What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Phillip V]

[Jacob]

New study finds that political polarization (in the US) is much more pronounced on the right side of the political spectrum: http://news.wgbh.org/2017/03/15/politics-government/major-new-study-shows-political-polarization-mainly-right-wing

[jimmy olsen]

What happens to Ryan and Trump if this flops?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/there-may-be-22-house-republicans-ready-to-sink-the-gop-health-care-bill/

There May Be 22 House Republicans Ready to Sink the GOP Health Care Bill

By Perry Bacon Jr.

The legislation that House Speaker Paul Ryan and President Trump embraced to repeal and replace Obamacare was already being dogged by criticism from deeply conservative members in the House. But now it faces an emerging challenge: more moderate Republicans distancing themselves from the bill after the Congressional Budget Office concluded it would result in 24 million more people being uninsured than under the Affordable Care Act.

In the two days since the CBO report, two members from districts where Hillary Clinton outdid Trump last fall, Florida's Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and and New Jersey's Leonard Lance, have suggested they will be reluctant to back the current version of the legislation, the American Health Care Act. A third member from a liberal-leaning district, New York's John Katko, said the CBO report left him with "serious questions that need to answered."

Some senators are already suggesting this bill has little chance of passing in Congress' upper chamber. But it may not get even there. An informal FiveThirtyEight count suggests two huge challenges for getting the AHCA through the House and avoiding what would be an embarrassing defeat for Republicans: spending seven years campaigning to end Obamacare and then not being able to get a bill through even one house of Congress when the party controls both houses and the presidency.

First, even before the full House considers the bill, it must move through another committee. And the Budget Committee, which meets on Thursday to consider the AHCA, is a potential problem since at least three of its GOP members had expressed deep concerns about the Obamacare repeal effort even before the CBO report was released. Republicans have a 22-14 majority on that committee, so the legislation would stall if four Republicans joined with the 14 Democrats, who are expected to vote en masse against the bill.

If the bill emerges from that committee, the full House will vote on it. With five seats in the chamber currently vacant, there are 430 members of the House. A bill must get a majority of those voting to be approved, so Republicans need 216 votes, not the traditional 218. And there are currently 237 House Republicans.

So for Republicans, the AHCA will fail if 22 GOP members oppose the bill.1Again, if every Democrat opposes the bill, as expected. And public comments and votes suggest the party already faces at least 16 plausible defections.

The group that has already voted against the process to write this health care bill (nine members)

In January, House Republicans held a vote that called for using the so-called reconciliation budget procedure to repeal Obamacare.2That is the process by which the Senate needs a majority, not 60 votes, which is significant because the GOP controls only 52 Senate votes right now. A filibuster cannot be used against a reconciliation bill. The vote was approved largely along party lines; all Democrats opposed it. But nine Republicans voted against that provision, as well. That opposition included four members of the House who are generally considered moderates. Two of them, Pennsylvania's Charlie Dent and New Jersey's Tom MacArthur, are co-chairs of the Tuesday Group, a bloc of more centrist House Republicans. Pennsylvania's Brian Fitzpatrick, a freshman in the House, has created his own group, the Congressional Citizen Legislature Caucus, that is designed to work across party lines. The fourth of this group, New York's Katko, was endorsed by the left-leaning New York Times editorial board last fall, with the paper casting him as an "independent thinker" and praising him for blasting Trump and promising not to vote for his party's presidential nominee.

Two founders (Michigan's Justin Amash and Idaho's Raúl Labrador) of the House's Conservative Freedom Caucus, a bloc of some of the chamber's most conservative members, also opposed the reconciliation bill. So did three members who are not closely tied to the party's moderate wing or the Freedom Caucus: Walter Jones of North Carolina, Thomas Massie of Kentucky and California's Thomas McClintock.

Again, this January vote was procedural, not on the formal policy of the ACA. Dent and Katko, according to Roll Call, both said their opposition to the resolution was in part because congressional Republicans had not laid out a detailed plan to replace Obamacare. Obviously, the situation has now changed, with the AHCA fully written.

