What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[viper37]

it sounds embarrassing

star wars episode I embarrassing is actually p fitting

the poster is from ep#3.  Cheerleading from Trump is already bad enough, but not knowing your Star Wars is ground for total banishment.

[Eddie Teach]

Not knowing the prequels is 100% forgivable.

[Maximus]

The prequels were just as good as the originals.

[derspiess]

This might be a threat to your green job Spicey.

Anyway it is too late Fossil Fuel industry. Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you.

I'm good with each source competing on a level playing field.

[Valmy]

I'm good with each source competing on a level playing field.

Me to. We discussed this years ago.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm not.  Carbon fuels generate negative externalities.

[Habbaku]

The prequels were just as good as the originals.

Hitler did nothing wrong.

[Valmy]

I'm not.  Carbon fuels generate negative externalities.

I am in favor of Natural Gas as a stop gap. Once battery technology is fully deployed then it all will be renewable.

[Valmy]

The prequels were just as good as the originals.

Hitler did nothing wrong.

Perfect response.

[Admiral Yi]

I am in favor of Natural Gas as a stop gap. Once battery technology is fully deployed then it all will be renewable.

This works for me.

[Maximus]

The prequels were just as good as the originals.

Hitler did nothing wrong.

Perfect response.

Not at all. his is an absolute value judgement while mine is relative.

"Hitler was no worse than Stalin" would be more appropriate.

[jimmy olsen]

Interesting ideas, but Nieto seems too cowardly to go that hard at Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2017/02/23/donald-trump-has-given-the-mexican-president-the-biggest-gift-he-could-wish-for/?utm_term=.e3cfc97ab528

Donald Trump has given the Mexican president the biggest gift he could wish for
By Pedro Gerson 

February 23 at 3:51 PM

Pedro Gerson is a professor of law and economics at the Ibero-American University and the Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology (ITAM), both in Mexico City.

Over the past few months — both as a candidate and in his new capacity as U.S. president — Donald Trump has issued a series of provocations that have brought U.S.-Mexico relations to their lowest point since the Mexican-American War of 1846. His brash Twitter diplomacy moved Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto to take the unprecedented step of canceling a trip to the United States. Stepped-up raids by U.S. immigration authorities have stirred deportation fears in the Mexican immigrant community, and expressions of anti-Mexican sentiment have become so common that even a top Mexican diplomat recently endured public harassment. Last but not least, Trump has continued to vilify the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), raising doubts about its durability.

It would seem that there could be no bleaker scenario for the Mexican president. And yet Trump may actually turn out to be a blessing in disguise for Peña Nieto. In fact, Trump may offer Peña Nieto's only chance of salvaging his party's chances in next year's general election — and potentially even his own legacy.

At 12 percent, Peña Nieto has the lowest approval rating of any Mexican president in history. Since 2013 the administration has committed one blunder after another. Most notably, the president has borne the brunt of a major corruption scandal involving his wife and a lavish home, managed to mishandle the largest human rights tragedy in recent Mexican history and, perhaps most unbelievably, legitimized candidate Trump by inviting him to Mexico on what looked like a state visit. Peña Nieto's responses to all of these cases and crises has seemed at best incompetent, in some cases downright negligent.

Nevertheless, Trump offers Peña Nieto a welcome distraction and, more importantly, an opportunity. On the first point, the existence of a new villain, if nothing else, has given Peña Nieto a break from the negative headlines of the past few weeks. An unscientific survey of the four most-read newspapers in Mexico showed that, since his inauguration, Trump has been mentioned almost three times more often than Peña Nieto.

