What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[11B4V]

A trumpeting sycophant will take his place. They're a dime a dozen.

[jimmy olsen]

Not surprising

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/05/former-cia-director-james-woolsey-quits-trump-transition-team/?utm_term=.f7a51e5aef88

People close to Woolsey said that he had been excluded in recent weeks from discussions on intelligence matters with Trump and retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the incoming White House national security adviser. They said that Woolsey had grown increasingly uncomfortable lending his name and credibility to the transition team without being consulted. Woolsey was taken aback by this week's reports that Trump is considering revamping the country's intelligence framework, said these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly.

"Jim is very uncomfortable being considered an adviser in an area where one might consider him an expert when he is not involved in the discussions," one person close to Woolsey said. "To be called 'senior adviser' and your opinion is not sought is something he cannot handle."

[11B4V]

 :lol:Tim, Tim.

[Razgovory]

Next: Toyota

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 7h7 hours ago

Toyota Motor said will build a new plant in Baja, Mexico, to build Corolla cars for U.S. NO WAY! Build plant in U.S. or pay big border tax.

What's great is that Trump mixed it up.  The Baja plant is to build trucks.  The Corolla are being built at an existing plant in another state.

[Ed Anger]

They all look alike anyways.

[Eddie Teach]

A trumpeting sycophant will take his place. They're a dime a dozen.

I think they're actually quite well paid. 

[Ed Anger]

Trump working the phones to get Ohio's GOP head replaced:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/donald-trump-vendettas/index.html

*HEAVY BREATHING*
KASICH SUCKS
*click*

[CountDeMoney]

Decisions, decisions...what do we do.

Washington (CNN)--A push by Republican congressional leaders to defund Planned Parenthood could threaten passage of their top-priority legislation to repeal Obamacare because of opposition to the anti-abortion provision by two key GOP senators.
House Speaker Paul Ryan announced Thursday that Republicans will move to strip all federal funding for Planned Parenthood as part of the process they are using early this year to dismantle Obamacare.

Congressional Republicans have tried for years to zero out all federal funding for Planned Parenthood because the group provides abortion services. The fight over Obamacare helped trigger a 16-day government shutdown in 2013, and Democrats and President Barack Obama insisted any Planned Parenthood provision targeting the group be removed from a bill to fund federal agencies.
The decision to add the controversial Planned Parenthood language, which is opposed by most Democrats, could have a major impact on getting the Affordable Care Act repeal legislation through the Senate because supporters need the backing of at least 50 of their 52 members and two pro-choice senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, won't commit to approving the bill with the Planned Parenthood provision in it.
Further complicating matters for Senate GOP leaders is Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, who announced this week he plans to vote against the Obamacare repeal legislation because the underlying budget measure it is attached to doesn't balance and adds to the deficit. If Murkowski, Collins and Paul all voted against the budget bill, it would be enough to torpedo the Obamacare repeal legislation.

"I'm going to wait and see what happens," Collins told reporters, indicating she thinks it's too early to decide how she will vote on the bill. "Obviously, I'm not happy to hear the speaker wants to include defunding of Planned Parenthood, an extremely controversial issue in the package."
Murkowski's told reporters Tuesday she was still weighing the issue. In 2015, she joined Collins in voting for an amendment to strip Planned Parenthood funding out of a budget bill that would have also repealed much of Obamacare. But Murkowski ultimately backed the repeal measure even though it had the anti-Planned Parenthood provision, which Obama ultimately vetoed.
"At this point and time, I have not been involved in a sit down with colleagues about specifics of reconciliation. So it's tough for me to speculate or engage in any conjecture," Murkowski said earlier this week. "We're going to be having a lot of discussions about that probably as soon as this week."
When asked her position Thursday, Murkowski's spokeswoman Karina Petersen said, the senator "is concerned about defunding Planned Parenthood as she is a longtime support of Planned Parenthood and has opposed broadly defunding the organization."
Republicans could drop the Planned Parenthood measure, but doing so could spark anger from the right-flank of their party and potentially make it harder to defund the organization at a later date.
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, the No. 2 Republican in his chamber, said "that's certainly where I am" when asked if he wanted to include defunding of the organization into the repeal measure. But he noted "that's place we start" and that nothing has "finally been decided yet."
"While we would like to have all 52 senators, if we have a vice president in the chair, that gives us a little bit of flexibility on reconciliation," Cornyn said Thursday, referencing the ability of the vice president to break Senate ties.
The vast majority of federal money that Planned Parenthood does receive funds preventive health care, birth control, pregnancy tests, and other women's health care services. Democrats also point out that much of the money the group received is through the Medicaid program, which reimburses health care clinics that provide care to those covered by the federal program.
Under the long-standing "Hyde amendment" that is attached to annual funding bills, no federal money is allowed to go to programs that include abortion services, unless they are needed to preserve the life of the mother or are caused by rape.
Democrats immediately denounced the news that Republicans again were working to bar future federal funds for Planned Parenthood.
"This is a priority for the Republicans," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi Thursday afternoon. "So I just would like to speak individually to women across America: this is about respect for you, for your judgment about your personal decisions in terms of your reproductive needs, the size and timing of your family or the rest, not to be determined by the insurance company or by the Republican ideological right-wing caucus in the House of Representatives. So this is a very important occasion where we're pointing out very specifically what repeal of the (Affordable Care Act) will mean to woman."
Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, told CNN's Erin Burnett on "OutFront" Thursday that "concerned" women have lobbied against the move throughout the day.
"His phone has been jammed up today," Richards said.
Anti-abortion rights groups point to a letter that the Trump campaign signed in September pledging support for "Defunding Planned Parenthood as long as they continue to perform abortions, and re-allocating their funding to community health centers that provide comprehensive health care for women."
"Vulnerable pro-abortion Democratic senators need to do a serious gut check, especially following the 2016 election outcome, and decide if they will stand with their constituents and women's health care or continue to funnel money to big abortion," warned Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion group, in a written statement.

