Mourning in America - Trump Year One: November '16 to

got to the climate change part of that NYT transcript and almost threw my phone across the room. also fuck everyone in that room for apparently just chuckling and moving on at his vapid handwaving around the alt-right and why they might seem energized by his candidacy.

rrrrrgggggh. fuck everybody because hey, we are all fucked anyway.

the NY Times leadership needs to save their phoney-baloney jobs

harrumph

So much money, so little oversight, we're going to get stuff like this every day, and he's not even president yet:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/trump-adviser-received-salary-from-charity-while-steering-breitbart-news/2016/11/22/75340778-af8a-11e6-8616-52b15787add0_story.html

Donald Trump’s chief White House strategist Stephen K. Bannon accepted $376,000 in pay over four years for working 30 hours a week at a tiny tax-exempt charity in Tallahassee while also serving as the hands-on executive chairman of Breitbart News Network.

During the same four-year period, the charity paid about $1.3 million in salaries to two other journalists who said they put in 40 hours a week there while also working for the politically conservative news outlet, according to publicly available documents filed with the Internal Revenue Service.

The salary payments are one part of a close relationship between the nonprofit Government Accountability Institute, a conservative investigative research organization, and for-profit Breitbart News.

Under Bannon’s leadership, Breitbart has become the clarion of the alt-right, a term embraced by conservatives estranged from mainstream Republicans and decried by those on the left as racist and xenophobic.

The news site has produced a torrent of incendiary articles about race, immigration, liberals and moderate Republicans. It has been one of the most prominent supporters of Trump and a leading critic of Hillary Clinton.

“We think of ourselves as virulently anti-establishment, particularly ‘anti-’ the permanent political class,” Bannon told The Washington Post in January.

Trump’s selection of Bannon as a senior adviser has drawn widespread criticism from Democrats and others.

The ties between the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) and Breitbart call into question the assertions the institute made in filings to the IRS that it is an independent, nonpartisan operation, according to philanthropic specialists and former IRS officials.

Bannon launched the institute in 2012, shortly after taking the helm of Breitbart. He sought tax-exempt status from the IRS by describing the institute as an education group to help the United States and other countries maintain a “higher quality of life” through “promotion of economic freedom,” according to IRS filings.

yeah it is seriously insane the amount of corruption and conflicts of interest that apparently are just going to go unchecked

double lol that Hillary lost because people had doubts about her "ethics"

her ethics sucked

hillary's ethics were just a sop to justify not voting for her - no one who voted for trump really gaf about corruption obv

Only someone as corrupt as he is has the skills to navigate Washington's corruption.

Only someone as corrupt as he is has the skills to navigate further entrench Washington's corruption.

like they're not even fucking trying to hide it at all. it's beyond brazen.

http://i.imgur.com/aLSUmUy.jpg

I really hate to be arguing this position right now, but the flipside is that Clinton supporters were completely dismissive of the same kinds of bad ethical optics wrt the Clintons that they now are angry at Trump about. The legality defense was raised a lot, and I'm not sure there's anything potentially illegal about Bannon receiving a salary from a non-profit while also running a media company. Also many of the issues with Clinton arose out of activity during her tenure as secretary of state and/or when she was known to be preparing a presidential run, not just working in the private sector. Yes the concerns may have been exaggerated, but everyone's insistence on "nothing to see here" was a bit flabbergasting. It felt as though we were all supposed to just trust that the Clintons are good people and have the right intentions, which is exactly how the right now views Trump.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm curious about what the NYT's strategy is when he next tweets about the terrible failing @nytimes.

promise to do better, probably

more on pompeo

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/23/mike-pompeo-religious-war/

Everyone ready for red scare 2.0?

https://newrepublic.com/article/138897/democrats-biggest-disaster

dang

Look past the GOP takeover of Washington, however, and the outlook for Democrats is even more alarming. In November, the party lost control of state legislatures in Iowa, Minnesota, and Kentucky. The state senate in Connecticut, which had been firmly blue, is now evenly split. Republicans ousted Democratic governors in Missouri, New Hampshire, and Vermont. All told, Democrats surrendered about 30 seats in state legislatures. They now hold majorities in just 31 of the country’s 98 legislative bodies, and only 15 of the nation’s governors are Democrats.

The losses in November are part of a sharp and unprecedented decline for the party at the state level. Since Obama took office eight years ago, Democrats have lost over 800 seats in state legislatures. For the first time in history, they do not control a single legislative chamber in the South. Overall, the party is now at its weakest point at the state level since 1920.

