understand how it works, they'll see that the secret to a favorable regulatory environment and specific competitive advantage is making Trump happy.

What could possibly go wrong?

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:55 pm

I'm going to need a lot more evidence that Trump intervened personally. Especially since they also announced other strategic changes as well to future lines. This wasn't a decision made after some closed door meeting a few weeks ago. This is the result of 5 year strategic planning efforts - they don't happen in that short a span of time. They are switching to include electric vehicles, etc. They are spending far less to test the waters there instead of committing nearly $2 Billion making cars that don't have demand in the forecast. Trump had very little to do with this. It is almost a certainty.

I refered to it before - but they said they made this decision independent of Trump (aside from the obligatory hat tip today).

Ford CEO Mark Fields called the move "a vote of confidence" in Trump, but primarily a response to a decline in North American demand for small cars like those that would have been made at the Mexican plant. He said Ford would have made the same decision even if Trump had not been elected.

Ford will cancel plans unveiled in April to spend $1.6 billion to build the new plant in San Luis Potosi, Mexico, a project Trump urged the automaker to abandon and called an "absolute disgrace" during the election campaign.

I don't know how much clearer this could be.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 7:10 pm

Corporations make decisions based on many not single factors, film at 11.

A wash either way. If it was because Trump then cue fear that Trump will be making individual deals with companies and creating an oligarchical dictatorship. If it was regardless of Trump then he is just benefiting from the hand he got from Obama. In the end it is just a matter of figuring out what english to put on the spin.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 10:36 pm

LordMortis wrote:Is there a point where inauguration fascination gets its own thread?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pau ... a08f76147?

Never heard of her until I saw this.

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

Wait, Trump converted to Christianity? From what?

https://paulawhite.org/product/2016-eff ... evotional/

http://www.ndcc.tv/

Not a single thing on charity or community or God on her website, but rather $80 books on how to use God to get stuff? Well, I suppose it would make sense this would be Trump's pastor.

Evangelicals should be deeply troubled by Donald Trump’s attempt to mainstream heresy

Donald Trump’s upcoming inauguration will include Paula White and possibly other members of his inner circle, Darrell Scott, “Apostle” Wayne T. Jackson and Mark Burns. They’re all televangelists who hail from the “prosperity gospel” camp. They advocate a brand of Pentecostal Christianity known as Word of Faith.

Inaugurations are always curious rituals of American civil religion. It would not be surprising to see a non-Christian religious leader participating. But what’s problematic for me as an evangelical is how Trump’s ceremony is helping to mainstream this heretical movement.

The prosperity gospel — the idea that God dispenses material wealth and health based on what we “decree” — is not just fluff. It’s also not just another branch of Pentecostalism, a tradition that emphasizes the continuation of the gifts of healing, prophecy and tongues. It’s another religion.

[...]

In the 1950s, American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr described Peale’s message as a false gospel: “The basic sin of this cult is its egocentricity,” he said. “It puts ‘self’ instead of the cross at the center of the picture.” The Word of Faith teachings, conveyed from Quimby via Kenyon and Hagin, are similarly centered on not making God a supporting actor in our life movie.

Televangelist White has a lot in common with Trump, besides being fans of Osteen. Both are in their third marriage and have endured decades of moral and financial scandal. According to family values spokesman James Dobson, another Trump adviser, White “personally led [Trump] to Christ.”

Like her mentor, T. D. Jakes, White adheres closely to the Word of Faith teachings. Besides throwing out doctrines like the Trinity and confusing ourselves with God, the movement teaches that Jesus went to the cross not to bring forgiveness of our sins but to get us out of financial debt, not to reconcile us to God but to give us the power to claim our prosperity, not to remove the curse of death, injustice and bondage to ourselves but to give us our best life now. White says emphatically that Jesus is “not the only begotten Son of God,” just the first. We’re all divine and have the power to speak worlds into existence.

A gospel of greed, power and egocentrism. No wonder Trump's a convert.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 10:54 pm

So they serve both God and mammon?

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 11:17 pm

Sorry, I don't factor a person's religion into the equation.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 12:17 am

Senate push for new Russia hacking probe fizzles

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 1:42 am

Kraken wrote:So they serve both God and mammon?

They seem to think that God and Mammon serve them.

Rip wrote:Sorry, I don't factor a person's religion into the equation.

That's very Canadian of you. Apology accepted.