Now Peña Nieto is well positioned to strike back, and his options are many. Mexicans all along the political spectrum are offering the president suggestions on how to do this. A leftist collective called on the government to start accepting refugees in defiance of Trump's Muslim ban. Jorge Castañeda, a former minister of foreign affairs, has said that Peña Nieto should accept deported migrants from the United States only if they can prove that they are Mexican citizens. Given that many immigrants lack any identification, this measure would severely hamper deportation efforts. Others have recommended that Peña Nieto should collaborate with officials in the United States who are openly pro-immigration, appearing in public with figures such as California Gov. Jerry Brown. Finally, some have even argued that Peña Nieto should refuse discussions on NAFTA in order to avoid a potentially devastating period of economic uncertainty during the renegotiation. If this were to happen, Trump would have an answer for NAFTA's demise to the largely Republican constituency that benefits from it.

Policies like these would represent a total reversal of the Mexican administration's current timid approach. Rather than responding to Trump's bravado with strength, Peña Nieto dumped his minister of foreign affairs in favor of someone with ties to Trump's inner circle. He also vacillated on the cancellation of his trip to the United States even after Trump issued an executive order mandating the border wall construction. Finally, Peña Nieto continues to insist on having an "open dialogue" with Washington.

Politically, confronting Trump may be Peña Nieto's last shot at securing a win for his party in the 2018 presidential election. Currently, the president's Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) would seem to have no chance against Andres Manuel López Obrador, the left's candidate. Nevertheless, the PRI has a strong machinery that can guarantee 25 to 30 percent of the vote. If Peña Nieto stands up to Trump, he may be able to tap into nationalist sentiment to win the hearts of that 5 to 10 percent of the electorate that his party will need to win the election.

Also, it is likely that such actions turn out to be better policy options than the continuance of Peña Nieto's overtures. Trump has demonstrated that he will not budge regardless of the number of olive branches that are thrown at him. A firmer stance may in fact be the only way to protect Mexicans abroad and to give Peña Nieto room to negotiate with Trump.

If Peña Nieto were to pursue a more confrontational route, he would be returning to some of his party's foundational ideas. The PRI was founded in the 1920s in the wake of the Mexican Revolution, and gained traction over the next decades by enacting nationalistic policies such as the nationalization of oil and the glorification of the "Mexican race." The boogeyman of the story was, of course, the United States, a country that had unjustly taken a large chunk of Mexican territory. Eventually the party and the country shifted their tunes, opening Mexico to the United States and the world. Even so, suspicion of the gringos has never really ended.

Peña Nieto could thus leverage the same nativist sentiments that Trump and the Brexiters have exploited. The difference is that he must temper his nationalism with a commitment to openness to all those who seek collaboration with Mexico. And promises won't suffice — he will have to follow up his rhetoric with policy measures that stand in contrast to Trump's: commitment to free trade, openness to immigration at home and defense of Mexican citizens in the United States. Given Peña Nieto's current unpopularity, however, even this strategy may not be enough to make voters change their minds about him and his party.

Adopting such a confrontational stance undoubtedly runs counter to the Mexican president's own nature, which favors caution and compromise. Yet the realization that he has nothing to lose may persuade him, in the end, to stand up to Trump. Peña Nieto and Mexico can only benefit.

[Jacob]

Oh hey, the White House has reached out to the FBI to make them say there's no evidence of contact between Russia and Trump's people. The FBI refused.

Apparently it's this is in violations of procedures that limit contact between the White House and the FBI regarding ongoing investigations.

Washington (CNN)The FBI rejected a recent White House request to publicly knock down media reports about communications between Donald Trump's associates and Russians known to US intelligence during the 2016 presidential campaign, multiple US officials briefed on the matter tell CNN.

White House officials had sought the help of the bureau and other agencies investigating the Russia matter to say that the reports were wrong and that there had been no contacts, the officials said. The reports of the contacts were first published by The New York Times and CNN on February 14.

The direct communications between the White House and the FBI were unusual because of decade-old restrictions on such contacts. Such a request from the White House is a violation of procedures that limit communications with the FBI on pending investigations.

Trump aides were in constant touch with senior Russian officials during campaign

The discussions between the White House and the bureau began with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus on the sidelines of a separate White House meeting the day after the stories were published, according to a U.S. law enforcement official.