[jimmy olsen]

Did you mean to bold the entire article? 

[CountDeMoney]

Yeah.  Fuck off.

[Zoupa]

You know, about a year and a half, 2 years ago, I was seriously thinking about moving to the US. I was in a long distance relationship with a nice, gorgeous girl studying in Washington State. I visited a gazilllion times, we would have been midway between Portalnd OR and Vancouver BC. I thought: perfect pinko commie area for me! Then Trayvon Martin got shot, I started reading more and more about regional and state regulations for me to work there etc etc. The pinko commies turned out to be icky about guns and "well maybe you dont know coming from Canada but sometimes "the blacks" can be looking for it and you have to defend youself".

O'm rambling and I don't know really what my point is anymore. I'm sure the US will survive just fine without me being there (duh lol), but reading stuff like what Seedy just posted makes me damn happy not to have moved. I just don't understand why a bunch of old white guys care so much about controlling birth control access and abortion. I don't understand it and I never will. It's just so fucking retarded. This issue has been settled for decades in the rest of the western world.

Anyways. Off to bed.

[Tamas]

Well you have to distract the plebs with something

[garbon]

You know, about a year and a half, 2 years ago, I was seriously thinking about moving to the US. I was in a long distance relationship with a nice, gorgeous girl studying in Washington State. I visited a gazilllion times, we would have been midway between Portalnd OR and Vancouver BC. I thought: perfect pinko commie area for me! Then Trayvon Martin got shot, I started reading more and more about regional and state regulations for me to work there etc etc. The pinko commies turned out to be icky about guns and "well maybe you dont know coming from Canada but sometimes "the blacks" can be looking for it and you have to defend youself".

O'm rambling and I don't know really what my point is anymore. I'm sure the US will survive just fine without me being there (duh lol), but reading stuff like what Seedy just posted makes me damn happy not to have moved. I just don't understand why a bunch of old white guys care so much about controlling birth control access and abortion. I don't understand it and I never will. It's just so fucking retarded. This issue has been settled for decades in the rest of the western world.

Anyways. Off to bed.

And we are happy not to have you.

[CountDeMoney]

but reading stuff like what Seedy just posted makes me damn happy not to have moved.

Sorry it was bolded...?

I just don't understand why a bunch of old white guys care so much about controlling birth control access and abortion. I don't understand it and I never will. It's just so fucking retarded. This issue has been settled for decades in the rest of the western world.

Cunts, snatches and coozes are dirty, filthy whores; and when the poor dark ones get knocked up, they get to stay poor.  And the derfetusfucker demographic hates filthy whores and "teh blacks" enough to vote about it.  It's not really all that complicated.

[CountDeMoney]

PowerPost
Conservatives ready to support $1 trillion hole in the budget
By Kelsey Snell and David Weigel
Washington Post
January 5 at 6:35 PM

Some of the most conservative members of Congress say they are ready to vote for a budget that would — at least on paper — balloon the deficit to more than $1 trillion by the end of the decade, all for the sake of eventually repealing the Affordable Care Act.