That said, the vote in January was a necessary first step in repealing Obamacare through reconciliation. And these nine members voted against it, suggesting they might do so again. Amash, Labrador, Jones and Massie, in particular, are known for either publicly questioning the views of Republican congressional leadership or voting against the GOP on issues that otherwise split along party lines.

Indeed, according to FiveThirtyEight's Trump Score, which tracks how often members of Congress align with the position of the Trump administration on issues, only 10 Republicans have voted against Trump at higher rates than might be expected, based on Trump's vote share in their districts in the 2016 election. That group includes Amash, Jones, Labrador and Massie.

McClintock, in comments at a closed-door meeting of House Republicans in January that were leaked publicly, warned his party of the political perils of trying to repeal Obamacare. Dent has remained critical, too, expressing deep concerns over how the AHCA would limit Medicaid, which was greatly expanded in his state under Obamacare. Katko has also been noncommittal about voting for the AHCA.

Ryan probably can't count on these nine votes.

House conservatives who have sharply criticized the AHCA (five members)

Only two of the Freedom Caucus' members (Amash and Labrador) opposed the January reconciliation bill. But four others, Virginia's Dave Brat, Ohio's Jim Jordan, North Carolina's Mark Meadows and South Carolina's Mark Sanford, have criticized various parts of the House proposal to repeal Obamacare or suggested the bill does not go far enough in completely revamping the law. And when Brat, Jordan, Meadows and Sanford held a press conference recently to slam the AHCA, Texas' Louie Gohmert, who has not been that closely associated with the Freedom Caucus in the past, joined them to criticize the bill.

Some of these five members have suggested that Ryan needs to change parts of the AHCA to get their votes. Ryan does not seem inclined to do so.

If these five members can't be brought on board, we're up to 14 "no" votes.

Blue-district Republicans swayed by the CBO (two members)

Writing on her congressional website on Tuesday, Ros-Lehtinen announced she could not vote for the AHCA in its current form, arguing that "too many of my constituents will lose insurance and there will be less funds to help the poor and elderly with their health care."

New Jersey's Lance told CNN, "I do not want to vote on a bill that has no chance of passing over in the Senate."

"The CBO score has modified the dynamics," he added.

This was a reversal for Lance, who voted for the AHCA in committee just last week and defended it in an primetime interview on MSNBC.

A number of polls show Obamacare becoming more popular and that parts of the repeal effort, like making major changes to Medicaid and cutting funding for Planned Parenthood, are opposed by a majority of the public. That data suggests members in districts that backed Clinton in 2016 might be more politically vulnerable if they vote for the AHCA.

The other moderates and conservatives (at least 50)

If those 16 are likely against the AHCA, Ryan can only afford five more defections. And those defections are most likely to come from where the 16 do: the poles of the Republican caucus — its most moderate members and its most conservative members.

Along with Katko, Lance and Ros-Lehtinen, 20 other House Republicans live in congressional districts where Clinton won. About 50 House Republicans are associated with the moderate Tuesday Group, which includes Dent and MacArthur. (There is substantial overlap between those associated with the Tuesday Group and members from Clinton districts, so the bloc of House moderates numbers about 60.)

But while "no" votes may come from the more moderate wing of the party, worried the legislation is too conservative, there is a large bloc of members who are skeptical that the bill is conservative enough. There is no public, formal list of the members of the House Freedom Caucus.here, here and here.'>3A number of organizations have tried to track Freedom Caucus membership, as you can see here, here and here. But at least 30 House members have publicly associated themselves with the group, and it is a hot bed of reservations about this bill. For example, Mo Brooks of Alabama, a Freedom Caucus member, called the legislation, "the largest welfare program sponsored in the history of the Republican Party." And as noted above, four Freedom Caucus members are already very resistant to the bill.

That's a lot of members — at least 50 moderates and at least 25 solid conservatives — to keep in line.

The good news for Paul Ryan

Many Freedom Caucus members live in districts that backed Trump overwhelmingly. White House officials are for now trying to court Freedom Caucus members through outreach. But at Tuesday's White House briefing Press Secretary Sean Spicer sidestepped the question when asked if Trump would support primary challenges to Republicans who didn't back the party's health care push. Even the threat of a primary challenge could force some House conservatives to get behind this bill.

