We haven't really touched on the Lesley Stahl's news where she said Trump during the campaign told her off-camera that he was trying to discredit journalists so the American people would stop believing their stories about him. I think that may have been what sparked Wallace to give her disclaimer.



I think now the mainstream media has to go full on attack with him and anyone representing his adminstration. Stop covering his tweets as breaking news and not have any one representing the communications staff on their network anymore. Dems need to stop hesitating about going after Trump in the midterms and go full-bore on him and any R running for re-election.



Lesley Stahl says Donald Trump admitted attacking press to "discredit" media coverage of "negative stories" - CBS News

Yeah they have really been hands off the last year or so.

Looks like some Christian leaders are coming to their senses about Trump:


Christian leaders call out the 'theological heresy' of Trumpism - The Washington Post

Not everything is about practicality. I mean, isn't this the internet equivalent of going to a proposed open discussion forum but have your mouth taped over at the entrance ? Why should a user renounce access to all of twitters functions interacting with his tweets just to gain access to the content ? Now i am not much of a twitter user myself, but i would guess you miss out on functions even aside from posting (like notifications maybe ?).

You aren't able to read any tweets he might send that are replies to someone else.

BREAKING: Trump cancels June 12 summit with North Korea's Kim, citing 'tremendous anger and open hostility' in recent statement.

— The Associated Press (@AP) May 24, 2018

Has he sent any replies since he became President? (Serious question. I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't.)

Oh well, sorry to see the summit collapse. I don't think the Libya reference helped.

I would say that I hope this paves way for alot of lower level discussions before another summit (e.g. later in the year?) but then it just becomes a delay tactic until NK gets to the next milestone (e.g. I think re-entry).

Shocking! Guess world problems aren't that easy after all.

At least he wrote a nice letter:


https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/24/polit...-un/index.html

Pence is a fucking idiot, maybe next time check your VP. Did they really expect a reference to a government that was overthrown and ended in a brutal death to instill confidence in the North?

This is why Trump shouldn't have made such a big deal about the summit in the first place as this has been North Korea's M.O. throughout their history.

This is why having competent advisors, diplomats, cabinet members, State Department officials, etc is important. Of course, that would require a competent president.

Anyone want to buy a shipment of coins?

I'm glad he took a chance at it.

TBH, I think crazy kid has come out better than Trump in the region, he has managed to divide us more from SK ... which is fine, because SK is wealthy and mature enough to do their own self-defense with the US supporting from afar.

My guess is the hawks will ramp up the rhetoric again.

This is why you don't plan a summit before most of the details have been worked out for the agreement. There was never any chance for a good agreement because Trump doesn't know enough to negotiate the details.

There is some value to outsiders. There's an argument that someone like President Trump might have been able to do something big like unite North and South Korea because he did not grow up in the groupthink of "it can't be done."

The problem is the outsiders also lack the experience and skill that comes with being an insider.

The best solution is probably having an insider with lots of outsider advisers or an outsider with lots of highly-competent insider advisers.

You don't say.

Also, the only crazy one is currently in a big white building in the US. The "crazy kid" isn't half as whacky as the guy sitting on the biggest arsenal of nuclear weapons.

If Trump was ruler of NK, the US would have (had to have) bombed them into the stone age by now in actual self defense.

Perhaps Trump could have been the one to say, "Get this done," but the summit was to be the negotiations and Trump can't do that. He knows nothing about the details and by all accounts isn't willing to even be briefed on the details. There was never any chance this summit would be more than a TV stunt.

Trying is fine, but do it privately and don't make a spectacle of it. He should know that North Korea has done this before and has no problem making him look like a fool and going back to their old ways. Use caution and set parameters that they have to meet ahead of time.

Now he's left holding the bag and the world is laughing at him, and us...again.

Anyone who has followed history knows this is what NK does. Act nice for awhile, signal they want to talk, then back out.

This situation allowed the easing of sanctions from China and put a rift between the US and SK.

From 18 years ago when a bunch of idiots fell for the same crap too:

You can. I think Twitter was kind of a silly medium here to use but I think the ruling has been consistent with previous ones.

I can easily ask my neighbor if they received a public notice if the Mayor doesn't like me and doesn't send me out those notices. But I shouldn't have to. Judge found that he could get the same benefit from muting people on Twitter.

