Trump Wants $8.6 Billion for Worthless Wall

Donald Trump is asking Congress to pass his budget bill includes $8.6 billion to help pay for his worthless wall.

I do not want a wall. We do not need a wall. Mexico will not pay for a wall. America will not see a dime from El Chapo. Instead, Americans will pay $60,000. a year to warehouse him at Supermax in Florence (assuming that's where he is designated to serve his sentence.) [More....]

Donald Trump used to care about one thing: His brand. Now, having had a taste of life in the oval office where he is waited on hand and foot, all he cares about is keeping his cushy job for another four years. Donald Trump could care less about your http://www.talkleft.com/scoopstats/userssafety. He cares about being able to claim on the campaign trail he fulfilled his wall promise, so he doesn't have to return to the shambles his hotel business will have become at the helm of his talentless children.

The Dems today: "Haven't you learned your lesson yet?"

“Congress refused to fund his wall and he was forced to admit defeat and reopen the government. The same thing will repeat itself if he tries this again. We hope he learned his lesson,” said the two top Democrats in Congress.

Trump's idea for a border wall is antiquated and ignorant, and we've been there, done that. Don't let him push your buttons. He's all bluster. And he doesn't have the power he thinks he does.

< Trump Requests $100 Million for Ivanka's Project | Trump Vetoes Funding Bill >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    If I never (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 11, 2019 at 07:25:26 AM EST
    hear about that stupid wall ever again it will be too soon.

    Pretty funny (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 21, 2019 at 08:52:58 AM EST
    I love (none / 0) (#2)
    by NoSides on Mon Mar 11, 2019 at 12:32:28 PM EST
    seeing images of people flying with jet packs on their backs. Should be a thriving business - with stands outside the wall offering special weekend rates.

    Garlic crab (none / 0) (#3)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 11, 2019 at 04:15:47 PM EST

    Roasted Garlic Dungeness Crab (Serves 2)

    ¼ Cup Fresh Garlic, minced
    3 Tablespoons Shallots, minced
    1 Tablespoon Light Brown Sugar
    1 Teaspoon Red Chili Flakes
    1 Tablespoon Fish Sauce
    ½ Tablespoon Cracked Black Pepper
    8 Tablespoons Unsalted Butter
    1 Tablespoon Olive Oil
    1 Fresh Dungeness Crab, about 2-3 pounds
    Lemon Wedges and Chopped Scallions, optional

    Carefully clean the Dungeness Crab. Drop into a large pot of salted boiling water. Par cook for 5-6 minutes. Remove from the pot and let cool. Once the crab has cooled enough to handle, remove the top shell and quarter the body. Using a kitchen mallet, crack the legs and claws but do not remove the meat.
    In a dutch oven, heat up the butter and olive oil. Once the butter has almost melted, add the garlic and shallots. Lightly sauté for 1-2 minutes. Add sugar, chili flakes, fish sauce, and black pepper and cook for an additional minutes. Add the crab to the pot and stir well so that the crab is fully covered with the mixture. Cook on medium heat for an additional 2 minutes. Shake the pot to even the crab into one layer and place in the oven on 375 degrees for 8-10 minutes or until crab is completely cooked. Be careful not to overcook or the crab meat will be very dry. Transfer to serving platter. Sprinkle scallions on top of the crab.


    oh my, that sounds so good! (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by leap on Mon Mar 11, 2019 at 05:23:05 PM EST
    But sure is a bit of work for not a whole lot. Would you make it for me? Ha ha ha!

    Nancy makes some news (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 11, 2019 at 04:19:19 PM EST
    As I have said here before, I agree with this.

    '"Im not for impeachment," Pelosi told The Post.

    "This is news. I'm going to give you some news right now because I haven't said this to any press person before. But since you asked, and I've been thinking about this: Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country."

    "And he's just not worth it," Pelosi said.

    When a Post reporter asked her if Trump was "fit to be president," Pelosi said, "Are we talking ethically? Intellectually? Politically? What are we talking here?"

    "All -- All of the above. No. No. I don't think he is. I mean, ethically unfit. Intellectually unfit. Curiosity-wise unfit," Pelosi said. "No, I don't think he's fit to be president of the United States."

    The White House had no immediate comment on Pelosi's remarks..

    Yes, Trump is (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 11, 2019 at 06:14:14 PM EST
    not worth it--for sure.  But, the country is.  Compelling and overwhelming may not be limited to crimes.   Wrongdoings May rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors requiring impeachment.  And, if we need to McConnell to move on constitutional remedies avaiable, we have already lost our democracy.  The House needs to investigate and hold open hearings.   We saw the impact of just one with the unsavory Michael Cohen. A concerted effort that reveals Trump's unfitness and venality not to mention likely crimes will bring the country to facing the realities.   I think Speaker Pelosi may agree with my thinking, but she is trying to tamp down the politics---for now.  Mueller should have given more information along the way at least to present public information by introducing the indictments rather than leaving it all to talking heads creating the cottage industry of legal analysts.  Transparency is needed whenever possible in a political mess such as Trump, lies and spies.

