Saturday Open Thread: No Inauguration News Here

In the "things I am not reporting on and couldn't care less about" department: UnPresident Elect Donald Trump's inauguration. I'm going to do other things and put up a few open threads until its over. After that, I will do my best to ignore him for the next four years, except for anything non-defamatory that could lead to his impeachment or resignation. You can discuss him in open threads, of which this is one. Insults and name calling will be deleted and violators put it time out.

A person I'm not finding sympathetic these days is Julian Assange. He and WikiLeaks are about as welcome on my computer screen as James Comey. (He's in the news because he's offering to allow himself to be extradited to the U.S. if Obama grants clemency to the former soldier Chelsea Manning. (As if he'll have a choice once the worm turns at DOJ.) I do support clemency for Chelsea Manning, I'm just not buying an altruistic motive by Assange. [More...]

Something I am interested in: Belgian Journalist Guy Van Vlierden's update on the identity, death and successor of Abu Ubaidah al Maghrebi, the Dutch ISIS security chief in charge of the Sheikh Najjar prison in Aleppo where James Foley and other foreign hostages were held, who was killed by ISIS the day before the Foley execution video was released. German documents from the recent trial of a returned ISIS member who testified (and got a reduced sentence), show his real name was Mohamed Amine Boutahar, and he was indeed killed by ISIS back in August, 2014. Mystery solved. Also, he was replaced as prison chief by Salim Benghalem, who many know believe is the mastermind behind the November Paris Attacks. Benghalem was one of the prison guards for freed European hostages Didier François, Edouard Elias, Nicolas Hénin and Pierre Torres. He went by the name ‘Abu Mohamed Franzi’, which is probably the same person as Abu Mohamed Faranci, who once served as a bodyguard to now deceased ISIS military commander Umar al Shishani. I've written about all this so many times, especially Abu Ubaida al Maghrebi, the prison guards, the hostages, and Abu Athir al-Absi and his brother Firas,(both now dead) so I'm happy to close the book on this particular chapter. Guy Van Vlierden has done a great job on reporting the developments and connecting the dots.

In the El Chapo department, his lawyer says the defense has been informed that a decision on his extradition is delayed for up to six months due to jurisdictional issues between the Mexican Supreme Court and lower courts. He's also filed a sexual harassment claim against a prison guard.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Receiver Sets Price for Trump Tower in Toronto | Tuning Out Donald Trump >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Predictable as night (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 04:27:32 PM EST
    follows day. A Trump tweet to John Lewis's opinion that Trump's presidency is not legitimate.  Therefore, the Congressman says he will not be attending the inauguration:

     "..(Lewis) should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to mention crime infested..."

    In addition to the pettiness, a loud dog whistle can be heard above the sound of ignorance. Trump with his outdated, stereotyped, broad brush racial mindset, seems to assume that the civil rights icon, Rep. John Lewis, represents a failing crime infested (black) ghetto.

    Georgia's 5th District, which Lewis represents, includes most of the city of Atlanta and portions of contiguous suburbs.  The Fifth District is part of a vibrant city, diverse in culture and people, with some of the most expensive in town real estate (e.g. Buckhead, Druid Hills) as well as middle class and poorer areas. Emory University, Georgia Tech, Georgia State, Clark, Morehouse are part of the District.  

    Hopefully, Ivanka and Kushner will serve effectively as companion humans for Trump while in the White House. But, it is frightening to consider that in one week, this biaarre transition period will be the seen as the salad days of the Trump/Putin Administration.  

    You did a great synopsis (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 05:12:29 AM EST
    of Lewis' district. Trump is so incredibly ignorant about that kind of stuff it's amazing.

    Or maybe he just didn't like Lewis's comment (2.00 / 6) (#4)
    by McBain on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 06:14:42 PM EST
    The sour grapes window needs to close soon if the Democrats want to be taken seriously in future elections.  All this is doing is making Trump look better.  

    Oh, please. Nothing, I repeat, nothing (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 09:39:05 PM EST
    anyone says will ever make Trump look better.

    And, unless you are somehow privy to the information  members of the House learned in that intelligence briefing, you have no idea what prompted Lewis' remarks. Whatever they learned, it outraged all of them.

    I stand with John Lewis.


    And yet he is the most unpopular POETUS ever (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 09:47:54 PM EST
    Are you sure they are making him look better? To whom?

    The people who voted for him (3.00 / 2) (#8)
    by McBain on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 12:29:38 AM EST
    The people who might vote for him in 2020.  There's a long ways to go but he's off to a great start.

    Nothing is going to change (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 05:19:38 AM EST
    the opinion of his hardcore supporters. We all realize that. He himself said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and they would not alter their support.

    As far as 2020 goes the only thing I would put money on is the fact that he will have a primary opponent if he runs for reelection.


