Now that Donald Trump has Won


I see many people saying that this proves he can bleed. I’m not sure I agree. I’ve not seen anything that seems to show the remaining administration has lost any momentum or steam. Maybe my read is off. I mean, it shows their not invincible. That the most blatant of violations will cause heads to roll… if the public finds out. But that’s a pretty low bar for lost steam.


Can someone explain to me the anti-Ivanka Trump activism? Isn’t she the most liberal of his kids AND his favorite? Isn’t she responsible for pulling him leftward on issues? Shouldn’t she welcomed rather than attacked?


I speak only for myself not for anyone else.

That out of the way, fuck her. Left right or center she is still behaving immorally and illegally by running his business(es) while using the perks of being the daughter of the president (such as having secret service protection while conducting business in the name of the president’s businesses). Everyone else might not think the literally country sized, walking, talking, conflict of interest she embodies is a big deal, but I do.

If she wanted to have me be on her side, she could start by doing what the POTUS was too much of a shitlord to do and completely divest herself, and by extension him from all their business interests and hand over the remainder to a blind trust.


@hmtksteve In your continued quest to be a mild Trump apologist that is thinly veiled in a patronizing attempt to help liberals question their beliefs, I again implore you to use Google as your first tool to answer these sorts of questions.


She, and her entire family, is using the office of the Presidency to crassly make money.

I’m not interested in anything other than their impeachment, even if that means having to deal with a President Pence or Ryan.


Ivanka repeatedly defended her father’s actions, words, and deeds, and all of his lies. The Trump brand is built on discrimination and mistreatment of others, and she has profited off of it.

She continues to support her father, make money from being president, and use political officials to try and manipulate stores into continuing to sell her merchandise.

She is just another example of everything that is wrong with capitalism.

If she made her father more supportive of LGBT folks and left issues, she would not have stood by while he picked people like Pence and made the choices he did.

She can fall into the dumpster pile with the rest of them.


Let’s just assume that when anyone posts something here, and Steve replies by questioning a sub-point or small detail, that he’s just going to google the answer for himself instead. There’s no need for everyone to put in so much time and effort into reiterating every point.

Also, if he asks a question, let’s all assume he’s going to google the answer for himself first, and if he reports back with some results and has further questions, we’ll wait a day before answering, just to be sure he’s thought stuff through and corrected himself.

I think that will work.


Interesting thought: Trump is like an orange hitler, and Pence might be worse but Ryan, while definitely a republican may be the least stinky poo in the lot.

I base this on a story I should google about him really really really wanting not to become speaker. Also my general take that those that don’t seek power are most deserving of it.

Edit: I wrote the above before fact checking myself so I googled the phrase “paul ryan not wanting speaker” top result… britebart. I’m going to let my prior ignorance show as I don’t get better if I can’t look upon past mistakes.


From The Hard Times:

“It is nothing short of criminally deceiving when the commander-in-chief clearly says, ‘Science is made-up and numbers aren’t real,’ and all the American public hears is that exact statement, but, thanks to the illegitimate press, with an extremely fuzzy overdrive laid on top of it.” – Kellyanne Conway


Your when-I-remember betting odds update and additions, all odds are X:1 against unless otherwise noted.

Trump himself:

First term impeachment: Down from 5:1 against, to 2.5:1

First Term resignation: 4:1

First term conviction by the Senate: 5:1

Names a millitary base after himself: 13:1

Commissioning his own face to be added to Mt Rushmore: 101:1

Likeness added to the currency: 101:1

Declares bankruptcy or is declared bankrupt, forced or otherwise: 9:1

Won’t get a second term: 1.45:1

Foreign policy specials:

Withdraw from the UN: 8:1

Visit North Korea: 51:1

France Asks for the Statue of Liberty back: 101:1

Begins building the wall: 2.5:1

Sells Alaska back to the Russians: 67:1

Accidentally refers to Putin by his first name in a press conference or other public speech: 8:1

Domestic policy specials:

Bannon succeeds Trump in the next four years: 21:1

An American state declares independence: 101:1

Trump suspends the first amendment: 41:1, 20:1 for attempting without requiring success

Legalizing gambling during his first term: 21:1

Announces that aliens exist: 22:1

Opens area 51 to the public: 34:1


Investigation into interference in the US election continues, with the FBI launching three separate probes, including the DNC hack, and financial dealings between Trump associates/employees, Russian companies and Russian nationals.


That Swedish incident.


Send this dude to AA.




No, like, can we talk about how we are now at a place where a betting site has us at about a 25% chance of our president getting impeached?


The Trump administration has started to outright bar news outlets that have run stories negative to him from their press briefings while Spicer at the same time claims Trump is the most accessible president ever. WTF?


More news: Sessions met twice with the Russian ambassador during the Trump campaign, but claimed in his confirmation that he never met with any Russians. Possibly perjury.


Or the definition of perjury.


Looking at the specific questions he was asked, I think there’s enough wiggle room for Sessions to argue he wasn’t intentionally false or misleading, provided that he didn’t discuss campaign issues with Kislyak.


I tend to agree, but what’s interesting is that after being questioned about possible contacts with Russia during his confirmation hearing, Sessions was asked follow-up written questions by Senator Leahy of Vermont. Senator Leahy’s questions were even more specific, referring specifically to matters concerning the Trump campaign, but this was a second opportunity for Sessions to clarify his answers.

An additional wrinkle to all of this is that even if Sessions had forgotten during the actual hearing about his talks with the Russian Ambassador, or interpreted Leahy’s questions the way he did, it still doesn’t fully explain his answers.

All senators, including Sessions, have a calendar staff who record all meetings senators have. When Sessions was writing his answers to Leahy’s questions, his staff should have mentioned the two meetings to him after his testimony. It’s actually not that uncommon for congressional testimony to be supplemented after the hearing to clarify answers. That didn’t happen here, which looks pretty odd, since supplementing his testimony to disclose his two meetings with the Russian Ambassador would clearly be the safest and most transparent course for Sessions to have taken.

Finally, while not a smoking gun by any means, the Washington Post asked all 26 members of the 2016 Senate Armed Services Committee, and all of them, including the Chairman John McCain, said that they had no contact with the Russian Ambassador. The Washington Post pointed out that members of the Senate Armed Services Committee don’t frequently meet with ambassadors and usually meet with foreign military leaders. Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are the people who meet with foreign ambassadors.