I sure wish the media would spend more airtime attacking Trump's completely overblown and nearly trivial record of accomplishments, especially versus his promises, and less talking about his stupid tweets and what's he gonna say to Putin.

He's getting away with it.

Axios reporting Bannon is telling Trump not to cut taxes on the rich.

Is Axios just a propaganda arm for this admin?

I think it will help you and einbrt chill some if you dig into the details a bit more and relax on the hesteria. There is plenty of crazy, unusual stuff going on but Trump is being beaten back on every front. He is losing and even with gerrymandering, which is less significant than clustering, dems would easily take the house if he is at 35-40% or below.

And Nixon did that in a far less polarized time period.

Trump is here to stay. There are people who will never turn their back on him, barring a '08 level recession.

So Chuck Schumer was partying in the hamptons with Ivanka, Jared and Charles Koch this weekend.

We are all so ****ing ****ed, hard to imagine why working people are disgusted with the Democratic Party!

morality binds and blinds. what is going on here i think is purism, its a way of moralizing that creates cohesion around something people view as valuable. they draw a holy circle around their candidate and demand that there shall be no compromise and no defection because everything else is imperfect or impure. they have decided that their candidate is "correct" and everything else is therefore unworthy.

this is how stupid things can get when people think that whatever moral feelings they have are "truth", there is no such thing. i would argue that its alot better to compromise on your morals and recognize that people are different and thus vote for a candidate that is not your first choice but still a decent alternative.

other examples of where moral purism is in play is on the religious right where alcohol or improper sexual conduct is forbidded or on the far left wing where some people hate everything that degrade nature, like industrial pollution.

No exemption in the Muslim ban for Iraqis who worked with U.S. forces in Iraq, because Trump, Bannon et al. are ****ing traitors:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...vel-ban-240158

This is pretty silly. It's not like Schumer was on a whirlwind European vacation with this crew. They attended the same giant party hosted by an editor at the Washington Post.

And anyone who is shocked that a long time senator from New York would be invited to this sort of party is hopelessly naive.

wtf man you can't say this **** without citing

All you have to do is google their names and you will find the articles. But it's not worth your time to do so.

I just had some hysteria about an hour ago. Maybe this will get your blood boiling too, so it'll be more than just me & einbert.

I saw someone on Twitter say that 5 AP stories on Russian meddling were just found to be false because they lied about the 17 intelligence agencies having evidence against Russia. After automatically assuming it was a lying bot, I was still curious enough to head over to Google to investigate.

Sure enough, Google is bombed with stories confirming what the Trumpist tweeted. The two main sources were Breitbart and RT. The other results were lesser known sites repeating a same exact, or eerily similar, headline. But where is the actual Associated Press story? It took me 4 differently worded searches and several pages to find it.

What the AP did was issue a correction saying that decisions of the 17 intelligence agencies referenced are all controlled and spoken for by the same 3 department heads. So it was 17 individual agencies, and not 17 individual agency directors. They also said that this was used as evidence for Russian interference in 4 other articles, so the correction applies to those as well.

But this isn't the story Putin has RT and Breitbart clogging up Google & Twitter with, and is pushing propaganda hard at Americans. Their seemingly coordinated headline and message are that the Associated Press had to retract 5 whole stories because they lied about the fake news of Russia meddling in US elections.

Cliffs: We will need stats to determine the extent, but Russia is clearly still targeting America with cyber attacks designed to falsely influence the public into believing that Trump & Putin are the good guys. Loads of fake Russian propaganda clogs up Google results while 1 or 2 instances of the TRUTH are buried on p3 or p4.

Yeah strongly disagree. It's been normalized but it's not ok for D politicians to show up for **** like this. Republicans are literally trying to kill poor people, sipping cocktails with Charles Koch is not acceptable.

It hasn't been "normalized," it was always normal for business and political elites from both side to go to the same parties. The change is in the propaganda used to mobilize voters, not in what the people making the propaganda actually believe.

The US has a very long history of ignoring Iraqis who helped them. It goes back to Bush and went through Obama.

If we call out right wing trolls for not citing, we must remain consistent and hold ourselves to the same standards.

Unless people here are nothing more than partisan hypocrites who only use that rule as an excuse to suppress dissenting views.

And shockingly Obama's policy was quite regressive. We accepted over a million Vietnamese refugees after that war. We evacuated tens of thousands who worked with us.

Again, dude, unless there is some law or part of the Constitution I'm not aware of regarding this (and this is possible, if so please point me in the right direction), this doesn't accurately describe what happened.

The GOP basically angleshot their way out of considering Obama's nominee, violating a bunch of norms and being total *******s but didn't do anything against any actual rules.

Meh, I see what you're saying but this voter fraud commission may quietly be the biggest deal of the Trump presidency thus far.

Most stuff this band of misfit douche bags can do can be undone when Democrats take back control but if they manage to **** with the voting to the degree that this can never happen, well...

It's a complete freeroll for them too. Even if 35 states reject their request, they (and foreign hackers) still make out like bandits.

EDIT: Man it's so creepy that I can't shake the feeling in my stomach whenever thinking about how the state Governors are being told to upload all of our personal data to a non-goverment unsecured domain. Might as well just email it directly to VPutin@comrade.net

Come on. If it's something not controversial that you can Google and find in five seconds that's silly.

http://pagesix.com/2017/07/03/steven...tical-company/

More disturbing than Schumer partying with the opposition to me is just the access that the super rich get. David Koch and George Soros were at this party. People will shout about there being no quid pro quo, but it's not in most people's interest to have our public servants getting seduced inside the astounding luxury of the billionaire class

How far would you push this point? If George H.W. Bush dies tomorrow, should Schumer refuse to attend unless he receives assurances that Mike Pence will not be in attendance?

Maybe that's too extreme because it's a funeral of an ex-President.

Chelsea Clinton is married already, but let's assume she wasn't. Would Schumer be obligated in your mind to decline a wedding invitation from her unless he received an assurance that Ivanka Trump would not be there?

The rich and powerful know the rich and powerful. It's a little gross, but it has been that way for several thousand years. FWIW, it's not obvious to me that we want to create a world where only GOP politicians have relationships with the billionaire class.

I also would note that there is a difference between being in the same room with someone and drinking alcohol, and "partying" with someone. I've been in the same room with Rudy Guiliani before, drinking alcohol, but it would be ridiculous to say that I "partied" with him. I've never spoken to him and have no desire to hang out with him socially.

If Chelsea and Ivanka are seriously hanging out together, then Dems should run away screaming from that scene like Japanese businessmen fleeing a kaiju.

Relationships is pretty vague. But, the existing relationship between the Dems and the billionaire class is probably a big part of why the Overton Window only goes so far. Dems can run away from David Koch as far as they want, but it's pretty hard for them to get further than George Soros. And while George may be a great guy in most ways he has interests which are quite out of alignment with 99.9999% of America. You can say it's not one or the other, but maybe the Democratic leaders could have a closer relationship with the Nurses Union instead. And, while not necessarily so, in practice it does seem like it's one or the other.

He has been a considerable force for good in a lot of ways, even if he has more of a vested interest in estate taxes than your average bricklayer.

Before the election, it certainly appears that they were friends. They probably still would be if either HRC or Trump had not run for president.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...-on-ice-220547