How is any of this even NKs "fault" in this particular case ? Unless i missed something, Trump and co were the ones constantly misinterpreting things and using a language of "open hostility". Shouldn't the one holding the cards (presumably the US) be expected to use some common sense and restraint, rather than lobbing thinly veiled threats like Pence just did ? I just don't get how you can prepare for a first summit, normally just meant to gauge the temperature, by essentially saying it will be an "either you bow down and do whatever the fuck we want or we will stomp you" thing ? And then expect the other party to happily go along ?

And this sort of bullying seems to be the extent of Trump's foreign policy so far.

Just LOL

18 lawmakers nominate President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize pic.twitter.com/2ZfA6jONLc

— FOX & friends (@foxandfriends) May 3, 2018

Yep, part of what made Reagan's administration what it was, he was a Washington outsider, but he had insiders he could fall back on.

Eh, I personally don't think Obama deserved his either.

Me either.

Right, but as has been pointed out everyone can still see it. In this way it is a more open-to-everyone form of communication than the SOTU speech, or a press conference, or a nationwide primetime televised address. In all those cases there is a middleman where you need to rely on the reporting or broadcasting of others(twitter could be considered that as well, but they are going to put whatever he writes up there, as opposed to the fact that the networks have on occasion not broadcast presidential addresses). Not everyone can be at the other types of things(i.e, inauguration etc.) in person.

There are a great many negative things that can, have, and should continue to be said about how Trump uses twitter. There's enough material there to impeach him several times over IMO. But at the same time it would seem self-evident that him using twitter makes his pronunciations more accessible to the masses, not less.


I understand what you are saying here, but I think it's beside the point and these comparisons don't really fly. Trump's tweets aren't really comparable to a town hall, they are more 'press release' territory because he doesn't(unless I've missed something) go on there and interact with the public or do it to get feedback from constituents. He's just going there and making pronouncements, often profoundly idiotic ones at their best but still that's what they are. In the second, none of his tweets constitute official governmental action; he's still got to issue an executive order or staff out to someone to make the required machinery get in motion -- all of those other channels still have to happen.

China should hold a conference in Singapore with the Koreas without us. It's their region now anyway.

It is kind of crazy that Europe is starting to side with Russia while Asia is starting to side with China. Pretty big hit the global standing of the U.S. as well as it's national security.

Of course it's not a practical problem to log out right now, but should that be the point here ? And if one wants to talk practicality: What if in a year Twitter goes the way of Facebook or Instagram and restricts what you can see when logging out and/or when not being a follower ?


But in none of those other mediums (media ? :confused: ) any person can be forced to renounce his access to full functionality. One might not have a TV or access to a newspaper, true. But nobody is being refused access, i.e. turning on the TV and getting a test screen because he's "blocked" and being forced to watch on a TV that is not connected to him personally. I know the analogy is forced because of the difference in technology, but still ;)

And like said before, logging out robs you of the possibility to interact with the posts (like not being able to retweet it) and by being blocked you don't get notified (i think) of new content either.

Of course it is not fundamentally a bad thing to use Twitter and the public does not have an inherent right to get that information (or "information", depending), but: Once he, as a public servant, decides to grant it, can you really argue he should decide to whome he grants it ?

Just because it gives access to more people in no way somehow makes it ok to restrict access to others, if it is used to broadcast official statements made as president. (like the ruling argues and others here find consistent with other areas of puclic service)

Not looking good for Roger Stone.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/roger-s...how-1527191428

But he said he never had contact with Assange? :::wide-eyed:::

Obama didn't think so either. What's your point? This was stupid.

I wasn't just sure, I was HPV positive this is how the NK thing would play out.

"Europe" siding with Russia?
Public opinion here (in the Netherlands) is that Trump's idiocy is alienating the European Union as an ally, but the Russians are acting like they want to be to war against us (it seems that the Russian army shot down a civilian airplane in 2016, but they keep denying it was them). China sounds like the better option, until you realize how it just got more communistic than it already was.

Sigh...

New poll from Germany: 14% of Germans consider the United States to be a reliable partner. In comparison, 36% of Germans think Russia is a reliable partner. Tough to overstate how bad this is. pic.twitter.com/zvZpz4CI4d

— Marcel Dirsus (@marceldirsus) May 18, 2018

The point was ... I'm sure they think a precedence was set by the Nobel committee e.g. if Obama can get one, why not Trump. Obama got his for the potential/direction of his good work etc.

That's Germany, not "Europe".

To add, Russia isn't really finishing 1st here, 58% not trusting Russia isn't something to be proud of either. As far as I know, Germany doesn't have a long-standing love relationship with the USA, unlike some other countries in Europe do or did.

Neither did he.