    Of course she is tamping down (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 11, 2019 at 06:23:17 PM EST
    And she said her thinking would change if the evidence goes there.

    The fact is it's not there yet.  Maybe for us not for most.  

    And for the country being worth it, I think that's her exact point.  If they started talking about impeachment now everything else would stop.  Dead.  It would be the only thing covered.  They have done some good things.  They passed gun regulations.  They just passed sweeping bovernmental and election reforms.  And these things still have not been covered.  They can run on these things.  If they can tell people about them.

    Impeachment would play right into Trumps reelection plans.  His approval would go up 5 points.  Maybe 10.  Is this a political decision she made.  Of course it is.

    Yes, they should have hearings.  I'm not sure why there has only been one.  Maybe they are trying to let Mueller keep the news until he's done.  Who knows.  But there will be more hearings.  Many more hearings.  


    Speaker Pelosi is absolutely right ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 12, 2019 at 05:03:29 AM EST
    ... to urge Democrats toward caution and patience over emotion. Our nation's founders envisioned impeachment and removal of a president as a political act, but not as an exclusively partisan exercise. We need to understand the difference. It's why the process succeeded in 1974, and failed in 1998-99.

    Unless there is an expressed and sufficient bipartisan consensus in both chambers of Congress -- as there was in the summer of 1974 during the Watergate scandal -- that the removal of the president from office must be undertaken for the good of the country, any unilateral act in that regard by one political party can only divide the nation against itself.

    Let's first see what comes of the Special Counsel's investigation and its several offshoots in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, before we commit ourselves to the pursuit of Trump's ouster via impeachment.



    Mixed (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 11, 2019 at 06:48:23 PM EST
    feelings about this one, impeachment would indeed be politically perilous but allowing this corrupt crazed man have free rein to test the boundaries of the constitution for the next two years sounds dire to me.

    More and more it looks like Mueller will stop short of indicting tRump or his inner circle, and the most damming parts of his report will probably be withheld.

    The crime spree will continue, I hope Nancy knows what she is doing.


    I share your mixed feelings (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 11, 2019 at 07:41:43 PM EST
    But the fact is even if the house impeached him he would still have free reign to do what ever he wants for the next two years unless he is convicted by a 2/3 vote on the senate.

    All it would achieve is to give Trump and every republican running in 2020 a big ole boost.

    None of this prevents constant endless hearings and investigations.


    Or rein (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 11, 2019 at 07:43:17 PM EST
    As it were

    Still (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 12, 2019 at 06:05:12 AM EST
    I wonder who will stop the rain?

    We don't know that yet. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 12, 2019 at 05:12:48 AM EST
    Remember, the Special Counsel's office has reportedly also filed nearly three dozen indictments that are presently under seal in the DC docket.

    Let's not assume anything before the fact.


    I (none / 0) (#17)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 12, 2019 at 06:03:26 AM EST
    know, just being pessimistic. I'm still have hope Mueller will charge the whole lot of them but something in the air seems to be pointing otherwise.

    Republicans are sounding less fearful and Democrats less confident these days, ever since Barr took over.


    The Entire Reason Donald Trump is President... (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 12, 2019 at 01:06:53 PM EST
    ... is because Obama took holding political criminals responsible for their crimes, off the table.

    If we don't hold this criminal responsible for his crimes, then we are begging to have another one and another one, right up until we are no longer a country of laws.

    F the politics, F the aftermath, if the President of the United states committed crimes the country has a duty to at the very least, hold impeachment hearings to air out the truth and decide if that is worthy of removing a President.  To take impeachment off the table is un-American, especially days before the Mueller report is to be released.

    It will be the GD shame of this country, again, if a sitting President committed felonies while in office and the GD democrats don't do a GD thing because they are worried about the consequences, or worse they do what they always do, play nice with the republicans believing that at some point the gesture will be reciprocated.

    But this is the position D's have put themselves in, talking about impeachment since day 1 and now when it's an actual possibility, they look like impeachment craven idiots if they proceed and spineless twerps if they don't.  Either way, they are going to look bad; I'd rather have that look go with a little justice rather than no justice.

    Yes, this is all predicated on Trump committing felonies, but let's be honest, there is almost a zero chance that he didn't.  If they have concrete proof, there is no option here, hold the hearings and let the chips fall where they may.  I personally would love to drag him of kicking and screaming right into prison with the rest of his "co-workers".


    First (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 12, 2019 at 03:33:38 PM EST
    No one, including Nancy, has taken anything off the table.

    Second, there will certainly be hearings.  


    The (none / 0) (#21)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 12, 2019 at 04:50:33 PM EST
    more I think about it I like Pelosi's move.

    Polling shows the voting public is only lukewarm on impeachment at this time so why shoot the moon?

    Currently the chance of conviction in the Senate stands at zero, putting all of the eggs in that one basket would be foolish. An "acquittal" by the Senate before 2020 is the last thing the Democrats need.

    Running a multi pronged investigation is liable to provide plenty of chances to wound tRump and his enablers in a constant barrage of revelations probably right up to election day.

