Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

hill16bhoy

Gbear wrote: »

Haaaaannngggg on.

Labelling the Republican party as fasisct, or neo-fascist, or crypto-fascist, is not even remotely contentious anymore.

You have a party that is engaging in the same sort of gaslighting rhetoric and weaponised propaganda (albeit through more modern avenues) that we've seen throughout history to undermine public discourse, from what were or would go on to be dictatorial regimes, and they espouse the same romanticism of tradition and old forgotten ideas of ordered society, militarism, military-industrial policy, they use the same tactics of voter-suppression and intimidation, of promoting hate and division implicitly and then claiming ignorance and victimhood when they're blamed for radicalising violent murderers and thugs, they employ similar ethno-nationalist demagoguery to rile up the rank and file while they seem primarily interested in wholesale and unsubtle corruption to increase their power and wealth and diminish the strength of oversight.

I would class banning the Republicans from being called fascists when by any definition their behaviour has been fascist, as a form of gaslighting.

There's a common misconception that a regime cannot be fascist if it exists in what, at least nominally, is a "democracy". That belief is hilariously naive.

Putin, Duterte, Bolsonaro Orban and Erdogan are all facists, yet they exist in what are nominally "democracies".

It's the same in the US.

The nexus of the far right internationally and the way they are co-ordinating is frightening.

Steve Bannon is running an "academy" for aspiring fascist propagandists in Italy at the moment. He has fingers in every far right pie in Europe.

People need to wake the hell up as to what's happening. This is not the Tories or Fianna Fail we're dealing with here. This is a burgeoning and highly co-ordinated international movement to promote far right autocracy and authoritarianism, to whip up naked racial and religious hatred, to promote outright corruption, and to absolutely demolish the concept of objective truth.

That is fascism by any stretch of the imagination.

Christy42

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

rossie1977 wrote: »

Not relevant to discussion but economy was doing similar in November 2016 in terms of unemployment and Dow jones rise. Of course national debt and budget deficit has seen big increases since then..

Yes but Trump administration has continued to lower the unemployment rate and the Dow Jones has increased from 19,800 when Obama left office to 25,700 today.

There were a lot of predictions prior to Trump taking office that this would not be the case after two years. Paul Krugman predicted the stock market to collapse completely as soon as Trump took office in January 2017.

He and many others then predicted a crash within 12 months after the GOP tax bill was passed in December 2017.

I should point out that the stock market reached 25700 before Trump had done very much. Maybe they were going off Obama times (Obama increased it to 19,000 from below 10,000 BTW) or maybe they were baking in Ryan's tax breaks early.

The point is however is that the stock market has been treading water for over a year and yet the debt has continued to rise. The longer it stagnates the more evidence the initial boom Trump likes to take credit for was due to Obama. Overall he does not seem able to push the economy on. Indeed the uncertainty is largely blamed on him with stock markets doing well when he backs off tariffs (I.e. when he does nothing the market is happy) and lowering across the world whenever he makes a decision.

Will Trump congratulate the Dow for breaking 25,000 for the third time in 2020? It seems like a strong possibility. Certainly the predictions of a immediate tank or within a certain timeline were silly. Trump has removed protections against recessions but that won't cause the recession.

everlast75

Trump is a heathy man, but we are not allowed see a proper medical report.

Trump is a clever man, but we are not allowed see his school grades.

Trump is a rich man, but we're not allowed see his tax returns.

Trump is an innocent man, but we are not allowed see the Mueller report.

hill16bhoy

Christy42 wrote: »

I should point out that the stock market reached 25700 before Trump had done very much. Maybe they were going off Obama times (Obama increased it to 19,000 from below 10,000 BTW) or maybe they were baking in Ryan's tax breaks early.

The point is however is that the stock market has been treading water for over a year and yet the debt has continued to rise. The longer it stagnates the more evidence the initial boom Trump likes to take credit for was due to Obama. Overall he does not seem able to push the economy on. Indeed the uncertainty is largely blamed on him with stock markets doing well when he backs off tariffs (I.e. when he does nothing the market is happy) and lowering across the world whenever he makes a decision.

Will Trump congratulate the Dow for breaking 25,000 for the third time in 2020? It seems like a strong possibility. Certainly the predictions of a immediate tank or within a certain timeline were silly. Trump has removed protections against recessions but that won't cause the recession.