I'd be amazed if the UK has a rate higher than that at present - everyone I know from England presently thinks Trump is an idiot and a dangerous one at that.

He may get to share a cell with Julian Assange and he can find out at last what was in the Clinton emails:


https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/24/polit...m_source=twCNN

"Related article: A GOP congressman's lonely quest defending Julian Assange"

Of COURSE it's Rohrbacher.

Germany is an incredibly important ally from a national security standpoint.

You owe me a new work computer, thanks to all the coffee I spit on it laughing at your comment. :)

This is why you don't make freakin' coins for freakin' summits!

I would have guessed him in one guess.

Page 200 guys! Celebrate ?!?

John McCain’s shocking concession on the Iraq War: it was a “mistake�

At least he can admit to it.

So Randy Credico, Julian Assange's "contact" here in the US was on Ari Melber's show tonight and says Assange now wants to talk to Adam Schiff's committee. Adam Schiff says he'll be glad to have Assange do that...when he's in US custody. Wouldn't trust one thing out of Credico's mouth, but looking more and more likely Ecuador is going to kick Assange out of their Embassy, so I guess he's going to need a new place to live...



TheBeat w/Ari Melber‏Verified account @TheBeatWithAri 2h2 hours ago

Randy Credico tells @AriMelber why Julian Assange wants to meet with Rep. Adam Schiff "He's ready to show that there is no collusion"

Speaking of Rohrbacher, no its not ok to not sell your house to a gay couple if your morals/religion are against it:


Rohrabacher Says It’s OK to Not Sell Homes to Gay People

Interesting. I never really thought about it but my initial reaction is I'm actually okay with a "homeowner" not wanting to sell his/her house to anyone they don't like.

I don't think Rohrabacher was saying realtors should discriminate, I think he was saying the private homeowner has a right to discriminate?

Also, there shouldn't be a price difference based on whatever, that would be bad.

I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

Rohrabacher Says It’s OK to Not Sell Homes to Gay People

California has a state law that prevents discrimination in home sales, including in a FSBO context. Sexual orientation is a protected class under that law.

We are now debating the pros and cons of housing discrimination?

Okay.

And a violation of part of the Civil Rights act-the Fair Housing Act:


The Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968) introduced meaningful federal enforcement mechanisms. It outlaws: Refusal to sell or rent a dwelling to any person because of race, color, disability, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

Even if we didn't look at his other views, we can see in this very article you linked where he said that he's opposed to letting homeowners refuse to sell on the basis of race, but he's okay with them doing on the basis of sexual orientation. So it's not about the right to sell to whoever you want, because he's already agreed that you shouldn't be able to do that.

But then we only need to look at his voting record and past statements to see he's against gays in the military, gay marriage, and gay adoption.

I'm not a realtor and don't claim to understand the nuances of the law. Is it true that sexual preference is only protected in 14 states and it is "legal" to discriminate in the other 36?

https://www.justia.com/real-estate/d...iscrimination/

I don't understand why this is even a conversation. Sell your home to whoever will buy it. Doesn't make any sense.

I think it's time for the Donald Trump method of news and blame commentary.



Let's start with the 23rd school shooting this year.


"Donald Trump is directly responsible for not keeping our children safe! He's out getting paid by Russians when he should be in schools shielding our children from bullets! EASY TO DO!"

Weird thing is Rohrabacher is a closeted gay man. It's like one of the worst kept secrets in OC. He married his campaign manager awhile back when rumors were at it's peak (this was around the time Mark Foley was caught).

At this point I just assume anyone over the top anti-homosexuals is actually gay themselves.

Its not the selling to whoever will buy it that is the problem/question.

Its not selling it to who you don't want to sell it to.

Is that discriminatory (yes) but is it legal to be discriminatory when you are selling your house yourself.

Apparently, from what I've been able to gather, you cannot be discriminatory based on "race, religion, national origin, sex, family status or disability" but "age, marital status or sexual orientation" is not always protected.

Sexuality is not a protected class under the U.S. constitution. The Obama administration interpreted various civil rights legislation as covering sexuality under existing provisions prohibiting discrimination by "sex", but, presumably that hasn't continued under the current administration. So ya, in my state, you can fire people for being gay, refuse to sell to a gay person, whatever. Every year there's an "add the words" legislative push (to add sexual preference, sexual identity, etc) to the state's discrimination statute, but it hasn't passed yet. The City of Boise has passed such an ordinance, but, that's really more a matter of policy because obviously they can't conflict with state law, and, it's unclear who exactly can be prosecuted/sued under it.

