Interesting video. And very logical.

Thanks for posting,

Pretty remarkable statement. And guess who benefits the most.

Merkel: Europe 'can no longer rely on allies' after Trump and Brexit - BBC News

Not really remarkable - honest but not remarkable, England is flaky as shit at the moment ... the conservatives aren't playing ball at all for a reasonable exit from the EU and Trump is bending in the breeze according to the last person he talks to.

The opinion of the US in Europe/UK isn't particularly high presently and I don't think either would count the US as a reliable ally.

If this was a Crusader Kings dynasty, Trump taking office is comparable to when your ruler dies and next in line is the hunchback bastard son with zero prestige and all negative traits.

Leaving this here without comment. A senior administration official to reporters on Air Force One: pic.twitter.com/SDlUvQBMmQ

— Philip Crowther (@PhilipinDC) May 28, 2017

The books that are going to come out of the White House will be incredible.

wow, someone's been drinking the Kool-aid

I suspect this is one of the numerous bullshit artists Trump has on at hand at all times.

I think it's tough to go by these numbers because the definition of the words change so much. A conservative of 10 years ago is almost the opposite of conservative today. Today's conservatives are anti-free trade, have done a 180 on a lot of family values, and have changed their tune when it comes to foreign policy (anti-NATO, pro-Russian).

But the numbers haven't changed much. Party ID has a lot of movement, but ideology is pretty stable going back decades. Quite a bit more people consider themselves conservative rather than liberal, and generally conservative is more popular than moderate.

That's been the story of the country since WW2. The idea that liberals significantly outnumber conservatives at a national level has no supporting evidence.

I agree with Rainmaker on this. It has to do with what people think of the labels. More people ID as Democrat than Republicans, which is the opposite of conservative/liberal. That alone shows the flaw.

:lol:

From AP:


I'm so old I remember when unsecured communications was disqualifying.

Anybody want some covfefe? Or does one covfefe lead to another?

I'm not a Trump supporter and do think this crossed the line. I hope she gets hammered for this.

So, Here's Kathy Griffin Holding A Very Fake, Very Bloody Donald Trump Head (UPDATE) | HuffPost

Is there seriously no one in the administration who can address the Tweet, take it down, etc.?

Yep, even as someone who thinks Trump is pretty much the worst and most dangerous person alive I think that picture is way out of line.

I haven't been able to covfefe for the life of me.

Ironically, I agreed to become a contributor at https://eatprayvote.org just yesterday. Last night I had trouble sleeping, woke up and saw that foolishness, and ended up having my first article published there overnight. *shurg*

https://eatprayvote.org/2017/05/31/w...e-white-house/

Desperate plea for attention. Sad.

Edit: In reference to Griffin. Not Ben. ;)

To be the #covfefe, you gotta beat the #covfefe - WOOOOO! pic.twitter.com/8KtxSvNL2b

— Ric Flair® (@RicFlairNatrBoy) May 31, 2017

I assume covfefe was a draft that he inadvertently sent, and Trump being Trump, didn't even notice.

That said, what sort of maniac feels the need to prep a draft of an already idiotic tweet?

I am assuming he was in bed and fell asleep with his finger near enough to the screen to send it. That has happened to me on social media at night.

Low energy tweeter.

"Listen to this. Marcy comes over and she tells me that her ex-boyfriend was over late last night and '#covfefe I'm really tired today.'"

I feel like the "pulling out" of the Paris Climate accord is just waiting for the right joke to mask the horror.

Of course Trump always intended to do that, but he had to run home to his safe space like a little baby to announce it rather than discuss it with the other world leaders last week and make his stand there.

Exactly. He didn't have the balls to do so when he was outnumbered 6 to 1.

It's easy for people that won't be around for the impact of climate change to call it a hoax and pad their pockets while pushing the problem off to the next generation. That's the American way.

This ends the Javanka as a moderating force right? They were supposedly the ones pushing to remain in, no?

Maybe the other gits simply weren't worth the energy to argue with.

We are, after all, talking about some folks too f'n stupid to even attempt to protect their own country (yes Merkel, I'm looking at you). I don't know that I'd have even bothered to make the trip frankly.

This is coming from the same guy who, just a few days ago, tried to call out other nations for not holding up their end of an international agreement. No wonder he ran home to his safe space to announce it.

But were we really ever in the Paris Agreement? I don't remember anything ever being approved by the senate.

Obama entered into it as an executive agreement. Which was a bit controversial at the time, but there was a precedent for distinguishing treaties from "international agreements and international arrangements," and this was the latter.

Edit: Sorry, I let my anger get the best of me.

I just wish I could get answers to the following:

How does eliminating abortion help the country?
How does failing to adapt to new and cleaner energy technology help the country?
How does joining Syria against the Paris agreement help the country?
How does corporate welfare help the country?
How does a bad health care plan help the country?
How does privatizing the internet help anyone?
How does anyone still think Trump is worthy of the presidency?