    It sucks constitutionally but constitution sucks in many ways anyway.  Unfortunately impeachment is a political endeavor not even connected to legality or even logic.

    This is war, Nancy choosing a strategy of attrition over a perilous full frontal assault makes perfect sense. I think by the time Nancy is done with them the Repugs will be begging for impeachment (at least privately).


    As far as I can tell (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 12, 2019 at 04:55:26 PM EST
    The people most upset about this is republicans and Chuck Todd.  His entire show today, or as much as I could take was on this subject.  

    They really don't know what to do with it.  It's like watching an obnoxious child out maneuvered by reverse psychology.


    Cnn: (none / 0) (#24)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 12, 2019 at 05:11:34 PM EST
    appears to have forgotten about it, but then again there is a plane crash to talk about.

    I'm sure one of their right wing loons will be on later to claim this means total vindication but that's far for the cause.


    That came out weird (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 12, 2019 at 05:12:28 PM EST
    par for the course.

    Also (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 12, 2019 at 05:11:10 PM EST
    I think it's good politics to have the same face for the Republican Party in the next election that we had in the last which went pretty well.

    Also (none / 0) (#31)
    by FlJoe on Wed Mar 13, 2019 at 09:20:40 AM EST
    from the come into my parlor files
    President Donald Trump thanked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for signaling she would not seek impeachment, and insisted he had done nothing wrong.
    the moron thinks Nancy is his friend.

    Pelosi considers the long game, (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jack E Lope on Wed Mar 13, 2019 at 12:35:32 PM EST
    ...while Drumpf is contemplating his next order of hamberders.

    IMO (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 11, 2019 at 04:29:59 PM EST
    The House should, unless as she says there is something so blatant impeachment would become at least bipartisan enough to expect conviction and removal, spend the next two years laying bear every filthy thing in Trumpville.

    And he will be crushed in an election.

    I think she is 100% correct about it tearing the country apart.  I do not think those who do not have interaction with low information high hostility voters can fully understand and appreciate the danger of this.


    Um (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 11, 2019 at 04:30:55 PM EST
    Laying BARE

    For Wall, $8.9 Billion. (none / 0) (#8)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 11, 2019 at 05:31:53 PM EST
    For Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Cuts.

     Based on Democratic Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, a $2 Trillion cut (over ten years). But, do not worry it could be less if Obamacare is repealed, and you look at the reductions in Medicaid are just being re-prioritize, and medical resident training teased out of Medicare and set up as a new/separate account.

     Then the cuts are "only" about $1 trillion, with a $236 Billion net cut in Medicare.  Oh, and Trump said he would not cut Medicare/Social Security etc.

      And, he also said he did not call Tim Cook, Tim Apple.  Oh, wait, he said he did, after all It was  an economy of language, it is easier to skip over the long name, Cook.  More time for other lies.  

    We are (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 11, 2019 at 05:45:33 PM EST
    Approaching an even more worrisome showdown than the dead on arrival budget.

    A raising of the debt ceiling.

    Republicans may finally have to grow a spine.  It's unimaginable their rich benefactors would allow them to let that happen.

    And raise your hand if you think Trump would not force a showdown.


    Mike Flynn's lawyers (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 12, 2019 at 08:45:23 PM EST
    Are requesting another 90 day delay in sentencing.

    The government takes no position on the request but says they are pretty much done with him.

    I guess (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 13, 2019 at 05:42:19 AM EST
    there are personal reasons for the delay.

    The (none / 0) (#29)
    by FlJoe on Wed Mar 13, 2019 at 08:00:42 AM EST
    government was done with him 3 months ago when he was first up for sentencing, if I remember correctly he pissed off the judge so bad to the point he was going to lock him up despite Mueller's call for no jail time (even calling him traitorous). Maybe they want to give the judge some more time to cool off.

    I do think that the house needs to drag him in to testify soon, hopefully publicly so the judge and the nation can watch.


    Lock him up. (none / 0) (#30)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 13, 2019 at 08:33:29 AM EST
    Butt  being a big general and all, he will get his 90-day request during which time he can work with his son on that child trafficking ring going on in the basement of that DC pizza joint.

    el chapo 60000 supermax (none / 0) (#27)
    by thomas rogan on Tue Mar 12, 2019 at 08:58:46 PM EST
    What would you do with el chapo?  Deport him?  Give him the death penalty?

    I Think the Obvious Answer is... (none / 0) (#32)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 13, 2019 at 12:22:36 PM EST
    ... never bring him here to begin with, his crimes were not committed here and the only reason he is on US soil is because Mexico cannot keep him locked-up, which IMO is about the dumbest reason to go through the dog & pony show of a sham trial in which every person knew the outcome.

    Paul Manafort Was Just Indicted in New York... (none / 0) (#33)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 13, 2019 at 12:27:40 PM EST
    ...for real estate fraud. right after getting 4 more years:
    Manafort's sentencing involves a surprising amount of math.

    The former Trump campaign chairman was sentenced to 47 months in prison in Virginia last week. However, the judge gave him credit for nine months he has already spent behind bars. This means Manafort only has 38 months remaining.