So Trump tweeting out an attack on the New York Times about using "phony sources" in an article about the summit with North Korea. The problem? the source was a member of the White House Staff giving a normal background briefing to reporters. Several reporters were there and there's audio of the "phony source" giving the briefing:


Trump slaps 'phony' label on aide's comments in White House-arranged call - POLITICO

Or it means that, as with many laws and statutes in the US and elsewhere, people/lawmakers haven't bothered to update stuff that is outdated, often by centuries.

If you publicly put a price tag on something, you should not be allowed to refuse to sell it on any grounds other than "does not provide payment".

I think the problem right now is the press and Dems are reacting to Trump and not being proactive. Can't blame the press but I don't see the Dems doing anything other than -- hope and pray Mueller comes out with something incriminating "enough" and pray/assume they will win back the House.

The former likely won't happen as the public has been desensitized and the GOP seems to be sticking with Trump. Unless there is literally a smoking gun, Mueller's report won't do much. The latter is not a sure thing at all. Nothing seems to be sticking ... where is the Stormy Daniels story now? So what about Cohen? Where are all the other countless stories about Trump? Did any of them make a difference?

None that I've seen (or not yet), there's too many of them.

I think the Dems need to fight dirty, be petty, sarcastic, lie etc. like Trump and make him react to them. I would love if the Dems came up with some "phrases/names" to describe Trump, consistently use it, and rally their base. Doesn't need to be the truth, just needs to egg him on like he does to Dems.

Something like "husband of cuckold Melania" (you get the idea, get down to his level), dig up some dirt on him like his tax return (hire someone to hack into Trump international), find out if Melania cheated on him (likely I would think) etc. Something that will make him furious vs same old stuff.

With that all said ... I do like some of Trump's foreign policy and support immigration reform (and the Wall). I do like the Tax reform he passed.

However, I would love to see him replaced in 2020. One thing for sure, it will never be politics as usual. Trump presidency and the precedence's set will reverberate for the rest of my lifetime.

Ivanka is going to campaign for Devin Nunes next month. I'm sure that will help

Specifically about real estate, don't disagree about outdated laws and statutes. But they are what they are, it does seem that I can legally discriminate to a certain degree in approx 36 states. I think I tend to lean towards individual right to do or not do something. It may be my loss for not closing the deal but its my property and my individual choice.

Your statement about publicly putting a price tag on "something" (e.g. let's say other than real estate) and have to sell it doesn't resonate with me.

Using an admittedly extreme example, I would not do a private sale of my pistol/rifle to someone I don't have a good feel for (e.g. does he look angry at the moment, does he look like a meth head etc.)

Hmmm, I think consistently and frequently using "Melania the cuckold" or "Lusting after Ivanka" will get the reaction.

Trump's base of 36-42% will stick with him and the Dem's will never win them over. Some of Dem's base will be disgusted with the tactic but I think most will understand and besides, what alternative do they have if they want to get rid of Trump.

The gays moved into the neighborhood and trashed the property values said no sane person ever

Dems have been focusing on the local races and primaries. Not much they can do on a national stage because they don't control anything. They're out there fighting and clawing, but TRUMP dominates everything right now. Even dominates the Repubs as well.

I'm not sure getting down in the mud with Trump really solves anything. While his base sticks with him...his base is only 36-42% of the country. Leaves a lot of people out there that aren't his base. Basically means that you win by getting people out to vote that don't like Trump.

Dems have been doing great in the special elections and, while I agree that the House isn't a sure thing, if they continue to push locally and get people out to vote, I think they'll take it. Senate is a different animal just because of the map this year, but you never know. Main thing is taking back the House and getting back in the picture.

2020 is a ways away so there's no need to go at Trump yet. He's got his hands full anyway and continues to dig his own grave. Let him do it, get a good, solid candidate to run against Trump, somebody that isn't full of drama and take back control.

You honestly don't get the point or how discrimination has nothing to do with your counter-example ? OK, then.

SpyGate. Lol. Just keep saying it over and over again Rudy. That will definitely make it true.

I just can’t fathom how people do this. It doesn’t matter who you sell it to. Cash is cash whether it comes from homosexual or heterosexual people.

I guess that's how miscommunications occur when people use absolutes in their statements. I'll try to read between the lines to determine intent next time.

I think I agree with you in the context of sexual preference and "cash", and thank you for not using an all encompassing absolute statement.

