I'm going to wait for the audio version read by Hillary.

lmk if it's worth reading, I feel like I've already seen the juiciest stuff.

reflects more on you than it does him ldo

Its hard to take pieces seriously when they use phrases like "exploit low-wage labor".

Google search for the phrase.

Trumpkins are blissfully celebrating that WaPo’s Mark Berman is disputing that he even ate at a four seasons where Ivanka was eating, as claimed in Wollf’s book.

Apparently there have been a number of spelling errors already, and this just may be one of them.

https://www.politico.com/tipsheets/p...wallace-218573

There was a Mike Berman there. Not a Mark Berman. Someone please get this info to the author ASAP.

Yo Michael Davis did you think you were posting in the Corrupt Hillary thread? Cuz this ain't it.

Mike instead of Mark so the whole thing is fake is some unreal cult level stupidity.

About 1/4 in. Fully credible, obv. Most of the juicy bits are known to those who follow things. I.e., Trump is an idiot man child who knows nothing of politics, policy, management, or government. And neither does anyone he knows. Hell, even Bannon was a political noob, and people like Reince were just spineless and weak.

My biggest complaint is there is plenty of detail but not enough analysis, but that's a different kind of book.

Yes.

It may be ambiguous, but it's conceivable to say it fits with example 8, which would mean the vote counts. It's certainly not some random justification that the judges pulled out of their asses. It's a ballot that matches a very specific example published by the VA Board of Elections prior to this specific election, with the only possible point of contention being whether a single strikethrough line constitutes a "scratch out."

They don't need to. The question is whether the ballot fits a specific scenario. The judges decided it did. You can take that further and say it doesn't even matter if you agree with the decision. The question should be is it a reasonable interpretation (it is).

Maybe, but it's not real damn obvious. It could be the judges made an impartial decision based on the evidence.

I don't think they considered the scratched out vote for governor since that wasn't what was being recounted. If they did, it falls under a different rule anyway since only one candidate was marked in any way. But yes, according to the ballot examples I linked earlier it seems clear that a circle with a line through it can be counted as a yes for one race and a no for another.

Your "lets look at it this way" is circular reasoning. I assume you arrived at the 0% odds because you're convinced it was a partisan decision, so you can't use that as a reason why it must be a partisan decision without further evidence.

In fact, Trump’s aggrieved mood became a perfect match for the Bannon-written aggrieved inaugural address. Much of the sixteen-minute speech was part of Bannon’s daily joie de guerre patter—his take-back-the-country America-first, carnage-everywhere vision for the country. But it actually became darker and more forceful when filtered through Trump’s disappointment and delivered with his golf face. The administration purposely began on a tone of menace—a Bannon-driven message to the other side that the country was about to undergo profound change. Trump’s wounded feelings—his sense of being shunned and unloved on the very day he became president—helped send that message. When he came off the podium after delivering his address, he kept repeating, “Nobody will forget this speech.” George W. Bush, on the dais, supplied what seemed likely to become the historic footnote to the Trump address: “That’s some weird ****.”

Did not realize Bannon and not Miller wrote the speech.

Whitefish? Yeah, how dare Hillary spend taxpayer money like th- oh wait

Great analogy dude, nailed it

Stopping you here. No, he didn't, he said it's not a crime, and that's why I called out your Whitefish response as ridiculous.

Okay, I see that.

"Bannon meant his EO to strip away the liberal conceits on an already illiberal process. Rather than seeking to accomplish his goals with the least amount of upset—keeping liberal fig leaves in place—he sought the most.
....
The EO would be drafted to remorselessly express the administration’s (or Bannon’s) pitiless view. The problem was, Bannon really didn’t know how to do this—change rules and laws. This limitation, Bannon understood, might easily be used to thwart them. Process was their enemy. But just doing it—the hell with how—and doing it immediately, could be a powerful countermeasure.

Just doing things became a Bannon principle, the sweeping antidote to bureaucratic and establishment ennui and resistance. It was the chaos of just doing things that actually got things done. Except, even if you assumed that not knowing how to do things didn’t much matter if you just did them, it was still not clear who was going to do what you wanted to do. Or, a corollary, because nobody in the Trump administration really knew how to do anything, it was therefore not clear what anyone did.

Sean Spicer, whose job was literally to explain what people did and why, often simply could not—because nobody really had a job, because nobody could do a job.

Priebus, as chief of staff, had to organize meetings, schedules, and the hiring of staff; he also had to oversee the individual functions of the executive office departments.

But Bannon, Kushner, Conway, and the president’s daughter actually had no specific responsibilities—they could make it up as they went along. They did what they wanted. They would seize the day if they could—even if they really didn’t know how to do what they wanted to do.

Bannon, for instance, even driven by his imperative just to get things done, did not use a computer. How did he do anything? Katie Walsh wondered.

But that was the difference between big visions and small. Process was bunk. Expertise was the last refuge of liberals, ever defeated by the big picture. The will to get big things done was how big things got done. “Don’t sweat the small stuff” was a pretty good gist of Donald Trump’s—and Steve Bannon’s—worldview. “Chaos was Steve’s strategy,” said Walsh."

There are 26 open or republican house seats up in states that have legalized recreational marijuana.

There are 93 open or republican house seats up in states that have legalized medical marijuana.

There is 1 open Senate seat (NV) in a state with legalized recreational marijuana, and one open Senate seat (AZ) in a state with legalized medical marijuana.

unfortunately, norml doesn't have enough money for that

This reminds me of Umberto Eco's third principle of fascism:

The idea that you can bulldoze through things with sheer force of will and that sober consideration is for pussies and losers is a pretty good summary of Trumpism.

Add in the no one knew what to do because no one knew what job they had and you have my high school science project.

I don't think you've seen Republicans in action for the last 20 years. Consistency and avoidance of hypocrisy doesn't really enter the picture.

Open or Republican in this context means its either held by a republican or the person who holds the seat is retiring?

I'm really high and can't figure this out lol.

435 seats in the house total, probably half are republican rn so like 200+(R), then 93 is like half of those so probably that's just all the republican house members in states with legal weed that come up for election every 2 years with the rest of the house

*i'm also high rn

oh im sorry did he dress up like a pimp or take on a fake name and tell them he intended to do anything other than write a book? no? then i guess you should stfu with this bull**** false equivalency "gotcha" because i used a small amount of hyperbole in my post

Michael Davis coming up to his 10,00th post.
Hope it's epic.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...16329463615489
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...18475877765120
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...19270631256064