Why are prisons run for profit?
Why are hospitals for that matter?
Why is education getting cut?

How many crazy pills have I taken?

Nearly every one of those could be answered by saying "it helps corporate bottom lines" abortion being the exception.

At some point people have to realize that the Republican party as it currently stands isn't for people with household incomes under $250k right?

We pull in north of that (albeit in SF) and still think the overwhelming majority of this country is too stupid, fat and scared to question the actions of anyone on their political team.

There aren't lines being drawn based on income. The lines are being drawn because of race, religion, and capitalism.

Even North Korea signed the deal.

Well they do a good job at turning their lights off at night

1) How does eliminating abortion help the country?
It doesn't, afaic. That ain't my cause.

2) How does failing to adapt to new and cleaner energy technology help the country?
Adapting is fine if that's the consumer's choice

3) How does joining Syria against the Paris agreement help the country?
It frees the nation from the largely meaningless agreement (remember, it's non-binding) over the hysterical bullshit of man-made climate change.

4) How does corporate welfare help the country?
I'm not a fan(aside from industry vital to the common defense) generally speaking. I'm not much help here I'm afraid.

5)How does a bad health care plan help the country?
Government should be getting its inept fingers [i] out of the market, not deeper into it. The lackluster changes to Obamacare fell far far FAR short of being what was needed.

6) How does privatizing the internet help anyone?
This one is tricky. Generally speaking business should be left free of government interference. And there is no such thing as a "right" to the internet.

7)How does anyone still think Trump is worthy of the presidency?
Because even if he's right 1 time out of 50 that's still a significant improvement over the Godforsaken p.o.s. that tried his best to destroy the nation for the last 8 years. I'd prefer ISIS over a (D) in office, they have more credibility & are right more often, so Trump looks like the greatest jewel in recent memory by comparison

8) Why are prisons run for profit?
If it saves taxpayers money, why not?

9) Why are hospitals for that matter?
Why wouldn't they be? Sure as hell not interested in having them run by the government.

10) Why is education getting cut?
Because it's the most overspent & underproducing entity in a lot of places. The education cabal ranks below autoworkers unions with me for credibility.

11) How many crazy pills have I taken?
2/3rds.

The problem with eliminating net neutrality is that ISPs have a monopoly in most parts of the country. If I had a choice in 10 different ISPs, I'm fine with dumping net neutrality.

And if ISPs want no government regulations in their service, they should give back the billions they took in taxpayer funds to build out fiber and broadband throughout the country. That seems like a fair deal. Kind of hypocritical to beg for handouts over the last few decades and then cry that the government is involved in your business.


I actually kind of agree on this point. There is this myth we don't fund education when in fact we do much more than most countries. At some point just throwing money at something doesn't magically improve it. Then again I feel the education issues in this country stem much more from bad parenting than how much money is in the classroom.

The weird thing with net neutrality being abolished is I think it would hurt right-wing sites more than left-wing sites. The left is much better at crying and pretending to be offended by things. They are much better at using that faux-outrage to shut things down and get people fired. I think they'd be much better at getting sites banned from a particular ISP than the right would be.

That's not really the issue with net neutrality. It's that large corporations will be able to pay Providers to offer their content at high speed while startups and other smaller companies will not and thus will be snuffed out.

Look no further than NetFlix, who is was an ardent and vocal supporter of Net Neutrality the last go around.
Netflix CEO says net neutrality is ‘not our primary battle’ - The Verge

From the CEO:


Just another obstacle in the way of the "american dream" that enemies of net neutrality claim they hold so dear.

Oh I know it's terrible for that reason too. I just think people overlook the fact that ISPs can start blocking sites they deem to be hateful. Just like Twitter, Facebook, etc ban accounts based on complaints.

The problem here is taxpayer money went into to building key parts of the infrastructure used by ISPs for the internet and those same ISPs claim to those parts of our infrastructure is keeping competition out of their areas.

The government helped ISPs create the regional monopolies we see today so the least they could do is protect the people at the mercy of those companies.

And I'd argue that within 10 years either the internet is considered a right to American citizens or we're going to be miles other countries from a technological standpoint.



There isn't concrete data either way is the problem.

Lets just hope wireless technology comes along like it's supposed to. If 5G does what some people think it can, most of us can throw Comcast/Time Warner away and never look back.

So, the question is loaded, but I'll be damned if that chicken doesn't need a shower.

Would definitely be better to have an ISIS leader in office, who would go on to implement Sharia law and behead all non-Muslims in the country rather than a dirty, stinking democrat. Good to see Jon is above simple partisan politics.

At least ISIS is honest about their intentions to destroy society and/or nations.
Democrats simply lie about it (or are delusional, which isn't exactly an upgrade).

Oh goody, more free shit.

I'm holding out for the unicorn.

I wouldn't argue free, but the government should put an end to regional monopolies and allow actual competition.

ISPs shouldn't get free market protections when there isn't a free market to begin with.