    Judge Berman Jackson sentenced him on two counts. One was for 60 months in prison and the second was for 13 months in prison for a total of 73 months.

    However, 30 of those months will be served concurrently with his sentence in Virginia. The rest will be served consecutively. This means it is only an effective addition of 43 months to his sentence.

    This means that Manafort was effectively sentenced to 90 months in jail combining the 47 months in Virginia and the 43 in Washington DC. He has already served nine of those months and thus 81 months remaining to be served.


    OT - It looks like Beto is getting ready to (none / 0) (#35)
    by vml68 on Wed Mar 13, 2019 at 05:00:38 PM EST
    announce. I like Beto and donated heavily to his campaign for Senate. The presidency is a whole different ball game though and I don't know if he can win it.
    Also, now that Pete Buttigieg (another long shot!) is in the mix, I have to say that so far, I like him even more than I like Beto.

    The thing is (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 14, 2019 at 04:16:30 PM EST
    I don't think most people vote on policies.  They will tell you they do.  They might even tell themselves they do.  But I don't believe it.  They, most people,  vote on gut feeling.  On how a candidate makes them feel.

    Beto has something.  I think it may be harder for people like us, people who wallow in policy day after day, to get Beto.  Joe is right about him being another personality candidate.

    My question is, is that bad if you are running against the ultimate personality candidate.

    The truth is, there is probably not a very significant difference between any of the democratic candidates.  At least the ones who have a chance.

    The vapid news coverage is right.  He connects.  That's going to matter.


    Did not see your comment until after I posted. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by vml68 on Thu Mar 14, 2019 at 04:51:39 PM EST
    Both good for the field (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 13, 2019 at 05:16:02 PM EST
    Even if they do not win place or show.

    Glad to see Beto taking my advise to poop or get off the pot.


    Beto (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 14, 2019 at 07:44:48 AM EST

    Here we go


    Great (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by FlJoe on Thu Mar 14, 2019 at 10:47:25 AM EST
    another cult of personality candidate. I was  somewhat impressed with his Texas run, but since then he has played too much of the drama queen IMO.  

    So far (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 14, 2019 at 11:02:26 AM EST
    The best Trump world can do is call him by his middle name.

    You got to love that.


    I agree it is another cult of personality (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by vml68 on Thu Mar 14, 2019 at 04:45:50 PM EST
    candidate which is why I think he has a chance. The voters in this country have shown us time and time again that that is how they pick the president.
    If substance and policies mattered most, Hillary would be president right now. Or, Elizabeth Warren would be the front runner right now.

    I like Mayor Pete's calm, confident and thoughtful style of communication compared to Beto's "energy". But, I can totally see Beto's appeal.


    Well (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 14, 2019 at 10:18:47 AM EST
    The Bernistas HATE him.  The republicans seem to fear him.  The media coverage so far is rivaling the vapidity of Hillary coverage.

    It's said the biggest threat he poses is to Biden and Bernie.

    I like him.


    have you been paying attention to Pete Buttigieg? (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by leap on Thu Mar 14, 2019 at 10:31:18 AM EST
    a "townhall" with Jake Tapper at SxSW

    I like him way more than I do Beto. I think he's more substantial.


    More substantial (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 14, 2019 at 10:53:19 AM EST
    Less electable .  IMO.

    Say what you want about Beto.  He has one thing that has so far been in short supply in the dem field.  Charisma

    Like it or not he's got it.  The media loves him.  That could easily be a double edged sword.

    I'm not saying he's the guy.  I'm saying he could be the guy.  And if he was, in the A or B slot, I would be ok with that.

    I do think he is going to catch fire.  Will he flame out.

    We will see.


    I will like him (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 14, 2019 at 11:00:03 AM EST
    Even more if he ends up keeping Biden out of the race.  

    I do too (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 12:49:05 AM EST
    I'm over Beto. Apparently Sanders sees him as his biggest threat which is probably right.

    You were right. (none / 0) (#49)
    by vml68 on Thu Mar 14, 2019 at 10:14:51 PM EST
    The Bernistas HATE him.

    Just spent a couple of hours checking out other blogs and Twitter.
    Bernie fans (saw them referred to as the 'Branch Bernidians' - got a chuckle out of that) are freaking out about Beto jumping in.
    I had no idea it would be like this!


    I have one piece of (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 10:25:55 AM EST
    Call it hopefully constructive criticism for Beto.

    Please take whatever the hell that is OUT of your right front pants pocket.  Seriously, is that a phone?  A wallet? Both?  Is it a sleeping bag? What the heck IS that?

    Whatever it is it must be really important because it's always there.

    If it turns out to be some kind of health related thing like a pacemaker or a colostomy bag I will feel terrible.

    But if it's not, seriously dude, give it to your assistant and let them carry it in his/her pocket.

    A presidential candidate should not walk around looking like he has a BIG MAC in his pocket.

    Rant over.


    Seriously tho (none / 0) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 10:36:15 AM EST
    Once you see it you can't stop looking at it.  

    If I had a chance to ask a town hall question I would say "I love ya man, but is that a BIG MAC in yer pocket or are you just glad to see me"?


    maybe Beto needs (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by leap on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 11:57:31 AM EST
    to wear baggier pants or, shudder, cargo pants?

