Trump's Team

Rubio serves on both the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Senate Select Committee on Foreign Relations.

For someone that is privy to and immersed in the classified, nefarious actions of foreign adversaries, it's not hard to understand his h*rd-on for Russia.

I also assume he carries a lot of ill will towards Russia for the oppression his family suffered in Cuba under Castro. The guy openly detested Castro and mentioned his family's history when discussing it.

Both his close family history and daily profession is highly involved with Russian meddling. Pretty hard to see the forest for the trees with all that in your head/heart.
 
Brad Austin said:
Rubio serves on both the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Senate Select Committee on Foreign Relations.

For someone that is privy to and immersed in the classified, nefarious actions of foreign adversaries, it's not hard to understand his h*rd-on for Russia.

I also assume he carries a lot of ill will towards Russia for the oppression his family suffered in Cuba under Castro. The guy openly detested Castro and mentioned his family's history when discussing it.

Both his close family history and daily profession is highly involved with Russian meddling. Pretty hard to see the forest for the trees with all that in your head/heart.
Click to expand...

Wait...you just said that he knows too much about Russia based on his intelligence access? For what? To go along with Trump's "reverse glasnost" plan? Could it be that Trump doesn't know enough or is willing to gloss over their nefarious actions for some alternate reason?
 
Seattle Husker said:
Wait...you just said that he knows too much about Russia based on his intelligence access? For what? To go along with Trump's "reverse glasnost" plan? Could it be that Trump doesn't know enough or is willing to gloss over their nefarious actions for some alternate reason?
Click to expand...

Yep. That's classic Trump mentality on display. It can't be that Rubio has studied the issue and reached a well-informed and well-reasoned position. He just has a "hard-on."
 
Mr. Deez said:
Yep. That's classic Trump mentality on display. It can't be that Rubio has studied the issue and reached a well-informed and well-reasoned position. He just has a "hard-on."
Click to expand...

Classic leftist mentality on display. Disregard the solid points made that actually pertain to the topic, focus on a descriptive word, and use it to discredit the speaker.

I guess you couldn't grasp my use of "hard-on" meant Rubio is highly excited over Russia. It wasn't a negative slam on his views, I was referencing his history as to why I empathize with where he's coming from.

FYI, Rubio was my preference until he dropped out after FL primary.

Yet another example of how Libs and MSM try to discredit their targets. Find a descriptive word, twist the context to make it seem controversial, and disregard the factually based points.

Same thing the MSM did with DT's inaugural speech...omg did he say "carnage"? What a dark, cold speech. One MSM network labeled it the "carnage speech". :rolleyes1:
 
Brad Austin said:
Classic leftist mentality on display. Disregard the solid points made that actually pertain to the topic, focus on a descriptive word, and use it to discredit the speaker.

I guess you couldn't grasp my use of "hard-on" meant Rubio is highly excited over Russia. It wasn't a negative slam on his views, I was referencing his history as to why I empathize with where he's coming from.

FYI, Rubio was my preference until he dropped out after FL primary.

Yet another example of how Libs and MSM try to discredit their targets. Find a descriptive word, twist the context to make it seem controversial, and disregard the factually based points.

Same thing the MSM did with DT's inaugural speech...omg did he say "carnage"? What a dark, cold speech. One MSM network labeled it the "carnage speech". :rolleyes1:
Click to expand...

I focus on the word, because it's a loaded term. It suggests that his view is skewed or distorted by something (in this case his hostility for the Castro regime and the ties it had with the regime that used to given what is present day Russia). It is a negative characterization.
 
The Jeff-Bezos-owned WAPO interviewed Kellyanne Conway
It's pretty long
Here is one part

-----------------------------
The president-elect yesterday called CNN fake news. Is that helpful?

Did he do it gratuitously or did he do it in response to the fact that they had published an article online and then talked about it on air that basically gave everybody a GPS and a map and instructions on how to find the BuzzFeed dump of a 35-page document that is not an intelligence report, that was an Internet report assembled by anti-Trump operatives?