Meadows, who is chairman of the Freedom Caucus, has suggested that there is a broad consensus within the group to oppose the AHCA. But even as they express reservations about it, few Freedom Caucus members have said they will definitely vote against the AHCA.

Comments from other members of the group, such as Arizona's David Schweikert and Ted Yoho of Florida, have been more equivocal than those of Meadows.

In addition, it will be interesting to see if the CBO report, which says this bill will result in a huge reduction in the number of Americans on Medicaid, helps move some Freedom Caucus members to be more supportive of the legislation. That CBO report cast the AHCA as more conservative than its portrayal from some on the right as "Obamacare-lite." (In other words, if liberal groups are saying a bill is too conservative, citing the Washington-based CBO, does that move anti-establishment, conservative Republicans toward it?)

Also, the AHCA has already received 54 votes from House Republicans, combining the votes in the Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce committees. That's exactly 25 percent of the 216 that Ryan needs. Members associated with the Tuesday Group, such as Chris Collins of New York and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, have already voted once for the AHCA, through the committee process. The CBO report may have spooked Lance, but it may not shake other House Republicans, many of whom campaigned on repealing Obamacare.

Finally, some House Republicans are sticking by Trump in his early days, potentially at their political peril. FiveThirtyEight's Trump Tracker shows that Virginia's Barbara Comstock and California's Darrell Issa have voted 100 percent of the time with the president's position so far, even as those two members live in districts Clinton won in 2016. Partisanship exerts a strong pull. That, combined with the chance to do away with Obamacare, finally (at least in part), gives Ryan some powerful forces working in his favor. But it's looking like a close vote.

[CountDeMoney]

For all of Steve King's overt "he tells it white it is" racism, Mike Mulvaney is officially the Most Detestable Asshole on the Planet this week.

[jimmy olsen]

This health care bill is hitting Trump in the approval ratings. Currently 50.7 dissaprove to 43.6% approve in the 538 tracker.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-popular-politician-in-the-us-bernie-sanders-fox-news-poll-2017-3

FOX NEWS POLL: Bernie Sanders remains the most popular politician in the US

Madeleine Sheehan Perkins

A Fox News  poll released Wednesday indicated some Americans have unfavorable opinions about the Trump administration, as well as some congressional Democrats and Republicans.

Trump's overall job approval rating has dropped five points compared to a February poll from the network. As of March 15, 43% of surveyed voters approve of Trump's performance, while 51% disapprove.

•Of the 43% of voters who approved, 30% said they "strongly approve," while 13% said they "somewhat approve."
•Of the 51% who disapproved, 7% "somewhat disapproved" while 45% "strongly disapproved," the Fox News poll found

In the February survey, 48% of people surveyed by Fox News said they approved of Trump's job performance and 47% disapproved.

While both Democrats and Republicans received low approval ratings from respondents, Democrats fared slightly better than Republicans with 32% of respondents approving of their actions in Congress, and 60% disapproving. Republicans earned a 29% approval rating of their actions in Congress and a disapproval rating of 63%.

Voters were also read a list of people, items, and organizations and asked if they had a "favorable" or "unfavorable" opinion of them.

•Vice President Mike Pence received ratings of 47% favorable to 43% unfavorable.
•House Speaker Paul Ryan's ratings were 37% favorable compared to 47% unfavorable.
•Sen. Bernie Sanders received a rating of 61% to 32%.
•Planned Parenthood was rated 57% favorable to 32 unfavorable.
•The Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare" was rated 50% favorable and 47% unfavorable.

Fox News' poll was conducted from March 12-14, 2017 via telephone (landlines and cell phones) with 1,008 randomly selected voters from across the country.

The poll was done in conjunction with Democratic Anderson Robbins Research and Republican Shaw & Company Research. The full poll results report, including answers to over 50 questions, can be read  here.