    Maybe, as a (none / 0) (#62)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 02:18:10 PM EST
    presidential candidate he can lose the jeans altogether. Actually, while unpopular even in my household, I do not warm to jeans/levi's etc for men over 30, unless in a cattle drive across the Rio Grande, a stevedore or hiking/camping.   But at least, as a candidate, reach in the back of the closet for some tailored trousers.  And, while there, grab a sport jacket, looking at you, too, on the latter, Mayor Pete. The Steve Kornacki get-up is not a good look, in my view.

    Gotta part ways there (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 04:05:42 PM EST
    I hope he is inaugurated in skinny jeans.

    I know I am (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 04:42:35 PM EST
    in the minority on this, guess just really old-fashioned. Apparently, Pete and Beto feel that their apparel lets everyone know they are young, but when I look at Bernie, for example, I know he is old; and when I look at Beto, I know he is young. I'm good at that.   But, in any case, I will take skinny jeans, cargo shorts, a pants suit, or whatever, so long as it is not an ill-fitting blue suit and a red tie that kisses the shoe tops.

    C 4 (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 11:14:21 AM EST
    Agree. Now critique (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 07:00:45 PM EST
    his poetry.

    I think it's one of his penises. (none / 0) (#82)
    by desertswine on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 09:23:56 PM EST
    Howdy, it's definitely not (none / 0) (#63)
    by fishcamp on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 02:21:24 PM EST
    A colostomy bag, they don't go there.  Unfortunately I know this.

    As a recent (none / 0) (#65)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 02:32:51 PM EST
    "wallet in the front pocket" convert I think that's what he's got going on. That said, he should probably rethink the amount of junk he's carrying in that thing...

    Puts me in mind (none / 0) (#75)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 04:48:59 PM EST
    of those shots of Robert Plant in The Song Remains The Same concert film.

    The plaster casters are going to get Beto if he isn't careful


    Ha! We all wondered if he was gay. (none / 0) (#77)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 05:40:41 PM EST
    This seem important (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 13, 2019 at 05:28:17 PM EST
    FFormer acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker attempted to clean up prior statements he made under oath before Congress during a Wednesday meeting with House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler (D-NY).

    Speaking with reporters, Nadler said there were three main takeaways from the meeting.

    "One, unlike in the hearing room, Mr. Whitaker did not deny that the president called him to discuss Michael Cohen, the Michael Cohen case, and personnel decisions in the Southern District," Nadler said.

    "Two, while he was acting Attorney General, Mr. Whitaker was directly involved in conversations about whether to fire one or more U.S. Attorneys," he continued.

    "Three, while he was acting Attorney General, Mr. Whittaker was involved in conversations about the scope of Southern District New York U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman and his recusal, and whether or not the Southern District went too far in pursuing the campaign finance investigation in which the president was listed as individual number one," Nadler added. "Those were the three takeaways from today."

    MSNBC analyst Elise Jordan joined Wallace for analysis.

    "This all but guaranteeing, Elise, that Matt Whittaker is now a witness -- and perhaps he already was -- in the obstruction of justice investigation into Donald Trump out of the main DOJ, the [Robert] Mueller office and perhaps one also at SDNY," Wallace noted

    Nicole Wallace? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Towanda on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 05:39:23 PM EST
    Nicole Wallace (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 07:10:47 PM EST
    Has been doing good work on one of the better hours of cable news.  

    Yes, we watch daily (none / 0) (#104)
    by Towanda on Wed Mar 20, 2019 at 05:47:28 PM EST
    but I was wondering, as there was no link with your excerpt to check, whether thst was the Wallace referred to in it.

    Oh (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 20, 2019 at 06:36:26 PM EST
    Yes, Nicole.

    Gun Smoke. (none / 0) (#38)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 13, 2019 at 09:32:02 PM EST
    The smoking gun of the infamous Nixon tape  was Nixon ordering his staff to have the CIA tell the FBI to stop the investigation  of the Watergate break-in.  And, the president, himself, suggesting Howard Hunt's involvement in the Bay of Pigs attempted over-throw of Fidel Castro.  A cover-up of the initial cover-up and the plan to obstruct justice.  

    Shortly after release of this tape Nixon resigned in the face of inevitable.

    Wonder if obstruction of justice would still be an impeachable offense or if it is now in the category of shooting someone on 5th Avenue?  Does it count as a smoking gun or just another scandal du jour?  

    RBG is 86 years old today. (none / 0) (#51)
    by fishcamp on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 07:29:54 AM EST

    Good Company... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 11:43:59 AM EST
    Phil Lesh is 79 years old today...and I'm going to the party Richter!

    Fare thee well...Ruth, Phil, and everyone.


    50 people (none / 0) (#56)
    by CST on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 11:57:29 AM EST
    Slaughtered while praying in a New Zealand Mosque.

    Just reading  the description of the video made me physically nauseous, I don't recommend it.

    Inciting hate has consequences.