    A "great start" - heh (none / 0) (#39)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 03:08:04 PM EST
    Baa waa waa (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 05:16:23 AM EST
    what it makes Trump look like is an ignorant toddler throwing a tantrum. He reinforces his ignorance making completely stupid and inaccurate statements about Lewis' district. Maybe that is what Putin tells him the district is or maybe that's the white nationalist statement about every African American legislator's district.

    Using the phrase sour grapes must be more Trump apologia sent out by Trump central because you're not the first one I've seen using it.


    Some in Hollywood (none / 0) (#12)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 06:06:26 AM EST
    Are starting to get it.

    While still anti Trump and solidly Democrat, they seem to agree. And I agree with their approach, issue by issue.

    Apatow, Zaldana and Kidman




    "I'm always reticent to start commenting politically; I've never done it in terms of America or Australia. I'm issue-based," Kidman told the BBC while promoting her new movie, Lion. "So I just say, he's now elected, and we as a country need to support whoever is the president because that's what the country's based on."

    She added: "Whatever, however, that happened, he's there, and let's go. For me, I'm very, very committed to women's issues."

    And yet, Saldana--while not a Trump supporter herself--has seemingly taken it upon herself to defend the indefensible, placing some of the blame for Trump's shock election victory on Tinseltown for bullying the world's premier bully.

    "We got cocky and became arrogant and we also became bullies," Saldana told AFP of Trump, who's mocked a disabled New York Times reporter, called Megyn Kelly a "bimbo," accused Ted Cruz's father of assassinating JFK, and has himself been accused of sexual assault by over a dozen women.
    "We were trying to single out a man for all these things he was doing wrong," she continued, "and that created empathy in a big group of people in America that felt bad for him and that are believing in his promises.

    What does he think of the fight against "normalizing" Trump (most recently fueled by Democratic Congressman John Lewis saying that Trump is "not a legitimate president")?

    "I don't think it serves a purpose to be against him," Apatow says. "It only serves a purpose to fight issue by issue."

    The comic muses: "I'm trying to transition from making comments on social media to choosing one or two organizations to work with and support so that I feel like I'm actually being a positive part of the process. You don't want to be a crank."

    Good grief (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 10:41:26 AM EST
    Donald the poor victim. That's just sad and pathetic.

    I agree somewhat with Apatow.. (none / 0) (#31)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 12:03:47 PM EST
    now, if only certain fundamentalist libertarian types "got it", instead of saying, in effect, he's a Republican and of course for smaller government and deregulation, and f*ck everything else..including poor people and the environment.

    An insulated moron like right wing hero Limbaugh wanted Obama to "fail" even if it meant a lot of people getting hurt..

    I wish Trump well only because I don't want things to get worse here, but this simplistic, delusional idea that "small government" and deregulation is some sort of magical key to God shedding his grace (and golden showers) on the U.S is just sheer insanity unsupported by the historical facts.


    Why? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 03:05:31 PM EST
    "Sour grapes" (along with fake news FBI/Russian interference along with tinfoil conspiracy theories is how Trump won.

    Why would you be "concerned" about it, now?


    In addition to all that you mentioned (none / 0) (#22)
    by vml68 on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 10:22:39 AM EST
    the 5th district that John Lewis represents also includes Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, the busiest airport in the world.
    Can someone educate Tr*mp on the country he will (supposedly!) be running?

    I've got 15 days to decide if I'm going to switch (none / 0) (#1)
    by McBain on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 03:08:54 PM EST
    to an Obamacare health plan.  My current plan isn't bad but the premium has doubled in the past few years.  There's an Obamacare plan that would save me significant money for at least 10 months.  The problem is no one knows what will happen next.

    If it gets repealed, I won't be able to get my old plan back because its' a grandfathered plan that isn't offered to new members anymore.

    Anyone else in a similar situation?

    i assume trump will (none / 0) (#2)
    by linea on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 03:22:34 PM EST
    instuct the IRS to not collect the tax penalty. i assume he has the authority to do that.

    i dont have health insurance. im hoping i will get hired for a regular full-time position in june or july. most companies here are using the "pretend not an employee" contractor scam.


    No, he doesn't. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 04:47:41 PM EST
    The ACA is a federal statute. That is, it's actual law that was enacted by Congress, and not by executive order per administrative rule. As such, the president has no authority to waive one of the law's key provisions unilaterally. He would have to first seek approval from Congress in order to do so.

    He could, of course, attempt to instruct the Treasury Secretary (IRS is part of the Treasury Dept.) to not enforce the penalty, but that would then be subject to judicial action if someone decided to sue in order to compel him to administer the law in full.

    But since both president-elect and the new Congress are hellbent on repealing the law in its entirety, it's probably a moot point.