In a dramatic reversal, many members of the hard-line House Freedom Caucus said Thursday they are prepared later this month to support a budget measure that would explode the deficit and increase the public debt to more than $29.1 trillion by 2026, figures contained in the budget resolution itself.

As they left a meeting with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Thursday, some of the conservatives said that spending targets contained in the budget for fiscal 2017 are symbolic. The real goal of the budget legislation, they argued, is to establish an opportunity to finally make good on GOP promises to repeal President Obama's signature domestic achievement.

"I just came to understand all the different ideas about where we go next," said Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.), a member of the House Freedom Caucus that typically opposes massive spending increases. Schweikert now says he will probably vote for the budget resolution.

The growing conservative consensus comes nearly one year after the approximately 40-member group announced it would rather torpedo the entire budget process than vote for a fiscal blueprint that increased spending without balancing the budget.

But fiscal discipline now seems to be taking a back seat to the drive to repeal Obamacare.

"I'd like to see a replacement on Obamacare pretty quick," said Rep. Brian Babin (R-Tex.). "Would I like to see [the budget] balance? Certainly. Absolutely. I've got 13 grandchildren, and I don't want to see them buried under $30 trillion of debt."

The Freedom Caucus has not taken an official position on the budget — 80 percent of them need to agree to do so — but many members said the dramatic spending increases created in the 2017 budget measure were only technicalities. They contend that voters understand some sacrifices need to be made to gut the health-care law.

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) told reporters that the group will decide Monday on an official position on the budget.

"The real question is: Does it change the top line number on what we're spending?" Meadows said. "Does it increase spending — or does it become a vehicle that maintains our current spending levels and allows us to repeal" the Affordable Care Act?

Other Republicans, including Paul, still question whether it is ever acceptable to support deficit increases, no matter how symbolic. Paul described Thursday's meeting, which attracted 23 Freedom Caucus members and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), as a first step.

"I wanted to make sure that conservatives in the House knew that, together, we can have impact and influence on what the budget will be," Paul said. "I heard one person say that, well, we'll vote for this now, but we won't in four months. My point is that the Republican leadership will come back and say, 'You already voted for it once; why not vote for it a second time?' "

Many in the conservative clique emerged ambivalent about Paul's argument.

"I'm not staking out a position on the budget just yet," Babin said after the meeting.

Mainstream Republicans are urging their typically implacable conservative colleagues to turn a blind eye to the spending numbers for now. Republican leaders are using a complicated quirk of the budget process to repeal Obamacare without the threat of a blockade by Senate Democrats.

Budget legislation is considered under special rules in the Senate that allow a simple majority of 50 senators rather than the normal 60 needed for almost everything else. There are 52 Republicans in the Senate this year, and there is virtually no hope that any Democrat would agree to dismantle Obama's health-care law.

The budget introduced this week in the Senate includes instructions for committees to begin repealing the ACA. GOP leaders want Republicans to focus on language requiring members of four committees to produce bills seven days after Trump's inauguration that each would save $1 billion over a decade by slashing ACA elements.

Not all conservatives are convinced. Paul is joined by deficit hawks like Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) who worry their voters won't countenance even a seemingly meaningless vote to increase the deficit.

"If you're going to do a symbolic budget resolution, why not put in a good number?" Brat asked Thursday. "People are very cynical, and I need a message so I can go back home with a straight face."

The collective shrug from other conservatives is the latest evidence that Paul's protest would be a familiar, lonely one. His floor speech attacking the budget measure for making no attempts at deficit reduction — it projects a $9 trillion increase in the debt by 2026 — was preempted by statements from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), pledging to vote for the resolution anyway.

That position has made Paul one of very few Republicans still talking about the debt as a national crisis worth building legislation around. During his presidential campaign, which ended after the 2016 Iowa caucuses, Paul made a number of attempts to draw attention to the national debt and to promote his annual plans to balance the budget with steep spending cuts.

Months later, most of the Freedom Caucus — 17 members — voted against the GOP's 2016 budget on debt-reduction grounds. The new budget resolution makes even fewer concessions on debt reduction. For Republicans who frequently described the debt as a threat to their children's futures, it's a difficult sell.

"We want to keep in mind the overall picture, both the deficit and how tired people are Obamacare," said Rep. Randy Weber (R-Tex.). "I do think there's a danger of the Republicans actually owning this."