    I avoid watching or reading the gruesome (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by vml68 on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 01:09:53 PM EST
    Just reading  the description of the video made me physically nauseous, I don't recommend it.

    details of these kinds of incidents whenever possible. I struggle with it because I know that all I am doing is burying my head in the sand but I just don't handle violence well. Even fake movie violence bothers me. I refuse to watch any Tarantino movies.

    I don't know what there is left to say about these kinds of incidents that has not already been said a hundred times before. I am done with "thoughts and prayers" or as the man with the best words says "warmest sympathies and best wishes".

    Strangely, I had a man working on my property yesterday who was from New Zealand. We spent a few minutes chatting about what a wonderful country it is and how different things are between there and Florida and why he decided to move to the US. He also talked about how immigration was changing the country and what it was doing to the housing situation there. I wonder what went through his mind when he saw this on the news last night.


    Wonder what the (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 01:57:10 PM EST
    Maori's think about immigration?

    Probably the same as the Moriori. (none / 0) (#67)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 03:10:50 PM EST
    That's my usual go to (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by CST on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 03:23:01 PM EST
    This one hit me like a sucker-punch when I was reading something else.

    Doesn't help that it's the manifestation  of one of my worst nightmare scenarios.  Strangely enough I don't know anyone who goes to church regularly, but I do have family that goes to the mosque.


    Noticed one thing (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 03:56:44 PM EST
    People saying when they first heard about it they assumed it was in the US.

    Yeah well (none / 0) (#73)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 04:39:03 PM EST
    turns out the shooter's online muse was some American alt-right jackdaw named Candace Owens.

    Rationalwiki has quite a write-up on her that I'm trying to digest while controlling my gag reflex.


    I'm the Same Way with Violence... (none / 0) (#66)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 02:36:17 PM EST
    ...in movies, and I really hate this new trend of female leads in violent movies.  Even when they are kicking A, they are getting hit.  I don't care for UFC fighting either, boxing doesn't bother me and I like football.  

    I generally block news on the weekends, that is my reprieve from the violence, politics, and exploitation of both.  Every day of the year I avoid animal cruelty stories & anything to do with forced labor/prostitution.  I don't want to know about it and I sure as hell don't want to read about it.


    I heard enough (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 03:22:18 PM EST
    from-the-horses-mouth accounts of actual, horrific, non-cinematic violence from my Nam vet friends and my Russian revolution and civil war grandfather and Serbian grandmother, to be utterly divested of any kind of morbid fascination with violence.

    Real "tough" people don't need to be told they're tough. If they do, they aren't.

    Someone needs to Tangerine Littlefingers that.


    How about (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 07:36:41 PM EST
    Women's boxing?

    Olympic sport for a while now.

    Personally I love female action movies.  I've seen Atomic Blond about three or four times.


    Cool with Boxing... (none / 0) (#85)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 18, 2019 at 12:41:43 PM EST
    ...of any gender, but I hate the black eyes on both genders, but black eye on a woman, it freaks me out a bit.

    Atomic Blond was really good, but there are a couple scenes that really bothered me.  In general I am not much of an action movie person, it's all so fake and most of them facilitate heavy violence for no other reason than a lot of people like watching people beat on each other without consequence.


    If they can't handle (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 18, 2019 at 03:52:30 PM EST
    A black eye they probably wouldnt be a boxer I'm thinkin.

    What I really don't care for are those movies that fetishize violence merely for its own sake. That's ultimately what turned me off of Quentin Tarantino's work. SNL skewered him but good a few years ago with a parody trailer that starred, of all people Christoph Waltz, who won two supporting actor Oscars under Tarantino's direction.

    Deleted this morning. (none / 0) (#64)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 02:32:38 PM EST
    Trump, in an interview with Breitbart, said: "I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, and the support of bikers for Trump.  I have tough people, but they don't play it tough until they go to a certain point and then it would be bad, very bad."

    Difficult to understand this one in any context other than the ranks of his armed supporters (he claims) could feel provoked to cause violence. And, while it may be bad, even, very bad, it is not clear if that refers to the violence results, or that he is justifying the violence.  But, he does not say not to do it.


    I don't believe for a second (none / 0) (#80)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 07:22:37 PM EST
    That either the "police" or the "military" would lift a finger to defend his imaginary monarchy.

    I do believe as I have been saying here over and over there are people out there who could absolutely be moved to violence if he looks into to the camera and tells them "they are coming for me so they are coming for you"

    These people exist.  I know some of them.  Not enough for a "revolt" but plenty to make life very ugly for a lot of people

    As you point out, he is very careful about how he says these things.  He's not telling  them to do this.  He is just pointing out that we better hope it doesn't happen.

    Rather like "asking questions"


    Smashed Sandwiches (none / 0) (#58)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 12:11:16 PM EST
    Anyone ever hears of what they are now calling a french taco ?
    The French taco, which bears little resemblance to anything Mexican, is a cross between a grilled panini, wrap and kebab, with everything sealed inside a vast rectangular parcel - fries included. There is often a pile-up of different meats jostling together, such as chicken nuggets and merguez sausage, and several sauces.