[Solmyr]

Trump really is determined to alienate every last ally the US has, isn't he?

http://time.com/4704774/donald-trump-barack-obama-gchq/

[Syt]

[jimmy olsen]

Poor Sean, sold himself to the devil and now he's stuck in a hell of his own making. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/16/sean-spicers-angry-lonely-defense-of-trumps-wiretapping-claim-annotated/?utm_term=.8347b1e4b54f

The Fix Analysis

Sean Spicer's angry, lonely defense of Trump's wiretapping claim, annotated

[jimmy olsen]

I've learned to expect it, but it still amazes me how the guy can't shut up to save his own political life.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-and-his-advisers-cant-keep-quiet--and-its-becoming-a-real-problem/2017/03/16/157d2100-0a63-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html?utm_term=.8656e118702f

Trump and his advisers can't keep quiet — and it's becoming a real problem

By John Wagner and Matt Zapotosky March 16 at 7:58 PM
In blocking the administration's second attempt at a travel ban from terror-prone countries, a federal judge in Hawaii laid the blame squarely on President Trump and his advisers, who had suggested the policy was aimed at barring Muslims.

A different politician might have expressed disappointment and moved on. But Trump, taking the stage barely an hour later at a rally Wednesday night in Nashville, let loose on the "terrible ruling" — and doubled down on the sentiments that got the policy into trouble in the first place.

"The order blocked was a ­watered-down version of the first order," Trump thundered, adding later: "Let me tell you something. I think we ought to go back to the first one and go all the way."

The episode was just one of numerous examples of Trump and his advisers pushing incendiary language and unfounded claims, even in the face of opposition from federal judges and top lawmakers of both parties.

On Thursday — for the 12th day in a row — the White House defended Trump's unfounded claim that his predecessor, Barack Obama, ordered wiretaps of Trump's New York City offices during the presidential campaign, despite a growing chorus of declarations from intelligence officials and members of Congress that nothing of the sort happened.

"Based on the information available to us, we see no indications that Trump Tower was the subject of surveillance by any element of the United States government either before or after Election Day 2016," the Democratic and Republican chairmen of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Thursday in a statement.

"He stands by it," White House press secretary Sean Spicer said of Trump's original claim.

Trump boosters say his freewheeling rhetoric, in person and on social media, is a large part of his appeal and has kept him in good stead with his political base. But it is also making governing more challenging.

In recent weeks, Trump has pledged that he would provide "insurance for everybody" at a lower cost, setting an impossible standard for congressional Republicans as they seek to craft a bill to scale back Obama's signature health-care law.


Trump has sent conflicting signals on whether he supports a "border adjustment tax," a key component of efforts to reduce taxes that has divided Republicans in the House and Senate who are eager for Trump's guidance.

The president's repeated pronouncements of admiration for Russian leader Vladi­mir Putin have forced his ambassador to the United Nations and his secretary of state to reassure allies by talking tougher about an adversary blamed for meddling in last year's U.S. election.

And Trump's allegations on Twitter — without citing any evidence — that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower last year has eaten up investigative resources in Congress and chipped away at his credibility among GOP leaders key to advancing the president's ambitious agenda.

But perhaps nowhere have Trump's words been as damaging as his attempts to implement the travel ban — which may have been damaged further by Trump's remarks at his Nashville rally. Trump inflamed controversy during the campaign by calling for a temporary ban on all foreign Muslims from entering the United States, then later shifted to vague pledges to ban people from countries with a history of Islamist terrorism.

"I am sure that challengers will use the president's comments last night as further evidence that the true intent of his executive order is to bar Muslim immigration," said Stephen W. Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law at Cornell Law School.

In rulings halting both the first and second attempts at a ban, judges have cited comments by Trump and his close advisers as evidence of the administration's intent to target Muslims in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution — even as lawyers for Trump insist that is not the case.

The somewhat narrower version of the ban put on hold Wednesday would have temporarily barred the issuance of new visas to citizens of six ­Muslim-majority countries and suspended the admission of new refugees. Early Thursday, a federal judge in Maryland issued a second injunction against the measure, suspending only the portion that stopped the issuance of visas.

While some legal experts say Trump still has a strong chance of prevailing at the Supreme Court, based on arguments about executive powers, others have questioned whether comments coming from his administration have made it impossible to credibly argue that the ban is secular in nature.