    We'll see what happens.


    that's what i wrote !!! (none / 0) (#53)
    by linea on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 05:32:00 PM EST
    re: He could, of course, attempt to instruct the Treasury Secretary (IRS is part of the Treasury Dept.) to not enforce the penalty,

    You also wrote that ... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 07:30:35 PM EST
    ... you assumed that the president has the authority to do so. As I noted, he does not possess the power to selectively disregard the law, and will need prior congressional concurrence before telling people to ignore the penalty assessment when filing their tax returns. If Trump tries set it aside on his own and somebody calls his bluff, a federal judge will likely rule against him.

    ObamaCare Under Trump: TrumpCare (none / 0) (#57)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 08:42:43 PM EST

    Some possible answers


    Is the Obamacare option comparable ... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 04:57:13 PM EST
    ... to what you currently have? Unless you qualify and apply for an ACA subsidy for the new policy under Medicaid, any prospective repeal of the law would likely not cause you to lose your new coverage. I can't see why the insurance company would cancel your policy if you're already paying the entire premium out of pocket. In any event, please check first with your new potential carrier regarding their intent upon repeal, before you make any decision to switch plans.

    It's comparable but not quite as good (none / 0) (#59)
    by McBain on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 08:56:23 PM EST
    I talked to an enrollment rep from the new plan and was expecting him to say what you did.... "would not likely cause you to lose your new coverage".  But he said he doesn't know what will happen.  

    I'll probably roll the dice and go with the new plan.  It should save me at least $2,000 for 2017.  That's assuming I get all the tax breaks.  


    Well, good luck. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 16, 2017 at 02:31:36 AM EST
    Perhaps with the numbers of new people being enrolled under the ACA, GOP lawmakers in D.C. will have second thoughts about repealing a law that's providing health coverage at critical mass. Surely they realize that if they simply repeal for its own sake without offering a satisfactory replacement, they'll own both the problem and its attendant political consequences.

    I have Medicare and about $300 in SS/month (none / 0) (#7)
    by sallywally on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 11:11:03 PM EST
    If Paul Ryan has his way I'll be  SOL pretty soon.I have a state pension but they're looking for ways to reduce their payoutto us.

    Mismanaged state pensions (none / 0) (#14)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 07:28:51 AM EST
    are a real problem. The longer the problems are not addressed the worse the crack up when it comes.

    An example. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 07:47:37 AM EST
    Yes, (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 10:43:17 AM EST
    they put money in the stock market with those pension funds. Even the originator of the 401K says he can't afford to retire because he lost so much money in the stock market collapse in 2008. This pension thing actually undercuts everything conservatives have been saying for quite a while.

    Also into bonds and real estate (none / 0) (#29)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 11:55:04 AM EST

    Some state and municipal funds assume a 7 or 8 percent rate of return. That's pretty tough to average over time. But it lets the current politicians put less into the funds each year.

    In any case the stock market has recovered quite nicely since 2008.


    Municipal public pension plans ... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 07:52:21 PM EST
    ... are also woefully underfunded. In the city of Chicago, the per capita unfunded actuarial accrued liability for municipal pensions is $7,596 (per city resident). In New York, it's $8,726. In Columbus, OH it's $6,914.

    And that's just what's owed to city employees. If you also add unfunded liabilities for state worker and public school teacher pensions, Chicago's per capital UAAL rises to a whopping $18,596.

    It's a serious issue. Some cities have been grappling with the problem with varying degrees of success, while others have neglected it altogether.



    You betcha (none / 0) (#62)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 09:26:59 PM EST

    Municipal politicians have a nearly irresistible incentive to bump up pension benefits.  The rewards are immediate in support from the municipal unions and money to use on other constituencies. The downside is for some distant future office holder who will have to deal with the bankruptcy or painful budget cuts.

    Raising taxes in a city already losing population is like pouring gasoline on a fire.


    A big issue (none / 0) (#64)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jan 16, 2017 at 12:14:00 AM EST
    With state and local governments

    And I am a County employee, but will not have a large pension, will have worked less than 20 years with them when I retire. The pensions take off after 20 year employment, and increase from there.

    My county each year is further and further in the hole, borrowing money to pay off current operating expenses. every year the bill for the county to open their doors on Jan 1st increases, due to rising pension costs. On Long Island, police and teachers both usually retire with salaries over $100k. The police really make out , getting OT computed into their pension benefits, so any officer within 3 years of retirement gets 1st dibs for OT.
    There are websites that display yearly salaries and pensions. The pensions paid out by NYS are obscene. School administrators getting over $200k yearly, and a portion of police near that as well police.
    Now try and get some sort of pension reform, never happen. I feel no pension should exceed $75k yearly, maybe $100k. If someone needs more than that to retire they should save to supplement their pension. Eventually pensions will be eradicated because of the small number of abuses, and hurt most of the people that really need them, those with the pensions of $30k and less, which is most likely the majority of state and municipal employees.
    I can see that coming but the unions don't , and refuse any sort of pension reform.
    And pensions will be eliminated, the taxpayers of Long Island can pay 6, 8, 10k, up to $20k yearly in property taxes. Then the mortgage. They are at a breaking point.
    A big reason, other than warmer weather and a longer fishing season , why I am looking to retire further South.


    why I am looking to retire further South. (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 16, 2017 at 08:50:11 AM EST
    Then come and see Tennessee!