Presidents and politicians have always criticized news stories, but not —

This is historic and you know it. No one has ever faced the deluge of negativity and criticism that Donald Trump has. It’s just a fact. But by the way, we have to say thank you to many in the mainstream media because it helped us win.

It was an elite rejection election in that, fundamentally, it was us versus them, and it turns out there are a heck of a lot more them than us, us being people in politics or media or the donor class. Or in the consulting class, which is nothing short of embarrassing. These noncreative nonthinkers who haven’t come up with a creative or original idea in 30 years are telling us who can win, who can lose three years before an election? That’s over.

Donald Trump would say one thing or someone would say one thing about him, and it would literally be breaking news for 10 days. And everybody would dissect it. And I know he’s much better for ratings and clicks, because Hillary Clinton was neither particularly liked nor seen as animated or engaging, but some journalists took leave of their senses and surrendered what they learned in journalism school.

If you look at Twitter feeds of some folks, what they write about Donald Trump would never pass editorial muster. And if you’re Joe Blow from The Washington Post and you say tweets are my own and you’re tweeting at 10:15 a.m. as you’re walking in to a presidential press conference or a Trump rally, then your tweets are not your own. You just tweeted in your suit and tie at 10:15 a.m. when you’re clearly in your professional capacity. And it’s zing, zing, zing, zing, zing against Donald Trump. That’s irresponsible, and by the way it’s not journalism.

[The Post’s policy is that journalists can use personal social media accounts but they remain, at all times, Washington Post journalists.]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...485534784095&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.e323cdf1221c
 
Seattle Husker said:
"Alternative Facts" woman may have a credibility gap at this point.
Click to expand...

She was actually correct about that, just suffered from some momentarily inarticulate wording. The truth is, when they came out with those metro numbers originally, they had their own source, which was supposed to have been official. That was her point. But, of course, the anti-Trump Press jumped on her like the pack of jackals that they are.

Second, as had been shown repeatedly now, the overall crowd was the same close to the same or even possibly larger.

But, you knew all this already, correct?

And, in any event, I think the people are onto them now. The bulk of folks are not going to keeping falling for these type of media games. Only those who want to fall for it will.
 
Joe Fan said:
She was actually correct about that, just suffered from some momentarily inarticulate wording. The truth is, when they came out with those metro numbers originally, they had their own source, which was supposed to have been official. That was her point. But, of course, the anti-Trump Press jumped on her like a pack of jackals.
Click to expand...

It wasn't Metro's numbers but rather Spicer blamed the Inauguration committee for giving him the numbers. So, somewhere in that Trump circle someone was VERY wrong. What was sad was that Spicer used those numbers while admonishing the press for what turned out be accurate reporting. Any way you slice it, Spicer and Conway were pushing falsehoods and blamed an unnamed group for the misinformation.

Second, as had been shown repeatedly now, the overall crowd was the same close to the same or even possibly larger.

But, you knew all this already, correct?
Click to expand...

No, it hasn't despite the crazy angles that Gateway Pundit tries to use to give the impression of the crowd size being comparable. Even an attempt by Trump to cajole the acting Director of National Parks to get a better picture didn't get any results. Only in memes can you produce something that never existed.
 
NJlonghorn said:
Obama was the President who most strongly disagreed with his counterpart in Israel on the biggest issue in Israel, settlement of the occupied territories. This doesn't make him anti-Israel. In fact, if Obama is anti-Israel, then so are the 40ish percent of Israeli Jews who agree with Obama on the issue.
Click to expand...

Seattle Husker said:
Conversely, has any Israeli leader ever disrespected a sitting POTUS more than Bibi? The question is, which came first?
Click to expand...