Mo Elleithee, executive director of the Institute of Politics and Public Service at Georgetown University, said Trump and his advisers "seem to be validating the court's concerns every chance they get."

"They seem not to know when they need to keep their mouths shut," said Elleithee, who worked on Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign.

The proposed policy can be traced back to December 2015, when Trump — reading in dramatic fashion at a campaign rally — called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." The statement is still available on Trump's campaign website.

Later in the campaign, amid continuing uproar, Trump began referring to the ban as being aimed at particular nations rather than a religious group. But at times he also disputed the idea that the proposal had changed or narrowed.

"I actually don't think it's a rollback," Trump said in July 2016. "In fact, you could say it's an expansion. I'm looking now at territories. People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. 'Oh, you can't use the word Muslim.' . . . And I'm okay with that, because I'm talking territory instead of Muslim."

Also undermining the administration's claim of secular intent was Trump's statement on the Christian Broadcasting Network on Jan. 27 — just before the first ban went into place — that he saw persecuted Christians as a priority in accepting refugees.

And when he actually signed the measure, Trump declared: "This is the protection of the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States. We all know what that means." He did not explain further.

The next day, a close Trump adviser, Rudolph W. Giuliani, appeared on Fox News and seemed to offer an explanation.


"I'll tell you the whole history of it," Giuliani said. "So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' "

In his blistering 43-page opinion issued Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson in Hawaii referred to those comments as well as a recent Fox News appearance by Trump senior policy adviser Stephen Miller, who said the second attempt at a ban would have "mostly minor technical differences" and that Americans would see "the same basic policy outcome for the country."

At Wednesday night's rally in Nashville, Trump took aim at Watson and suggested there was little difference between the intent of his first executive order and his second.

"The order he blocked was a watered-down version of the first order that was also blocked by another judge and should have never been blocked to start with," Trump said.

During a news briefing Thursday, Spicer said the administration had "tailored" the second order to address concerns raised about the first and said he was confident the president would ultimately prevail. Spicer said comments made by Trump and his aides, including those on Twitter, were "non-germane" and "not in keeping with how [judges] are supposed to interpret the law."

Leon Fresco, the deputy assistant attorney general for the Office of Immigration Litigation in Obama's Justice Department, said anything the president or those in his administration say now will likely become part of the ongoing litigation. The strongest evidence the challengers have to prove Trump intended the ban to disfavor Muslims, rather than protect national security, comes from the president's own words and those of his close advisers, he said.

But Fresco said it is possible Trump would ultimately prevail at the Supreme Court. In particular, he said, the judge in Hawaii had not addressed head-on whether Trump and his advisers' comments "irrevocably stain the ability to ever issue an order like this, period."

The Justice Department has argued that the comments by Trump and his advisers should not be considered because, in the department's view, the courts should not look beyond official statements and the order itself to determine its purpose.

Timothy Naftali, a presidential historian at New York University, said Trump had an opportunity after he was elected to set a different course but has not.

"As president, he should have said he was wrong to advocate for a Muslim ban," Naftali said. "He's never done that. What it appears he's doing now is trying to do it in a way that squeaks by."

[CountDeMoney]

Poor Sean, sold himself to the devil and now he's stuck in a hell of his own making. 

He has a job. This is his job, spinning for a boss who is never, ever wrong.

It's elitist douchebag attitudes like yours that put Trump in the White House in the first place.

[Syt]

The Irish PM, celebrating St. Patrick's Day with Donald Trump.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yGKjDwWnRY

It's fitting that we gather here each year to celebrate St. Patrick and his legacy. He too of course was an immigrant. And though he is, of course, the patron saint of Ireland, for many people around the globe he's also a symbol of — indeed the patron of — immigrants.

Here in America, in your great country, 35 million people claim Irish heritage, and the Irish have contributed to the economic, social, political, and cultural life of this great country over the last 200 years. Ireland came to America because, deprived of liberty, deprived of opportunity, of safety, of even food itself, the Irish believed.