I really hate to be arguing this position right now, but the flipside is that Clinton supporters were completely dismissive of the same kinds of bad ethical optics wrt the Clintons that they now are angry at Trump about. The legality defense was raised a lot, and I'm not sure there's anything potentially illegal about Bannon receiving a salary from a non-profit while also running a media company. Also many of the issues with Clinton arose out of activity during her tenure as secretary of state and/or when she was known to be preparing a presidential run, not just working in the private sector. Yes the concerns may have been exaggerated, but everyone's insistence on "nothing to see here" was a bit flabbergasting. It felt as though we were all supposed to just trust that the Clintons are good people and have the right intentions, which is exactly how the right now views Trump.

unless you count the demons who live in morbs' head as site users, there is literally nobody here who actually believes "we were all supposed to just trust that the Clintons are good people and have the right intentions"

he's approximating

happy holidays from my demons to yours!

so did nikki haley just commit political suicide? un ambassador can be kinda above the fray but never forget

http://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/imce-images/colin-powell-makes-his-pr-007.jpg

Obama executive order on overtime pay blocked by Federal judge in TX, effective 12/1.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2016/11/22/judge-halts-federal-rule-that-would-have-expanded-overtime-pay-to-millions-of-workers/

judge just stealing trump's thunder what an asshole

Colin Powell was never UN Ambassador, though!

Don't suppose there's even the slightest hope of Haley's replacement in the SC statehouse being any kind of improvement.

yeah I forgot that he wasnt the ambassador per se, but shit goes down at the un that can destroy a political career is my poorly expressed point

xp
read earlier that the SC Lt Gov was "an early Trump supporter"

It felt as though we were all supposed to just trust that the Clintons are good people and have the right intentions, which is exactly how the right now views Trump.

its frustrating because there is ultimately about zero actual evidence that Trump does have the right intentions, unless you're literally just taking him at his word which is absolutely worthless. by no means do I think the Clintons are beyond criticism but the evidence of their public works and the money they've given to charity is all right there.

Look past the GOP takeover of Washington, however, and the outlook for Democrats is even more alarming.

it's been pointed out that republicans are nearing the level of state legislature control necessary to pass federal constitutional amendments

xpost Yeah, this is another straight-up false equivalence. There's plenty to criticize about Clinton but there's no evidence, from his decades in the public eye, that Trump is anything other than a venal con man who operates purely out of self-gratification and gives zero shits about anyone else.

i don't think anyone here disagrees

It's a false equivalence two different directions though -- Trump is more of a straight-up con man, but Trump was neither in public office nor known to be a likely future president during any of it.

it's been pointed out that republicans are nearing the level of state legislature control necessary to pass federal constitutional amendments

― mookieproof, Wednesday, November 23, 2016 11:55 AM (nine minutes ago) Bookmark

republicans don't have the 2/3 of the senate necessary though

it's been pointed out that republicans are nearing the level of state legislature control necessary to pass federal constitutional amendments

Amendments need a 2/3 majority in the House and Senate. Ain't gonna happen.

Has anyone written a really clear explainer on the constitutional amendment issue, because I'm a lawyer and I don't understand it. Is it state legislature convention OR 2/3 in house and senate, or do you need both?

passing amendments through congress is one method authorized by article V of the constitution.

the other way to pass amendments, which has never been used, doesn't require the senate.

"The other method of passing an amendment requires a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States. That Convention can propose as many amendments as it deems necessary. Those amendments must be approved by three-fourths of the states."

So they are close to the number to call a convention, but not to actually approve amendments?

xpost my understanding was that a constitutional convention involved only the state legislatures.

apologies if i'm failing US Civics here and making an ass out of myself!

from wikipedia

http://i.imgur.com/wDK62Yw.png

they need 34 states to call it, 38 states to ratify.

currently there are 32 republican-controlled states legislatures. however, only 26 of those 32 have a republican governor. i'm not sure if a governor would have to consent to calling a constitutional convention or if they could just be over-run by their republican legislature hordes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_state_legislatures

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxEnkmbXAAAqTTW.jpg

dems now control 13 state legislatures (26%)

yikes why is this so bleak

how did this happen

i mean havent we been reading obituaries for the republican party for the past 8 years due to demographic shifts

gerrymandering

the obituaries were for the office of president

Anyone who’s had doubts over Donald Trump’s claims that he’s fighting to better the lives of ordinary Americans can put their suspicions to rest, because the president-elect just put his money where his mouth is. Over the weekend, Trump generously paid out $25 million of his own money to help out thousands of people who’d been defrauded of their life savings through a vicious bait-and-switch scheme.

http://www.clickhole.com/article/faith-humanity-restored-after-these-students-were--5180

democratic party is not good at their jobs (getting elected)

@JamesSurowiecki
Look at Wisconsin. Dems got 168,000 more votes in State Assembly races in '12, but GOP won 60 of 99 seats.

Natural to say: both parties do it. But it's just objectively false. GOP has been far more ruthless about gerrymandering to cement its power

meanwhile, nate silver finds voting correlated much more with education level than income http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/