It appears to me that Trump's economic policies are basically nothing more than a repeat of the disastrous pro-cyclical policies that built up the bubble in the 2000s.

And instead of that deficit going into actual things that would benefit people like infrastructure (what happened to all his grandiose promises?) or other public spending, it's all gone on tax cuts, mainly corporate tax cuts - the very worst thing to do.

The longer and longer that bubble inflates, the worse will be the pop at the end of it.

Republican economic policy just forces history to keep repeating itself, both as farce and as tragedy.

peddlelies

FrostyJack wrote: »

MSNBC is left leaning, so say Trump did something wrong or stupid (a daily event) they will run with it as the top story. If Obama, Schumer or someone saves a cat from a tree they promote that. They don't make stuff up, and create false narratives. Just look at the coverage of Korea when comparing Trump and Obama, one is a traitor for even thinking about negotiating and the other is hero and a patriot for bending over for Kim. Tan suits, saluting with coffee, coming for you guns, reverse racisim etc. Obama never sat all day watching CNN and MSNBC and then created policy on what he was told either. Fox is even more on the nose than RT and that is saying something. Someone in the GOP comes up with a talking point and suddenly that is what is being pushed by Fox hosts, this not including the other tricks like putting Obama's picture up during a rapist segment by accident. Remember the Swedish massacre? I could go on all night, just watch Outfoxed documentary from a few years ago and you see how they operate.

CNN did the exact same thing yesterday after Pelosi had a press conference about healthcare. Each one of their shows 9am,10am,11am,12pm,1pm,2pm,3pm,4pm ( probably all? The research I looked at only went up to 4pm ) were Pelosi healthcare talking points. Granted the only thing I'll watch on Fox is tucker occasionally.

Which networks promoted a sleeze like Avenatti as a credible Presidential candidate giving him air time hundreds of times? Which networks employed former Intel chiefs like Clapper and Brennan? Which networks spent two years daily talking about Russia?

On the topic of Fox and MSNBC being so radically differently, your post history says differently. You might want to stick to the same script if you're looking for credibility.

FrostyJack

peddlelies wrote:

CNN did the exact same thing yesterday after Pelosi had a press conference about healthcare. Each one of their shows 9am,10am,11am,12pm,1pm,2pm,3pm,4pm ( probably all? The research I looked at only went up to 4pm ) were Pelosi healthcare talking points. Granted the only thing I'll watch on Fox is tucker occasionally.

CNN are left leaning, I never said otherwise. And you are deliberately missing my point now. If a terrorist attack happens or England win the world cup or some vote fails on Brexit it will be on Sky News at 9am, 10 am, 11am, 12pm etc. That is how the news channels work. If they said Pelosi fantastic vision on health care is in the face of the traitors on the GOP side and put a picture of Trump grabbing his daughters ass on each hour you might have a point but they don't. If Dem and Republican have a press conference on at the same time they will usually go with the Dem. Trump had maximum air time on CNN during the primaries and general election. Nearly all his ridiculous press conferences were covered when they should have been ignoring him. Giving free air time for him. If they were Fox they would have it buried. Anytime Trump flies to another country or has major meeting it is covered on CNN anytime I watch it. Obama never featured on Fox except if it was something major or he wore a tan suit or something. When CNN or MSMBC make a point and Pelosi tweets out straight away nearly every day a new policy decision based off something on their show you may have a point. Every whitehouse has a press department that try to push and spin their story in the news or try and get out ahead of stories but never before have they gone the other way and create the policys from the media are saying.

peddlelies wrote:

Which networks promoted a sleeze like Avenatti as a credible Presidential candidate giving him air time hundreds of times? Which networks employed former Intel chiefs like Clapper and Brennan? Which networks spent two years daily talking about Russia?

They same network that gave loads of air time as a credible Presidential candidate who is a sleaze bag who now sits in the Whitehouse. They employee Clapper and Brennan as they were good at their former job. The Russian angle is important to the democracy of the country. They hacked both parties and released only the stuff damaging to the Democrats. The Whitehouse had secret meetings with Russian agents every step of the way it turns out and there was a different Trump associate up in court for the last 2 years so it is constantly in the news, especially with Trump tweeting about it everyday. I don't remember Obama hiring all his staff purely after watching them audition on CNN or MSMBC, it is like a football manager signing a player from watching YouTube videos or because they are Georgie Weahs cousin (or your son in law and daughter).

peddlelies wrote:

On the topic of Fox and MSNBC being so radically differently, your post history says differently. You might want to stick to the same script if you're looking for credibility.