    But keep away from the 4 large cities. They are mostly Chicago in miniature.

    But great fishing, hunting, within easy drive of medical and shopping facilities plus pro sports and college ball if that's your gig.

    Plus no state income tax. And we're phasing out tax on investment income... should be gone in three years.

    Property taxes are also low outside of the cities and $250K will buy you a nice home with more ward than you want.

    The down sides? Although the winters are mild the residents and governments can't handle snow so learn how to stay home on the three days in the winter when it's around.

    I know several ex pats who have retired from NYC and/or its burbs. Maybe you guys can start a club!



    I have heard (none / 0) (#75)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jan 16, 2017 at 05:51:42 PM EST
    Good things about Tennessee.

    For now, just looking along the coastline,
    Preferably within distance for daily fishing excursions, in bays, inlets, and the open beach.
    Similar to what I have available now.

    Actually have located some, might actually go take a visit in the next year or two as I get closer to retirement


    CGI bye bye (none / 0) (#13)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 07:26:06 AM EST
    Complete ignorance (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 10:03:24 AM EST
    In your statement but then that's the Putin way

    "Influence to pedal" - pffffttttt ... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 03:21:05 PM EST
    Uhhhmmmm .... they announced these layoffs as part of the closing of CGI back in September, long before the election.


    This is the kind of tinfoil smears wingers make when they have no evidence to back up their claims.


    I seem to recall (none / 0) (#60)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 09:12:40 PM EST

    that they were closing it to avoid conflict of interest after her coronation.  That reason no longer applies.  

    I seem to recall ... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 09:36:27 PM EST
    ... that they announced it before the election, at which point she would have had even more of "influence to pedal", had she been elected.  So if she didn't shut down CGI, you wingers would have screamed she was pedaling influence, but now that she actually did what she said she was going to do (a novel concept for Trump supporters, no doubt), you claim it's evidence that she was "pedaling influence".  D@mned if she does and d@mned if she doesn't.  Typical, CDS, double-standard Clinton rules and "logic", because you can't back up your silly smears with evidence.

    BTW - Looking forward to all your outrage about Donnie's conflicts of interest and "influence pedaling" (for his businesses - as opposed to a charity - no less)).  I'll cue up the crickets for ya ...


    Big Pharm money...and hypocritical politicians (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 08:52:29 AM EST
    The cost of drugs in this country is a disaster to many people, especially the elderly, in this country. Democrats have opined their support for laws allowing cheaper drugs into the country.

    Senator Sanders, the champion of progressives, on the other hand, has acted more legislatively than symbolically. Just recently, he proposed an amendment to the 21st Century Century Cures Act to lower drug costs and allow for the import of cheaper drugs from other countries. However, that failed thanks to Republican opposition, and so he tried again, this time attaching a similar amendment to a concurrent budget resolution for the fiscal year of 2017, to allow importing of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada.

    As a Reddit user, gideonvwainwright, pointed out, that amendment failed despite having the support of 12 Republicans including both Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) because of the 'Nay' votes of thirteen Democrats--one of whom was Senator Booker.

    This is the full list of Democrats who voted no, along with when they are next up for reelection, courtesy of Reddit.

    Michael Bennet (D-CO) - 2022
    Cory Booker (D-NJ) - 2020
    Maria Cantwell (D-WA) - 2018
    Thomas R. Carper (D-DE) - 2018
    Bob Casey, Jr. (D-PA) - 2018
    Chris Coons (D-DE) - 2020
    Joe Donnelly (D-IN) - 2018
    Martin Heinrich (D-NM) - 2018
    Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) - 2018
    Bob Menendez (D-NJ) - 2018
    Patty Murray (D-WA) - 2022
    Jon Tester (D-MT) - 2018
    Mark Warner (D-VA) - 2020


    Update: OpenSecrets has slightly different numbers from the dollar figures provided by Jezebel. Between 2013 and 2016, Cory Booker received $442,678 from the pharmaceuticals industry; Patty Murray received $670,944; Robert Casey received $577,079; Michael Bennett received $652,417.


    Speaking of hypocritical ... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 03:27:41 PM EST
    ... how many of your fellow Republicans voted against the amendment, compared to the 12 Democrats you're complaining about?

    Oh, ... that's right.

    It was 38.