As Deez clarified, Kerry honestly thinks they've been "Israel's best friend" because they believe what they're doing is best for Israel. So combine that with SH's post. How do you think Bibi felt when Obama sat down with him for the first time and explained to him that as man with no foreign policy experience and about 18 months of U.S. political experience, he was going to show Bibi why he was just wrong on his approach to Palestine. I have heard Obama speak/lecture enough to know exactly how he talks to people with whom he disagrees. So the media's takeaway from that first exchange was Bibi lecturing Obama about Israeli-Palestinian relations. No doubt, leaving out the lecturing Bibi got to begin with. So why exactly would Bibi have any regard for anything Obama had to say to him after that point? Aside from needing to be allies, he would already see him as completely opposed to measures Bibi believed were necessary for Israeli safety and sovereignty.
 
Joe Fan said:
The Jeff-Bezos-owned WAPO interviewed Kellyanne Conway
It's pretty long
Here is one part

-----------------------------
The president-elect yesterday called CNN fake news. Is that helpful?

Did he do it gratuitously or did he do it in response to the fact that they had published an article online and then talked about it on air that basically gave everybody a GPS and a map and instructions on how to find the BuzzFeed dump of a 35-page document that is not an intelligence report, that was an Internet report assembled by anti-Trump operatives?

Presidents and politicians have always criticized news stories, but not —

This is historic and you know it. No one has ever faced the deluge of negativity and criticism that Donald Trump has. It’s just a fact. But by the way, we have to say thank you to many in the mainstream media because it helped us win.

It was an elite rejection election in that, fundamentally, it was us versus them, and it turns out there are a heck of a lot more them than us, us being people in politics or media or the donor class. Or in the consulting class, which is nothing short of embarrassing. These noncreative nonthinkers who haven’t come up with a creative or original idea in 30 years are telling us who can win, who can lose three years before an election? That’s over.

Donald Trump would say one thing or someone would say one thing about him, and it would literally be breaking news for 10 days. And everybody would dissect it. And I know he’s much better for ratings and clicks, because Hillary Clinton was neither particularly liked nor seen as animated or engaging, but some journalists took leave of their senses and surrendered what they learned in journalism school.

If you look at Twitter feeds of some folks, what they write about Donald Trump would never pass editorial muster. And if you’re Joe Blow from The Washington Post and you say tweets are my own and you’re tweeting at 10:15 a.m. as you’re walking in to a presidential press conference or a Trump rally, then your tweets are not your own. You just tweeted in your suit and tie at 10:15 a.m. when you’re clearly in your professional capacity. And it’s zing, zing, zing, zing, zing against Donald Trump. That’s irresponsible, and by the way it’s not journalism.

[The Post’s policy is that journalists can use personal social media accounts but they remain, at all times, Washington Post journalists.]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...485534784095&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.e323cdf1221c
Click to expand...

Whether you like her or not, this is a really interesting read. Here are some things I thought were interesting:

You mentioned your mother. On election night did she say anything to you?

She told me for weeks and months before election night that Donald Trump would win. But on election night she told me what she’s been telling me my entire life, which is, basically, be yourself, have fun and accept whatever God has coming. When you hear that from your mother, “Accept what God has coming,” that has to be everything from a broken relationship or a broken heart when you’re younger to not gaining entry into your reach college to burying a loved one unexpectedly. But my mother telling me that for years also made me see what a blessing and opportunity it was for Donald Trump to ask me to be his campaign manager.
Click to expand...

You don’t consider yourself a feminist?

I don’t consider myself a feminist. I think my generation isn’t a big fan of labels. My favorite label is mommy. I feel like the feminist movement has been hijacked by the pro-abortion movement or the anti-male sentiments that you read in some of their propaganda and writings. I’m not anti-male. One does not need to be pro-female and call yourself a feminist, when with it comes that whole anti-male culture where we want young boys to sit down and shut up in the classroom. And we have all of these commercials that show what a feckless boob the man in the house is. That’s not the way I see the men in my life, most especially my 12-year-old son. I consider myself a postfeminist. I consider myself one of those women who is a product of her choices, not a victim of her circumstances.
Click to expand...