I didn't say his new-found "religion" disqualified him, just that the flavor that she's peddling seems like a good fit for him.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:57 am

It's the charlatanism gaze that has me fascinated, not the religion. Televangelism profiteering has always been a rubberneck fascination of wonder for me, that it's going to be the religion of the POTUS who himself is associated with being a charlatan that has me fixated.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 11:16 am

Dubious Quality linked last month to a very interesting article on the founder's roots as a charlatan.

Electing Trump is the political equivalent of wearing sharks to deter shark attacks. Wearing a magnet based system would have been less stupid.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 12:17 pm

"Prosperity gospel" is 100% scam. That Trump is bringing these people in is perfectly vile and perfectly appropriate.

I was never a great fan of Billy Graham (who featured at inaugurations from the late 1960s to the 1990s), but at least he worked within the recognizably legitimate terrain of American religious life. The people Trump is inviting are like replacing Billy Graham with Jim Bakker or Oral Roberts.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 1:50 pm

Holman wrote:"Prosperity gospel" is 100% scam. That Trump is bringing these people in is perfectly vile and perfectly appropriate.

I was never a great fan of Billy Graham (who featured at inaugurations from the late 1960s to the 1990s), but at least he worked within the recognizably legitimate terrain of American religious life. The people Trump is inviting are like replacing Billy Graham with Jim Bakker or Oral Roberts.

Islam is 100% scam, as are all religions.

Slippery slope is slippery.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 1:52 pm

I'm...I'm not even sure what the hell you're trying to say anymore. It's like you ran out of ammo and are now just hurling your own feces at people.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 2:01 pm

hepcat wrote:I'm...I'm not even sure what the hell you're trying to say anymore. It's like you ran out of ammo and are now just hurling your own feces at people.

It was pretty straight forward. All religion is a scam. The pretense of an omnipotent force ruling everything, everywhere that cares what some individual does and decides whether to punish or reward them is silly.

That said I believe it is the individual's right to decide if they want to believe such drivel and I don't hold it against them because it makes many of them better people. In fact just the opposite I have alway supported the right of people to have religious freedom, even scientologists.

I can't say I support their religious freedom and then suggest they aren't worthy of some government position based on their religion. When you question someone being in Trump's inner circle today, you make it far easier for the moron that questions someone being in the next POTUS inner circle that is Muslim, Jewish, or Scientologist.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 2:13 pm

Except for the fact we're not discussing their right to spirituality. We're discussing the fact that they rob people blind under the pretense of that spirituality.

There's a huge difference between someone who preys on people under the guise of faith, and the local pastor who just wants to help his community.

But I doubt you'll agree. And you'll try to alter the topic yet again.

p.s. although you DID agree at one time.

Rip wrote:
They raise funds but at no point does a reputable church suggest that gods love nor the benefits you would receive are tied to how much you give. That is totally wrong headed.

But now...TRUMP!

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 2:45 pm

hepcat wrote:Let's see what happens in a few years when those same companies demand more concessions or they'll "walk".

In a few years? What awesome planet do you live on? The one I'm existing in has a veritable cornucopia of TIFs, revenue bonds, subsidized loans, financial incentives/concessions, tax rebates, fake urban blight declarations (one famous local case was a developer getting a cornfield declared urban blight that happened to be probably the most valuable piece of never developed real estate in NOCO at the time), public/private financing, utility breaks, free infrastructure improvements and eminent domain for private development. Just to name a few.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 4:17 pm

Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer are backing a resolution championed by Marco Rubio that objects to the United Nations’ recent condemnations of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, all but assuring the Senate will move to publicly criticize the international body.

The resolution “urges the current presidential administration and all future presidential administrations to uphold the practice of vetoing all United Nations Security Council resolutions that seek to insert the Council into the peace process, recognize unilateral Palestinian actions including declaration of a Palestinian state, or dictate terms and a timeline for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” according to the draft text. It also “demands that the United States ensure that no action is taken at the Paris Conference on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict scheduled for January 15, 2017."

Given the effort’s bipartisan nature, the resolution does not explicitly criticize the Obama administration’s decision to abstain from vetoing the UN’s 14-0 vote against the Israeli settlements. But it does demand that both President Barack Obama and Donald Trump work against further anti-settlement actions by the UN.

“This resolution expresses the Senate's rejection of continued anti-Israel efforts at the United Nations, reiterates our commitment to Israel, and urges the incoming administration to work with Congress on this issue,” Rubio said in a statement.

And in a forthcoming release, McConnell and Schumer will both criticize the administration for not vetoing the UN resolution.

"It is highly regrettable that one of President Obama's last actions in office was again to abandon our ally Israel,” McConnell will say.