    38 of his fellow Republicans (none / 0) (#44)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 04:13:59 PM EST
    voted against it.

    Well, at least they're all social liberals who support single payer healthcare.

    It'd be hypocritical to shill for them if they didn't..


    Why don't you try reading before you type? (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 05:14:53 PM EST
    Of course the really sad thing is that Trump is a business dude and open to any suggestions that solve problems. In the meantime the Reopubs and 13 Democrats block anything that harms their Sugar Daddies while claiming to love you.

    They had all best remember that Trump wasn't elected by the Party so the usual hacks and money men don't run things like they did.

    Right (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 05:23:56 PM EST
    you just forgot to mention how many (twice as many) "Reopubs" blocked it.

    Because just like Trump, you're not a Party-line guy.


    I read it (none / 0) (#52)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 05:29:00 PM EST
    Which is how I know you're trying to assign blame to Democrats - including listing each individual Democrat and specifying the number that voted against the amendment - while ignoring the fact that many more Republicans voted against it and not naming them.

    Hope you're looking forward to your Medicare voucher!  :)


    Of course the Demos (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 08:43:46 PM EST
    were out numbered...But the fact is this.

    They voted with the Repubs.

    Even Ron Paul and Ted Cruz supported the amendment.

    If you actually cared...why would you do what they did?

    You should be embarrassed and ashamed for their actions.


    Feh (3.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 16, 2017 at 02:50:08 AM EST
    you have no capacity for embarrassment and neither does the entire GOP. I mean y'all are openly embracing Neo Nazis. You're the last one that would even understand embarrassment. You act like an abuser never holding yourself accountable and yelling about the other guy.

    The "other guy" (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 17, 2017 at 09:56:08 AM EST
    is a Demo Senator supposedly concerned about the poor.

    Why do you support a hypocrite??


    Thanks for (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2017 at 11:33:44 AM EST
    proving my point. Blaming the other guy again when the log in your own eye is so large you can't even see it.

    Besides Booker voted for the Wyden amendment because the other had no provisions for fake drugs.


    It's not my eye (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 17, 2017 at 01:16:45 PM EST
    I support this as well as single payer.

    And then he didn't introduce a bill to fix anything.

    What a guy. Too busy running for Prez in 2020 to do his job.



    Grab the tweezers (none / 0) (#81)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2017 at 02:27:39 PM EST
    Booker didn't need to introduce anything.   Wyden already introduced the amendment allowing importation of prescription drugs,  which Booker supported.

    BTW - Nay votes

    Alexander (R-TN)
    Corker (R-TN)

    Wonder who voted for them


    Both of them are in big trouble in TN (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 17, 2017 at 02:54:10 PM EST
    Alexander probably won't run and Corker will face strong opposition in the primary.

    In the meantime:

    It does not specifically provide for importation or re-importation of drugs from Canada to the United States. But, seriously folks.....

    But it does express support for Trump's desire in bringing the drugs back......

    You know, it wouldn't surprise me of Trump brought us single payer in his second term.

    So Booker didn't vote because he didn't want to agree with Repubs.


    I couldn't care less ... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2017 at 03:16:55 PM EST
    ... if you think they're "in trouble", or what a Republican fantasized about Booker's motives.  The issue is who voted for Alexander and Corker.

    I know I didn't.

    But your fantasy about Trump is funny.   Trump specifically denounced single payer during the campaign.  Then again,  he's clueless and changes his mind constantly.


    Trump has surrounded himself (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 17, 2017 at 04:33:30 PM EST
    with a rogues gallery of party line conservatives who think single payer was invented by V.I. Lenin.

    I'd be pleasantly astounded if he ever "brought us" single payer.

    But then, you wouldn't have voted for Corker and Alexander if you cared That much about it.


    Why do think Jim's (none / 0) (#83)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 17, 2017 at 02:56:15 PM EST
    moving further south?

    He's headed for Alabama or Mississippi, where support for single payer and free women's rights and shelling Fort Sumter again is at the top of every politician's agenda.


    Is that suddenly a problem? (none / 0) (#78)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2017 at 10:31:31 AM EST
    We support petty thieves (none / 0) (#84)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 17, 2017 at 03:14:22 PM EST
    why do you support cutthroat sociopaths and racists, hmmm??

    Why do you link to Breitbart, where the regulars were calling for replacing MLK Day with Robert E Lee Day??

    Do you folks think King was a more divisive figure than a secessionist traitor to the U.S was??


    You don't get it (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 17, 2017 at 04:42:12 PM EST
    Trump isn't a Repub.

    All the Repub elites knew that. That's why they tried every way possible to keep him out. But I said that before.

    Out here in flyover country (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 15, 2016 at 08:02:31 AM CST
    The rank and file don't give a flip what the "prominent Republicans" think or do.
    These people are seen as "hoodoos," as one of my friend calls them, that are just DCers who will do whatever they think they need to stay at the free buffet the country has provided them for years and years.