So glad you felt it necessary to go through my history, if you spent as much time looking through the facts you would be more enlightened. As you will see it was posted at 1am after a day of drinking and I was trying to make an ill judged point at the time. I don't like Maddow as a person but it was pointed out at the time I was wrong about her being like Hannity and I rolled back on what I said.

peddlelies

FrostyJack wrote: »

Trump had maximum air time on CNN during the primaries and general election. Nearly all his ridiculous press conferences were covered when they should have been ignoring him. Giving free air time for him.

You know why? They were told by their owners in the DNC to promote Trump to the fullest, it was their strategy to win the election. It's the same reason why at that time people like Colbert were also promoting him.

NBC/MSNBC/CNN and the Democrats are one of the same. ABC/CBS lean left but nowhere near as heavily like the previous three I've mentioned. Fox is the only large mainstream conservative leaning TV network in America. A lot of Fox programming is obviously partisan towards the Republican party, the opinion shows are hyper partisan, just like like MSNBC is. We won't agree so I'll leave it at that.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-donald-trump-214428

“The variety of candidates is a positive here, and many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more ‘Pied Piper’ candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party,” read the memo.

“Pied Piper candidates include, but aren’t limited to:
• Ted Cruz
• Donald Trump
• Ben Carson
We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to [take] them seriously."

rossie1977

CNN don't lean left, they lean corporate establishment, MSNBC too.

peddlelies

rossie1977 wrote: »

CNN don't lean left, they lean corporate establishment, MSNBC too.

I agree but we can still say they're on the same "side" or at least they pretend to be even if they're on that side solely for corporate reasons ($$$).

I've noticed a lot of what of you're saying on social media in the last few years, that they don't really represent the real "left" and they're just talking heads, especially after the Bernie fiasco with Clinton. That truly showed where their loyalties are.

I see many liberals like Glen Greenwald, Jimmy Dore etc calling them out for what they are for a long time, not to mention the tens of millions of Sander supporters who were outraged. A similar thing happened to Ron Paul when he ran.

FrostyJack

peddlelies wrote: »

You know why? They were told by their owners in the DNC to promote Trump to the fullest, it was their strategy to win the election. It's the same reason why at that time people like Colbert were also promoting him.

NBC/MSNBC/CNN and the Democrats are one of the same. ABC/CBS lean left but nowhere near as heavily like the previous three I've mentioned. Fox is the only large mainstream conservative leaning TV network in America. A lot of Fox programming is obviously partisan towards the Republican party, the opinion shows are hyper partisan, just like like MSNBC is. We won't agree so I'll leave it at that.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-donald-trump-214428

“The variety of candidates is a positive here, and many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more ‘Pied Piper’ candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party,” read the memo.

“Pied Piper candidates include, but aren’t limited to:
• Ted Cruz
• Donald Trump
• Ben Carson
We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to [take] them seriously."

What are you talking about? Of course they wanted to divide the candidates in the primaries and push the fringe. What has this got to do with CNN/MSNBC ?
The same article says

Trump “is a master manipulator and a master of the counterintuitive. He knows exactly how to get things done. It’s disgusting to watch. But it’s effective.”

They gave air time to Trump because he kept coming up with infantile slogans and saying things like bomb terrorist families, torture people, beat people up who disrupt rallies etc. It was how he got elected.

Ben Carson was a front runner for a second but Ted Cruz was a favourite going into primaries, hardly obscure they would feature him or he is someone that doesn't represent the GOP, bizarre you would think that. All primaries start off at the right and then come to centre for the election and visa versa for the Democrats. Look at FOX news now, anytime AOC sneezes they report on her, same with Harris and Beto etc. They are not publicizing them to push the Dems that direction, they are just preparing the dirt like they did with Hillary for decades, when it is their turn to run they will have their viewers brainwashed they are commies, who want rob the rich and people guns etc.

demfad

https://twitter.com/LauraAJarrett/status/1111708631563685895

Barr sends another letter to Nadler this time.

Mid April for redacted report. Nadler still saying April 2nd.

TomOnBoard

demfad wrote: »

https://twitter.com/LauraAJarrett/status/1111708631563685895

Barr sends another letter to Nadler this time.