“Past administrations — both Democrat and Republican — have protected Israel from the vagaries of this biased institution,” Schumer will say. “Unfortunately, by abstaining on United Nations Resolutions 2334, this administration has not followed in that path."

Rubio and Cardin already have 20 co-sponsors for the measure, including GOP hawks like Tom Cotton of Arkansas and John McCain of Arizona and Democrats like Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), who introduced his own response to the UN, is also on board.

With Senate action looking imminent, it appears the entire Congress is set to decry the UN's stance toward Israel. The House plans to pass a similar resolution on Thursday.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/u ... mer-233186

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 4:38 pm

http://www.wsj.com/articles/luis-videga ... 1483556976

MEXICO CITY—Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto on Wednesday named his former finance minister to head the Foreign Relations Ministry as Mexico prepares for what promises to be a complex relationship with the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump.

Luis Videgaray, who played a key role in bringing about Mr. Trump’s visit to Mexico in late August, resigned as finance minister the following week. He didn’t give a reason for his departure, although it was widely attributed to the uproar caused by the visit of the then Republican candidate.

Now, with Mr. Trump just weeks away from taking office, Mr. Videgaray will be in charge of Mexico’s foreign policy and the relationship with its top trading partner.

“The instruction to Mr. Videgaray is to accelerate dialogue and contacts so that from the first day of the new [U.S.] administration, the groundwork can be set for a constructive working relationship,” Mr. Peña Nieto said.

A discouraging sign for bilateral relations came Tuesday when Ford Motor Co. said it was canceling a planned $1.6 billion investment in a new assembly plant in Mexico, and instead will invest $700 million in a new plant in Michigan.

The decision sent the Mexican peso to new lows against the U.S. dollar, as it raised fears that the Trump government will follow through with more protectionist measures that could hurt Mexico’s export-oriented manufacturing sector.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:02 pm

Rip wrote:
Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer are backing a resolution championed by Marco Rubio that objects to the United Nations’ recent condemnations of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, all but assuring the Senate will move to publicly criticize the international body.

The resolution “urges the current presidential administration and all future presidential administrations to uphold the practice of vetoing all United Nations Security Council resolutions that seek to insert the Council into the peace process, recognize unilateral Palestinian actions including declaration of a Palestinian state, or dictate terms and a timeline for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” according to the draft text. It also “demands that the United States ensure that no action is taken at the Paris Conference on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict scheduled for January 15, 2017."

Given the effort’s bipartisan nature, the resolution does not explicitly criticize the Obama administration’s decision to abstain from vetoing the UN’s 14-0 vote against the Israeli settlements. But it does demand that both President Barack Obama and Donald Trump work against further anti-settlement actions by the UN.

“This resolution expresses the Senate's rejection of continued anti-Israel efforts at the United Nations, reiterates our commitment to Israel, and urges the incoming administration to work with Congress on this issue,” Rubio said in a statement.

And in a forthcoming release, McConnell and Schumer will both criticize the administration for not vetoing the UN resolution.

"It is highly regrettable that one of President Obama's last actions in office was again to abandon our ally Israel,” McConnell will say.

“Past administrations — both Democrat and Republican — have protected Israel from the vagaries of this biased institution,” Schumer will say. “Unfortunately, by abstaining on United Nations Resolutions 2334, this administration has not followed in that path."

Rubio and Cardin already have 20 co-sponsors for the measure, including GOP hawks like Tom Cotton of Arkansas and John McCain of Arizona and Democrats like Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), who introduced his own response to the UN, is also on board.

With Senate action looking imminent, it appears the entire Congress is set to decry the UN's stance toward Israel. The House plans to pass a similar resolution on Thursday.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/u ... mer-233186

AIPAC certainly has their hooks deep in the pockets of Congress. This sounds like a super *priority* item for the new populist agenda.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:14 pm

A "hacking defense"? What is a "hacking defense" and who is he quoting?

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:17 pm

gilraen · Post by **gilraen** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:59 pm

Is he going to be complaining about the debate questions for the next 4 years?

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 7:35 pm

gilraen wrote:Is he going to be complaining about the debate questions for the next 4 years?

I think that's only a fair assessment if either the DNC hacks are dropped or if DNC hacking conversation finds a way to divorce the two topics from his talking points. His presentation is that the two are tied together. If someone brings up DNC hacks, he will respond the debate questions. It's Marco Polo. It's hollaback. It's the rehearsed call and response.

Listen to the entire Spencer mouthpiecing:

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/04/ ... llary.html

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/01/ ... trump.html