    They are no more Republican than Hillary is.

    The Republican party is dead.

    If Trump loses a new party will be formed.

    If Trump wins the existing party will be changed toward a populist/liberal model.

    BTW - Do you still beat your wife?


    As an aside (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 17, 2017 at 05:24:20 PM EST
    you DO realize we've already been asked umpteen times not to repost old posts?

    I mean, I realize Yours deserve to be compiled for posterity one day for their inspirational value, but maybe you should think about reposting that stuff on your own blog.


    Do I still beat my wife.. (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 17, 2017 at 05:32:21 PM EST
    no, but it sounds like your Breitbart comrades wish they could still beat slave women.

    It would be so "un-PC".


    The only people who should be ... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 09:21:59 PM EST
    ... embarrassed and ashamed are those people who claim to be for universal healthcare and claim to care about the cost of healthcare, but then turn around and vote Republican.  The same people who hypocritically attack 13 Democrats - naming their number and naming them specifically - while completely and hypocritically failing to name the 38 Republicans.  The same people who vote Republican that will whine loudly when they receive their vouchers and are told to go buy their own insurance on the private market.  Good luck with that.

    They should be ashamed.


    So you don't want the (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 16, 2017 at 09:47:21 AM EST
    names known?? I understand. And so will the voters if the news gets out.

    They did what they did. Period. There are no excuses. They were paid off. Period. Blaming someone else doesn't work in the age of the Internet.

    What you fail to understand is that Trump was not elected by the Repub Party. It joined in only after it was apparent that its remembers would leave if they say on their hands.


    You "understand" - heh (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 16, 2017 at 10:09:41 AM EST
    No.  Intentionally misstating what someone else is saying so that you can have win a strawman argument with yourself is not "understanding" ... but it is transparent.

    Trump IS the perfect embodiment of the Republican voter today ... a thin-skinned, 7th grade bully and hypocritical know-nothing who lies constantly and engages in tinfoil conspiracy theories.  Not to mention what he does to women.  The party that claims to be offended by lies and to be the party of "Christian and family values".  It doesn't get any funnier than that.


    No matter what Trump is (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 16, 2017 at 01:44:27 PM EST
    the fact remains. These Democrats, supposedly protectors of the down trodden, voted against an amendment that could have lowered drug costs.

    AFTER they had accepted money from Big Pharm.

    So quit trying to change the subject.


    Stop being a shill for five minutes (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 16, 2017 at 02:16:07 PM EST
    and for once in your life try to be fair and intellectually honest.

    SOME Democrats, not "THE" Democrats, and many MORE of your fellow Republicans voted against it.

    Now, if you're claiming that You personally care about "the downtrodden", why are you still ham-handedly attempting to distort the reality of what actually occurred?

    Are you claiming that Democrats are the only one's who take money from corporate lobbyists?

    THE SUBJECT, which you with your talk radio horse manure don't get to define, is getting the corrupting influence of money out of politics.

    If you want to discuss that, let's discuss it.


    Not just what Trump is (none / 0) (#73)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 16, 2017 at 02:28:29 PM EST
    It's about what his supporters are.  The same ones who try to blame Democrats for the amendment loss, while ignoring the fact that the Republicans they support are supporting big pharma in far greater numbers.

    But I understand why some of their supporters want to pretend otherwise.


    This is the part where he runs away (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 16, 2017 at 02:43:52 PM EST
    and hides so he can post something at the end of the thread six hours later (in bold letters with a lot of exclamation points).

    Maybe it'll be that list of Republicans who support single payer.

    That shouldn't be hard.

    The only list shorter is the list of libertarian environmentalists.


    Here's the facts (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 17, 2017 at 09:52:17 AM EST
    The cost of RX's and cheaper prices by allowing imports has been a Demo issue for years.

    It is expected that the Repubs will oppose that and the Demos will support it.

    Yet these Demos did not.

    But Trump does;

    Donald Trump released a health care plan late Wednesday that includes common Republican ideas for replacing Obamacare but departs from conventional GOP policies in one major way: it would allow the reimportation of cheaper drugs from overseas.


    Why is this??? Why aren't these guys joining with Trump on this issue????

    Being partisan is one thing. But taking actions that would obviously hurt those you  claim as your base is hypocritical.


    Since you're so energized by (none / 0) (#72)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 16, 2017 at 02:26:35 PM EST
    the idea of listing names, how about a list of all your fellow conservatives who champion single payer healthcare and a woman's right to choose?

    Looks like (none / 0) (#17)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 08:57:02 AM EST
    No one sat on anything

    Report: CIA set up task-force in 2016 to investigate possible Russian funding of Trump's campaign

    Natasha Bertrand

    A US counterintelligence task force was established by the CIA in 2016 to investigate possible Russian funding of President-elect Donald Trump's presidential campaign, the BBC reported on Friday.