However, there are examples of other situations that some people may say should not discriminate which I think are okay.

e.g. If a Catholic church does not want to "marry" a homosexual couple, I think that is okay. The key problem is civil unions are not equivalent to marriage (e.g. taxes, benefits etc.) but that is a different problem, it is not the Catholic church's issue IMO

(Or are you saying all forms of discrimination should not happen at all?)

Happy Memorial Day! Those who died for our great country would be very happy and proud at how well our country is doing today. Best economy in decades, lowest unemployment numbers for Blacks and Hispanics EVER (& women in 18years), rebuilding our Military and so much more. Nice!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 28, 2018

yuck

Nice!

Ideally, there should be no discrimination. This turns into a crazy gray area quickly in all cases if you break it down.

I can understand a religious organization not wanting to perform a homosexual marriage because it is against their beliefs. However, not too long ago people weren't tolerating of interracial marriages at all. I wasn't alive at the time when this was a major issue but I could see this same type of thing happening to them. This argument gets further complicated because there are people who argue that homosexuality is a choice, mostly those who oppose it, while those who are homosexual mostly feel it is innate. So now you are "discriminating" against someone who believes it is something that they were born with. That can be viewed as discrimination and everything turns into a gray area quickly.

However, I think that on a business side there should be no discrimination. A great example of this was the bakery in Colorado who got sued for not making a cake for a homosexual couple. They went through so much trouble trying to make a stand and they honestly should have just made the cake and let it be over.

So I don't understand denying people service based on your religious views when you are a public business. It doesn't make sense to me at all.

So all about him no matter what day or occasion. Got it. Love how much grief the people are giving him in the comments for it.

And then he followed that up with three quotes from Johnathan Turley criticizing Obama and Sally Yates.

If you wonder why ZTE is no longer a threat to national security.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/28/b...rademarks.html

It's cute how they label it as a coincidence.

Greitens (Missouri governor) and Roseanne gone on the same day.

Just leaving this here for when Trump makes her a liar at some point in the next 24 hours. Because we all know how focused he remains at all times on the important things in this country. (And to be fair, the media should have many more important questions to ask than this as well)

Prosecutors in the Michael Cohen case will get over 1 million items to use in their case (so far) after the Special Master in the case ruled 200+ items only as privileged or personal.



Cohen Prosecutors to Get Seized Phone Data by Wednesday - Bloomberg


And if you scroll down after that article there's another article about Paul Manafort losing another court battle-this time over wanting to see redacted affidavits.

Michael Avenatti is at it again. He's revealed how the Wall Street Journal (owned by Murdoch) sat on the story about Trump's mistresses for 16 months and is using the same informant-Keith Davidson, Stormy Daniels first lawyer to smear him:


http://www.businessinsider.com/micha...s-trump-2018-5

TMZ also now caught up in trying to protect Trump too:


Attention Required! | Cloudflare

I'm sure Avenatti isn't all clean but I'm rooting for him. Unfortunately, Melania seems to have somewhat "forgiven" Trump about Stormy so don't really see much impact overall other than embarrassment.

Well maybe maybe not. There's rumors on twitter tonight started by Tom Arnold of all people (and for real the host of a new show called The Hunt for The Trump tapes on Viceland) has seen the infamous Trump Tower elevator tape that TMZ covered up, and it involves Trump punching Melania. Not verified but wow if that tape exists.


Edit: well maybe not Melania from what I'm reading now. And Arnold may have the tape.

Husband of the cuckold Melania just doesn't seem to be the punchy type IMO.

Now I can believe he gets others to do the dirty work.

Trey Gowdy, one of those Republicans who got that meeting with the FBI now says that the FBI use of an informant was appropriate.



Attention Required! | Cloudflare


Take that Devin Nunes!

So the President just tweeted that he'd wished he'd hired someone else as Attorney General...

He's going to tweet himself to prison

What a drama queen. Fire him or shut up, you beta.

Grietens went out swinging. Blaming everyone else and taking no responsibility. Good riddance.

It is too bad Gowdy is leaving. He needs to be around. Ima fan of his. He doesnt go down political lines. He speaks how he sees it.

coughBENGHAZIcough

Is there anybody out there that actually likes Jeff Sessions?

Senate Republicans have told him they will fight anyone that he nominates if he fires Sessions. Hard to replace him if most Republicans and all Democrats are against the nomination.

Are we still believing that Republicans will deny the POTUS when the time comes to make the vote?

Some of them will I think-non members of the Freedom Caucus at least. I think too as the Mueller investigation drags along and more indictments come, more will begin to "see the light" about Trump.