    I beg to differ with this:

    The exact origin of the French taco is shrouded in myth, but it is believed to have been born 15 years ago in a kebab shop on the outskirts of Lyon as an experiment in combining a kebab and a wrap.
    I was in France numerous times while in the Navy in the late 80's and pretty much every meal we ate was what we referred to as a 'smashed sandwich' that were sold by street vendors.  This is long before the US has any sort of pressed sandwich, so these blew our tiny minds.  I remember them having mini burgers that I think were goat meat, and french fries, many other things but those were the ingredients I remember.

    Now I am too old to eat something so spectacularly awesome; sad face; getting old blows.

    How is this possible? You said you are 48 (none / 0) (#60)
    by vml68 on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 01:21:44 PM EST
    years old. Save this comment for when you are 98.
    Now I am too old to eat something so spectacularly awesome

    Can I just say how much these are cracking me up. If I remember right, you used to hate the LOL's, smiley faces, etc.

    sad face

    As someone who used to look forward to getting older, I never thought I would say this but I agree with your comment 100%!

    getting old blows

    Channeling Linea here...{Hugs}


    Dang, Fantastic Memory (none / 0) (#68)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 03:20:31 PM EST
    I am 48.66
    Last year, 2018 I was on a mission to get in better shape.  I have always been pretty good about eating, but my exercise was dropping off and I started feeling weak.  Now, and I am bragging because it was a F ton of work, I am in great shape.  And I got there by saying hell no to just about everything delicious in life but pizza.

    It's not that I hate those things, but LOL's are way over done and grown men should not use emojis, IMO.  But typing it out is alright.

    I am with you, I liked getting out of my 20's, I felt like I was starting to hit my stride in my early 30's, that whole decade was nothing but fun and it seemed like great things just feel in my lap, then the 40's looked even better.  Then physics and biology.

    True story that I know know I had written here before.  My GF at the time was out of town.  When she would leave I would detail our place so when she go back it was immaculate.  

    I had been working very hard so I turned up the AC and the last thing I did was mop.  When I mop, I throw down a lot of water the first run, then come back an pull it up.  I use Pinesol and want to make sure it gets in every nook and cranny.  I'm not a germaphobe, but I like things really clean.

    Anyways I fell asleep on top my bed and woke up around 1 am freezing because the AC was set to low.  I got up to turn it up, and whoosh, the tile in the hallway was still wet and I went down, hard.  I couldn't get up for a minute, finally I was able to get into a crawling position, turned the AC up, and crawled to bed.  Keep in mind, the floor was wet, so I smelled like a damn pine forest.

    This happened on the night of July 13th, as you may know from my handle, that is the eve of my birthday.  An hour into being 40, I literally fell and could not get up.  I forget what the word is, but when something kind of foreshadows the future, that would have been perfect for a movie about being 40 something, at least in my experience.  My back was jacked up for a while over that stupidity and it just seems like what I envisioned for my 40's was a Hollywood wet dream.  There are like 101 pretty important things that I think people purposely don't talk about because it would just be too depressing.  Why does something different hurt on my body almost every day, why am waking up every night to use the bathroom, why can't I read a menu in a dark restaurant, I mean seriously.  I could go into more, but they are all bad and some are just plain gross.


    I would not describe my memory as fantastic, (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by vml68 on Fri Mar 15, 2019 at 10:47:31 PM EST
    more like odd. I often wonder how my brain decides what to retain and what to forget.

    I remember a lot of things you have said here but if I were to meet you and speak to you for an hour and then meet you again a week later, I would not recognize you. I literally have to meet a person at least 3 times before I will remember their face.

    When my husband once brought up the first few times we met ( I was with someone else at the time), I just stared at him because while I remembered the occasions, I had absolutely no recollection of meeting him. He however remembered every detail right down to what I was wearing each time.

    I remember CaptHowdy, MileHi and KeysDan's b'day every year. (Sorry, I did not wish all of you last year but I was "unplugged" for a short time).
    And yet, for all the years I have been married, I have not once remembered my anniversary and I am the one that picked the date! The first couple of times my husband was upset, now he just starts reminding me a week in advance.
    My family does the same. My parents remind me to call my brother and nieces on their b'days and my brother reminds me to call my parents on their b'days and anniversary.


    Wondering how the lawyers (none / 0) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 18, 2019 at 04:02:41 PM EST
    Not a Lawyer... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 19, 2019 at 12:45:18 PM EST
    ...but wouldn't have just been easier to not let the GOP roll Obama over when Scalia died ?  For the sake of argument, that went uncontested.

    I oppose trying to get a redo because they didn't have the nerve to stand-up at the time it happened.  

    How about every 4 years a vacancy has to open, then every President gets one pick for every term.  Put it in smack in the middle of the term with mid-term elections.  That would essentially put term limits in that no one would serve more than 28 years.  The court would steer towards the same political spectrum as the voters have done with the President.