    The task force included the FBI, the Treasury and Justice Departments, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the National Security Agency (NSA).

    It was set up after the director of the CIA, John Brennan, received a recording of a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into Trump's campaign coffers, the BBC's Paul Wood reported. The recording was apparently passed to the CIA by the intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States.

    On October 15, the task force was granted a warrant by a judge in the FISA court -- named after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks that may have been implicated in the money transfer, a senior intelligence official told the BBC. Trump was not named in the warrant, but three of his associates were the subject of the inquiry.

    All three associates contacted, but not named, by the BBC, denied the allegations. The current status of the investigation is unclear

    Interesting (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 09:40:10 AM EST
    But could it be a False Flag type? Let someone over hear some false "plans" and then watch them pass it on and then watch the US spin their wheels investigating and theorizing.

    Getting (none / 0) (#21)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 10:18:47 AM EST
    a  little nervous there? You seem to be seeing the mounting evidence(interesting indeed), you are not denying it but now you dseem to be wishing and hoping it's a "false flag".

    Why would I be nervous? (none / 0) (#28)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 11:21:39 AM EST
    I was replying to (none / 0) (#30)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 12:02:13 PM EST
    Jim, but your dodges and deflections in defense of Trump and Putin are all evaporating before our eyes.

    You "whats the crime?"  dodge was answered by your own post. No matter how you try to wave this away as a nothing burger, you can't deny that there are some very smart people in some very high placed are taking this very seriously.


    They are working with something (none / 0) (#34)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    Previously not known, according to the article. A recording. And are doing what they normally do. Investigate. It will play itself out.

    Although this is also interesting

    MOSCOW -- They're resetting expectations in Russia for a reboot of relations with the United States.
    It wasn't that long ago that Russia's establishment was reveling in President-elect Donald Trump's victory. That enthusiasm has cooled drastically over the steady drumbeat of bad news coming from Washington.

    There was Trump's acknowledgment of the intelligence community's conclusion that Russia was responsible for hacking the Democratic Party during last year's election. That followed lurid reports that Russian security agencies had compromising material on the president-elect, which came after new sanctions by the Obama administration.  

    Moscow dismissed it all, but then came the tough talk aimed at Russia by Trump's nominees for defense secretary and CIA chief at confirmation hearings last week, who both referred to Russia as a threat in remarks that clashed with the president-elect's call for cooperation with Russia on a number of fronts.

    From the Russian standpoint (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 01:37:07 PM EST
    why wouldn't they accumulate as much dirt and leverage on the clueless p*ssy grabber as is humanly possible?

    Of course they are and have.

    The Russians have been in the Machievellian intelligence gathering game since the days of the Czars, and raised it to baroque, near-science fiction levels during the days of the NKVD and the early KGB..

    The Fifty Shades of Gold stuff already have on Trump already is probably worthy of several-seasons-long, only-on-cable tv series.


    Looks like your hero Booker has (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 02:11:26 PM EST
    problems on the Money Side. Big bucks from Big Pharm.

    My My.

    Of course the really sad thing is that Trump is a business dude and open to any suggestions that solve problems. In the meantime the Reopubs and 13 Democrats block anything that harms their Sugar Daddies while claiming to love you.

    BTW, when you get some actual evidence, let me know.

    Maybe a confession?

    PARAMUS -- A Bergen County limousine driver has admitted to illegally funneling $80,000 from the Socialist Party leader in Albania to President Barack Obama's re-election campaign.
    Bilal Shehu, 48, a U.S. citizen from Albania, pleaded guilty Wednesday to knowingly and willfully making foreign contributions and donations.

    Obama's illegal contribution

    I wonder. Where was the FBI, CIA and all the others on this.

    According to a recent report issued by the Government Accountability Institute (GAI), people residing in countries around the globe are apparently taking President Obama's declaration a bit too literally and may be flooding the Obama campaign with foreign contributions in violation of federal election law.


    The prospect of illegal foreign donations is an especially thorny problem for the Obama campaign. Here's why: The Internet site Obama.com isn't owned by the Obama campaign. It's owned by China-based American businessman Robert Roche, CEO of Acorn International, a large media company. As Mr. Schweizer and Mr. Boyer note, 68 percent of the some 2,000 visitors each day on Obama.com are foreign in origin.

    Looks like China had a finger in the election.

    To late to impeach him. Maybe just some time in jail.


    Or maybe just laugh ... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 03:37:32 PM EST
    ... at the last, dying gasp and impotent threats of the wingers who are trying to smear him one last time.  From your own link:

    U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman said Obama's campaign committee was not accused of breaking any laws and fully cooperated with the investigation.