And four decades before Lady Liberty lifted her lamp, we were the wretched refuse on the teeming shore. We believed in the shelter of America, in the compassion of America, in the opportunity of America. We came and we became Americans. We lived the words of John F. Kennedy long before he uttered them: We asked not what America can do for us, but what we could do for America. And we still do.

[Syt]

Also, oops.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/17/white-house-will-not-be-repeat-claims-gchq-spied-trump-

White House 'will not repeat' allegations that GCHQ spied on Trump

The White House has assured No 10 that allegations British intelligence spied on Donald Trump will not be repeated, Theresa May's spokesman has said.

The claim that GCHQ helped former president Barack Obama wiretap Trump during the 2016 election drew a rare denial by British intelligence officials after the White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, repeated it on Thursday.

Spicer quoted a claim by the Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano that three intelligence sources confirmed to him that the Obama administration used GCHQ to spy on Trump so there would be "no American fingerprints on this".

In its surprise public rebuttal, GCHQ described the allegation as "utterly ridiculous" and on Friday, the prime minister's spokesman said the White House had told the British ambassador and the UK's national security adviser that Spicer had been instructed not to repeat them.

"I don't want to get into private conversations, but we've made clear to the administration that these claims are ridiculous and should be ignored," the spokesman said. "We've received assurances these allegations won't be repeated.

"We have a close relationship which allows us to raise concerns when they arise, as was true in this case. This shows the administration doesn't give the allegations any credence."

Asked whether Spicer had been told not to repeat the claims, the spokesman said: "Indeed." Spicer has not made a formal apology.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the former chair of parliament's intelligence and security committee, demanded the White House withdraw the allegations and not merely say they would not be repeated. He said Spicer never had evidence for the allegations and made them only because he was desperate to justify Trump's claim.

He told BBC radio: "That's just foolish and very dangerous stuff and President Trump better get a grip not only on his own press officer but on the kind of encouragement being given in the White House that makes a press officer make these stupid allegations in the first place.

"You don't just quote from a Fox News report if you are the president's official spokesman unless you have taken the trouble to find out if that report is justified."

Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrats – the junior partner in the last British coalition government – described Spicer's repetition of the claims as "shameful" and said Trump was "compromising the vital UK-US security relationship to try to cover his own embarrassment".

Spicer had quoted Napolitano's allegations in an effort to validate Trump's unfounded claim that Obama tapped his phones last year. The US president accused his predecessor of tapping his phones in a series of tweets in early March, describing Obama as a "bad (or sick) guy".

"Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!" Trump tweeted on 4 March.

On Thursday, the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate intelligence committee joined their counterparts on the House intelligence committee in concluding that they had seen no evidence to support the president's accusation.

British and American intelligence agencies cooperate closely. Along with their counterparts from Australia, New Zealand and Canada, they are members of the Five Eyes, which work together on intelligence.

The prime minister's spokesman said: "I would add, just as a matter of fact, with the Five Eyes pact, we cannot use each other's capabilities to circumvent laws. It's a situation that simply wouldn't arise."

[CountDeMoney]

Maybe he saw a James Bond commercial during Fox & Friends.

[Josquius]

The Irish PM, celebrating St. Patrick's Day with Donald Trump.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yGKjDwWnRY

It's fitting that we gather here each year to celebrate St. Patrick and his legacy. He too of course was an immigrant. And though he is, of course, the patron saint of Ireland, for many people around the globe he's also a symbol of — indeed the patron of — immigrants.

Here in America, in your great country, 35 million people claim Irish heritage, and the Irish have contributed to the economic, social, political, and cultural life of this great country over the last 200 years. Ireland came to America because, deprived of liberty, deprived of opportunity, of safety, of even food itself, the Irish believed.

And four decades before Lady Liberty lifted her lamp, we were the wretched refuse on the teeming shore. We believed in the shelter of America, in the compassion of America, in the opportunity of America. We came and we became Americans. We lived the words of John F. Kennedy long before he uttered them: We asked not what America can do for us, but what we could do for America. And we still do.

Oh snap.

Is this normal timing for the Irish president to be in America? He said every year they gather there...

[Admiral Yi]

I've never heard of the Big Mick showing up for San Patricio before.