You have to understand something. I grew up around Atlantic City. My mother worked there for 21 years, and that was our sole source of support. She was left with no alimony, no child support whatsoever when I was 2 or 3. When the casinos came to Atlantic City, and that included Donald Trump and others, it revitalized an entire corridor between Atlantic City and Philadelphia. People then had jobs and benefits and opportunities, and I benefited directly from that through my mother and other family members.

And I don’t think he should release his tax returns now that I know more than I knew when I made that comment, which is that he’s under audit. And he has been advised by his accountants and his lawyers to not release them. And I know firsthand as a pollster that Americans are much more interested in knowing what their tax returns will look like when he’s president than in seeing his tax returns.

[A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 74 percent of Americans believe Trump should release his tax returns, with 41 percent saying they care “a lot” that he does so.]
Click to expand...

I did think it was funny that the Post had to stick that comment in. No one is denying that the majority would say he should release his returns - particularly with no additional information or context. Her point was simply that when choosing between caring about a candidate's tax return disclosure and caring about their own financial situation, they're a whole lot more concerned about the latter. I can't believe anyone would dispute that.

You co-wrote a book, “What Women Really Want: How American Women Are Quietly Erasing Political, Racial, Class, and Religious Lines to Change the Way We Live.” Ten years later, have those lines been erased, or are they bolder than they’ve ever been?

For some women they’ve been erased because women of all races and ethnic backgrounds, age groups, socioeconomic status, geographic differences, all work together. They share a common love of this country and the elation/struggles of what it means to be a woman in 2017. But for some women and for people who cover women or speak about women, those lines are somewhat bolder and brighter. I think in politics they seem brighter and bolder. But in everyday parlance, everyday culture, that’s just not true. We’re the peacemakers, we’re the great negotiators, the leaders and the managers of our households, of our workplaces.

But why is that not being played out in politics?

Because politics goes for the heat and not the light most of the time. Politics looks at division and subtraction, not at addition and multiplication. It’s congenitally negative. It’s corrosively negative, and I think that’s too bad. I’m just one small person in this political universe, but I do know that I infused some level of positivity and respectfulness to the process. And I’m very grateful to have had that opportunity.
Click to expand...

You pointed out early on last year that Hillary Clinton wasn’t doing well with women and that women were not going to vote for her simply because she was a woman. Would Hillary Clinton have won if you had been her campaign manager?
Click to expand...
[Long pause.] No, Hillary Clinton could not have won this election cycle for a few reasons. One is she could never really escape the fact that, including according to The Washington Post polling, that persistent, nagging majorities of Americans find her to be dishonest and untrustworthy and didn’t particularly like her, either. Two, it’s not clear to me that this woman who has surrounded herself with talented professionals — I’m very fond of Robby Mook, her campaign manager, for example, and I have a cordial relationship with Huma Abedin — had ever surrounded herself with people who would actually tell her no. Or that this isn’t a good idea. Or that this isn’t working. Which every leader needs. The other thing is that the question for Americans was not, Would you vote for a woman? But would you vote for this woman? It wasn’t a hypothetical; it was Hillary.
Click to expand...

You have four kids. Did you have to explain to them why it was okay that someone who said this would be president?

It’s a little bit of a cheap shot to raise my kids into a question like that. I just want to say that because people do it all the time.

Let me explain why I don’t think it’s a cheap shot. A lot of people with kids had to explain that to them.

Right, but I already had to explain to my children many times why Hillary Clinton lied so many times and, frankly, why she made a different choice when faced with a cheating husband than my mother did. That was to my older children. I had to explain many times why the media were so unfair to Donald Trump. “Why would they say this about Donald Trump, Mom, if you’re working for him?” Because kids and others unfortunately think if it’s on TV it’s true. That probably is no longer the case because people realize that no one on TV is under oath and anything can be said in a screaming chyron or, in the case of The Washington Post, unfair and untrue headlines that are just there for clickbait.

Have we had unfair and untrue headlines?