    The plea deal coincidentally was reached on the same day that two federal election watchdog groups filed a Federal Election Commission complaint accusing Donald Trump's campaign of soliciting contributions from foreign political officials in Iceland, Scotland, Britain and Australia via email.

    But the Washington Times article was funny.


    That sounds like what you (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 05:18:21 PM EST
    are condemning Trump's folks doing.

    Goose? Gander?


    "Sounds like"? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 05:39:01 PM EST
    I'm not accusing Trump's folks of doing anything - just pointing out that your own article states that Obama wasn't even accused of doing anything illegal and fully cooperated, according to the US attorney who investigated and prosecuted the case.

    We don't know about Trump, yet.  But beyond that difference, there is one other glaring difference from your article.  Mr. Shehu's case involved someone who purchased tickets to a fundraiser, where President Obama had no knowledge of the source of those funds.  The complaint against Mr. Trump involves the alleged solicitation of illegal contributions from foreign leaders.



    Tinfoil "false flag" theories (none / 0) (#32)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 12:10:07 PM EST
    have become the last refuge of the far-right in the last few years..

    Sounds like someone's branching out from listening to Rush, Glenn, and Sean to listening to Alex Jones.


    You know I am very disapointed (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 02:31:28 PM EST
    This is high school stuff.

    You know, Girl A wants to take Boy away from Girl B. So she tells Girl C to tell Girl B that Boy has been slipping around and seeing Girl A.

    In the meantime Girl A puts a move on Boy while Girl B vents her anger on Boy.

    I would have expected better.

    In the meantime it is now so obvious that the IA's are so politicized that we need a Church Committee but there's no politician willing to join one.

    They had all best remember that Trump wasn't elected by the Party so the usual hacks and money men don't run things like they did.


    high school stuff.. (none / 0) (#40)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 03:15:09 PM EST
    if you happen to go to a high school where they teach that the Sandy Hook was a gun-grabber conspiracy and fluoridation is a threat to our precious bodily fluids.

    Just because it's conceivable and imaginable doesn't mean it's actually going on.

    This witches brew of talk radio and old time religion, I've noticed, makes some a little too receptive any nutty theory that "feels right" to them.


    So you agree that this is all nonsense. (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 05:16:38 PM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#51)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 05:27:15 PM EST
    I agree you traffic in nonsense.

    Is that what you were asking me?


    Well (none / 0) (#19)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 09:40:17 AM EST
    apparently Comey wanted to sit on it here

    FBI Director James Comey argued privately that it was too close to Election Day for the United States government to name Russia as meddling in the U.S. election and ultimately ensured that the FBI's name was not on the document that the U.S. government put out, a former bureau official tells CNBC.
    and the anger arises from here
    The official said some government insiders are perplexed as to why Comey would have election timing concerns with the Russian disclosure but not with the Huma Abedin email discovery disclosure he made Friday.

    also good job on answering your own question

    What crime would the FBI investigate?
    illegal campaign donations is a nice starting point anyway

    It's even (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 10:52:36 AM EST
    now becoming obvious to conservatives that Comey deliberated colluded with the Republicans to attempt to take down Hillary all the while protecting Trump. If the WSJ is calling for Comey to resign even they are seeing the handwriting on the wall.

    That is in (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 10:50:12 AM EST
    regards to funding of Trump's campaign by Russia. The claim about the FBI sitting on evidence was regarding the dossier. However the FBI deliberately declined to let the public know while leaking all over the place about the bogus email crap.

    And yes, this is very bad news for Trump. The FEC has already flagged 250 pages of illegal donations Trump received and the IC apparently believes that Trump received funding from Putin through associates.

    However I'm glad to know that you just repeat whatever Matt Drudge tells you to repeat. Putin i'm sure is using Drudge as their propaganda organ.


    Comey (none / 0) (#27)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 11:19:53 AM EST
    However the FBI deliberately declined to let the public know while leaking all over the place about the bogus email crap.

    If I recall correctly, specifically stated he will not comment on any active investigations, in Madame Sec's case, he announced findings after he concluded the investigation. And promised Congress he would update them if anything new turned up.

    I don't believe the FBI writes a press release when they become part of a counterintelligence task force.


    Yes, he actually (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 15, 2017 at 12:16:31 PM EST
    broke with DOJ regulations much like he obeyed them regarding Trump and Russia. The whole email thing should have taken a month but the FBI deliberately drug it out going over and over stuff in desperation to find something anything to pin on Hillary and it did not work. Then finally they find the Weiner computer in September but wait until 10 days before an election to release the letter. The desperation just reeks from the GOP. They put out all the stop and still were only able to eke out 80K votes over three states. A swing of 40K votes and we'd be talking about other stuff and certainly not about how the GOP has been infiltrated by Putin and looking at installing his puppet as president.