The White House initially disputed that account, saying that McCabe called Priebus early that morning and said The New York Times story vastly overstates what the FBI knows about the contacts.

But a White House official later corrected their version of events to confirm what the law enforcement official described.

The same White House official said that Priebus later reached out again to McCabe and to FBI Director James Comey asking for the FBI to at least talk to reporters on background to dispute the stories. A law enforcement official says McCabe didn't discuss aspects of the case but wouldn't say exactly what McCabe told Priebus.

Comey rejected the request for the FBI to comment on the stories, according to sources, because the alleged communications between Trump associates and Russians known to US intelligence are the subject of an ongoing investigation.

The White House did issue its own denial, with Priebus calling The New York Times story "complete garbage."

"The New York Times put out an article with no direct sources that said that the Trump campaign had constant contacts with Russian spies, basically, you know, some treasonous type of accusations. We have now all kinds of people looking into this. I can assure you and I have been approved to say this -- that the top levels of the intelligence community have assured me that that story is not only inaccurate, but it's grossly overstated and it was wrong. And there's nothing to it," Preibus said on "Fox News Sunday" last weekend.

CNN has previously reported that there was constant communication between high-level advisers to then-candidate Trump, Russian officials and other Russians known to US intelligence during the summer of 2016.

Several members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees tell CNN that the congressional investigations are continuing into those alleged Russian contacts with the Trump campaign, despite Priebus' assertion that there is nothing to those reports.

It is uncertain what the committees will eventually find and whether any of the information will ever be declassified and publicly released. But the push to investigate further shows that Capitol Hill is digging deeper into areas that may not be comfortable for the White House.

The Trump administration's efforts to press Comey run contrary to Justice Department procedure memos issued in 2007 and 2009 that limit direct communications on pending investigations between the White House and the FBI.

"Initial communications between the [Justice] Department and the White House concerning pending or contemplated criminal investigations or cases will involve only the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General, from the side of the Department, and the Counsel to the President, the Principal Deputy Counsel to the President, the President, or the Vice President from the side of the White House," reads the 2009 memo.

The memos say the communication should only happen when it is important for the President's duties and where appropriate from a law enforcement perspective.

A Department of Justice spokesman said Attorney General Jeff Sessions is reviewing the memos and that "the Department is following the guidelines in its communications with the White House."

The White House and the FBI declined to comment publicly for this story.

The effort to refute the CNN and New York Times stories came as increasing numbers of congressional members were voicing concern about Russia's efforts to influence individuals with ties to Trump.

On February 17, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence held a briefing with Comey. It's unclear what was said, but senators suggested there was new information discussed about Russia.

"Every briefing we go through we gain new information," said Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma, a member of the committee. Lankford declined to be more specific about the briefing.

Sen. Angus King of Maine also declined to reveal what was discussed during the Comey briefing. In response to a question on Priebus' strong denial of the claims, King said he was "surprised" that Priebus would be "that categorical."

Rep. Eric Swalwell of California, a Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, said the goal of his panel's inquiry is to follow "leads wherever they go even if they may be uncomfortable to Republicans."

"The American public will want to know if the President had personal or financial ties to the Russian government," Swalwell said.

This story has been updated to reflect new information from the White House source.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/23/politics/fbi-refused-white-house-request-to-knock-down-recent-trump-russia-stories/index.html?sr=twpol022317fbi-refused-white-house-request-to-knock-down-recent-trump-russia-stories1113PMVODtopLink

[Eddie Teach]

The prequels were just as good as the originals.

Hitler did nothing wrong.

Perfect response.

Not at all. his is an absolute value judgement while mine is relative.

"Hitler was no worse than Stalin" would be more appropriate.

More like "Hitler was no worse than FDR".

[CountDeMoney]

It's simply stunning how little people actually care about Russian interference and the connections to Trump's people.  I really think future generations of Americans are going to have a hard time conceptualizing that the country hated Hillary Clinton so much they'd let a foreign power and adversary get away with it.