    I love this (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 19, 2019 at 02:13:08 PM EST
    Im not buying "The Conways"

    While neither Conway would admit it, it's hard not to wonder if this whole persona is a grift of some kind -- a way for George to elevate his profile and formulate a fairly easy exit strategy for his wife, should the Mueller investigation prove damning, or should Trump face impeachment or simply lose his bid for reelection. I can already picture the heartfelt interview with the Conways on Fox News, where they reveal that Kellyanne actually shared George's concerns the whole time. She was just trying to do her job, but George operated as the family's moral compass, they might say. Perhaps the claim would even be floated that the anonymous New York Times warning was penned by Kellyanne.

    I (none / 0) (#90)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 19, 2019 at 03:00:05 PM EST
    have been wondering about this dynamic for a while.

    Kellyanne is one of the very few remaining of the original WH staff, and as far as I can tell she seem totally immune to tRump's wrath (along with Steve Miller) reportedly even Jarvanka have taken shots.

    She apparently continues to have the full confidence of tRump despite the heresy of her husband. I am almost sure she is one of the biggest if not the biggest leaker in the administration (anonymous perhaps?) .

    Yet she is still there and apparently thriving, I know she has been a steadfast soldier but I don't quite get it, tRumps "loyalty" has disappeared for far less.


    Perhaps (none / 0) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 19, 2019 at 03:38:10 PM EST
    She know too much to fit under the bus.

    That's a good (none / 0) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 19, 2019 at 07:40:07 PM EST
    reason and we all know Kellyanne would blab to the world.

    link? (none / 0) (#94)
    by leap on Tue Mar 19, 2019 at 05:45:41 PM EST

    Salon (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 19, 2019 at 05:57:35 PM EST
    thank you. (none / 0) (#96)
    by leap on Tue Mar 19, 2019 at 06:37:13 PM EST
    I suspect the theory is correct. The Conways' grift is even more obvious than the execrable James Carville/Mary Matalin pairing, which actually seemed like a more genuine political difference.

    I always hated them too (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 20, 2019 at 10:36:26 AM EST
    If you believe what you are saying....

    Or you are playing a character and you actually have no real beliefs.

    IMO Carville should have been left to the dustbin of history decades ago.  I can't believe he still gets cable time.

    F James (whip it out) Carville


    I Think Kellyanne... (none / 0) (#99)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 20, 2019 at 09:31:20 AM EST
    ... would rather have limbs removed than not show total and complete devotion to Donald Trump.  If this was 1978 and Guyana, Kellyanne would be the one mixing up the Kool Aid and the first to drink.  

    If that is all some act, she is a GD mad genius.  I think she is either mentally deranged or an escapee from Westworld.  

    I might buy that George is doing this to protect his wife in the near future, but there is no way in hell Kellyanne Conway has some elaborate plan that revolves around Trump not being the center of her universe.


    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by FlJoe on Wed Mar 20, 2019 at 10:21:40 AM EST
    Kellyanne is smarter than that, she's an opportunist not a cultist(although she plays one on TV).

    IMO (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 20, 2019 at 10:29:09 AM EST
    If she was truly a cultist we would not have the continuing drama of "The Conways"

    True cultists do not stay married to never Trumpers.  

    You almost have to admire the cravenness of it.


    I believe you (none / 0) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 20, 2019 at 10:18:13 AM EST
    Underestimate Kellyanne

    The New FOX (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 19, 2019 at 04:43:17 PM EST
    This is sort of interesting.  It has seemed, at least to me, FOX has been ever so gently and slowly trying to easy the yahoos onto Earth1 as far as the Orange Emperor.

    Little things like this

    Fox News panel trashes Trump for his `truly offensive' obsession with attacking `dead war hero' John McCain

    Slightly bigger things like dumping Judge Jeanine and hiring Donna Brazile.

    Then there is this, the new FOX.

    they are selling pretty much everything except the news, a couple of sports channels and the historic "back lot" to Disney and bringing on new people including the the younger Murdoch's and Paul Ryan.

    Just interesting.

    The spinoff completed early Tuesday is part of a multi-pronged process that will culminate with the $71.3-billion sale of the rest of Murdoch's entertainment company to Walt Disney Co. The company announced that it had finished the process of issuing shares in the new Fox Corp. to investors of 21st Century Fox.

    Disney is buying the 20th Century Fox movie and television studios with their rich vault of titles, including "Modern Family," "The Simpsons," "Avatar" and "Deadpool." The goal is to ramp up a programming pipeline for a new streaming service, called Disney+, that the company plans to launch this year.
    Other Fox assets going to Disney include the FX and National Geographic channels, international television assets, including Star India, and Fox's 30% stake in streaming service Hulu, which will give Disney the controlling interest in that growing business.

    Murdoch family launches a new Fox; ex-House Speaker Paul Ryan joins its board

    I believe (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 19, 2019 at 04:45:07 PM EST
    They finally realized 95% of their audience would be dead in 10 years.

    Those were my (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 19, 2019 at 07:38:54 PM EST
    thoughts. I mean when your average aged viewer is 70 they should have realized it a long time ago. And when you add in the others that have quit watching because they don't wanna watch state media it's recipe for a complete collapse.

    My stepfather used to watch Fox all the time until Trump came around. Now he never watches Fox. I guess I can thank Trump for that one small thing in my life.