Oh, yes, yes. It’s been discussed with Marty Baron and Fred Hiatt and Jeff Bezos because I just saw [Bezos] last week. In any event, it’s tougher to explain to my children why people who don’t know me would say I’m stupid or ugly or even worse online. It’s tougher for them to listen to people on TV laugh at me or Donald Trump, ridicule us and never allow us to really get our message across. That’s tougher.
Click to expand...

And another inserted link which was unrelated to the story, entitled "Trump is obsessed with what his staff wears. Don't let their costumes distract you" - honestly, it's like, "OK, we're going to run all these quotes and let this woman say what she says, but we're going to make sure negative stuff about Trump gets stuck in here even if she won't say any of it."

Twenty-five years from now what do you want people to say about you?

That I was an excellent mother and a great friend and I brought honor and respect to what I did. I was fair and judicious to people. I had compassion and empathy for those less fortunate than me. I made a difference inside and outside of government and that I was kind and generous and honest. And I want to be famous for my children. I want one of them to cure cancer or win the Nobel Peace Prize or be the first woman president. One of my daughters said, “Mom, I don’t want to go to Washington and be known as Kellyanne Conway’s daughter.” And I said, “Well, then cure cancer, and I’ll be known as Claudia Conway’s mother.” That’s the way I look at it.
Click to expand...
 
ProdigalHorn said:
And another inserted link which was unrelated to the story, entitled "Trump is obsessed with what his staff wears. Don't let their costumes distract you" - honestly, it's like, "OK, we're going to run all these quotes and let this woman say what she says, but we're going to make sure negative stuff about Trump gets stuck in here even if she won't say any of it."
Click to expand...
I've noticed industries where there is high scrutiny on your professonal wardrobe tend to be populated by successfull, ambitious, highly-educated Type A personalities who just don't talk about ideas but actually execute on them.

Give me that over Bernie.
 
texas_ex2000 said:
I've noticed industries where there is high scrutiny on your professonal wardrobe tend to be populated by successfull, ambitious, highly-educated Type A personalities who just don't talk about ideas but actually execute on them.

Give me that over Bernie.
Click to expand...

Hi-Tech? You're in the finance industry which is definitely a "dress for success" culture. I do tell my children the "dress for success mantra" but I appreciate the Seattle work culture where simply wearing khakis and a pressed button up shirt can be "dressed up" compared some co-workers.
 
C3NkLXSWcAAVxO7.jpg
 
Mitch began cloture
The Tillerson Cloture Vote is set for Monday @ 5:30pm.
Cloture limits filibuster to a set time. In this case 30 hours max.
Da Nuke.

C3OcrlQWcAILtsr.jpg



C3OctZ8WEAEI0BS.jpg
 
texas_ex2000 said:
I've noticed industries where there is high scrutiny on your professonal wardrobe tend to be populated by successfull, ambitious, highly-educated Type A personalities who just don't talk about ideas but actually execute on them.

Give me that over Bernie.
Click to expand...

In the immortal words of Ivory Christian (U.T.'s Lee Jackson) from Friday Night Lights:

"I'll knock you out in a pair of flip flops"
 
4 nominees on Senate Calendar --

Tillerson Mon 5:30pm Cloture
Chao Tues 12:00pm Confirmation
Ross and Carson (not scheduled)
Mnuchin also scheduled for Committee vote tonight (no time). The Committee vote will allow nominee to proceed to the Senate

C3ZgtwyWAAEY15M.jpg


C3ZhaI_W8AANeU7.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ryan Zinke/Secretary of the Interior vote going down now


update --
ZINKE PASSES COMMITTEE 16-6
PERRY PASSES COMMITTEE 16-7
 
now the JEFF SESSIONS COMMITTEE VOTE

I guess Mitch finally woke up and realized having an AG right now would be a good idea
 
The good news is that As of Jan. 20, obstructing the President no longer makes you a racist, un-American traitor.



giphy.gif
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top