Mid April for redacted report. Nadler still saying April 2nd.

On the face of it, this appears to be a reasonable letter, and does seem to be progressing the actual report towards publication which is to be welcomed. I don't think any reasonable observer ought to have a problem with those elements that are being redacted, although when the final document is published, that view may change.

It will be interesting to see if Barr has erred in his letter however in respect of his point that he only intended his 4-pager to represent the 'bottom line' from the report. In his 4-pager, Barr came to a decision about the obstruction question whereas he said Mueller did not. Accordingly, his initial letter was more than a 'bottom line' reporting.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1111773916547162112?s=19

1) the news wasn't fake
2) it was well researched and reported
3) it therefore won awards
4) they do give Pulitzers for fiction.

FrostyJack

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1111773916547162112?s=19

1) the news wasn't fake
2) it was well researched and reported
3) it therefore won awards
4) they do give Pulitzers for fiction.

Is he trolling on purpose? I keep hearing people like Cameron Haines on Joe Rogan saying the liberal media portrays him as dumb but he is really smart. He hides it well. The Kevin Kruse reply thread is quite funny.

everlast75

FrostyJack wrote: »

Is he trolling on purpose?

Trolling his own dad?

Because that would be what he is doing, if he's *not* making an idiot of himself...

FrostyJack

everlast75 wrote: »

Trolling his own dad?

Because that would be what he is doing, if he's *not* making an idiot of himself...

No like trolling the media, to have them talking about it for some reason. I presume it is just he isn't that sharp.

everlast75

everlast75 wrote: »

Trump is a heathy man, but we are not allowed see a proper medical report.

Trump is a clever man, but we are not allowed see his school grades.

Trump is a rich man, but we're not allowed see his tax returns.

Trump is an innocent man, but we are not allowed see the Mueller report.

RIGOLO

The anti-TRump fake news is starting to implode.
The BBC has been caught out on its fake news and forced to issue a groveling apology and pay substantial damages.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47719166?fbclid=IwAR0g_yWjw2p-ce5SB68aG7k7vecXe7c4xDKWHkq1454EkRb4dIAQYAJM7Vk&utm_source=CNN+Media%3A+Reliable+Sources&utm_campaign=c2d4fd42be-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_09_11_04_47_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e95cdc16a9-c2d4fd42be-89909221

The BBC has apologised and agreed to pay damages to Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko.

The apology relates to an incorrect report claiming a payment was made to extend a meeting between Mr Poroshenko and US President Donald Trump.

An article, published last May but since removed from the BBC website, alleged $400,000 was paid to Mr Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen.

And so it begins . The shoe is on the other foot now .

RIGOLO

Not content to just sit on their hands this week and celebrate the win that is hte Mueller report , the Trump Administration continues stellar work on many fronts .

VP PEnce was in Huntsville , Alabama ' Rocket City ' , The Marshall Space Flight Centre , at the FIFTH National Space Council meeting.

Broadcast live, but you can catch all 2 hours and 30 mins on youtube.
All the heavy hitters were there , NASA, Pentagon, TRansport Secretary, Commerce Secretary, Universities, Astronauts, USAF, all providing input on work they are doing to advance US space program.

With numerous announcements on budgets , the establishment of The Space Force, mission to the moon, lunar gateway, Canadian Space partnership, the list goes on and on and includes the Trump Administration push for a US woman to be on the moon in the next 5 years . That will be an incredible achievement .

Igotadose

Back in the real world, Lyft just IPO'd at an enormous value ($24 billion.) Have yet to make a profit, and have dubious corporate governance.

They're not alone - lots of latecomer companies (Slack -really, Slack's going to IPO?), none of whom are profitable, setting up to IPO soon. If you're wondering where those corporate tax cuts and repatriation of $$ are going, its into things like this (yes, corporations buy shares in other companies, or buy them directly, too.)

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/lyft-stock-finance-opening-price-uber-unicorn-global-recession-nasdaq-silicon-valley-a8845826.html

Between this madness, and the recent news of the yield-curve inversion, and the aimless economic policies of the WH (tariffs on/tariffs off, NAFTA replaced/NAFTA not replaced, etc.) and as Stockman bang's on about, the market run-up is overdue for a crash, this is all very scary. Love the "no one has outlawed recessions" line.

RIGOLO

Igotadose wrote: »

Back in the real world, Lyft just IPO'd at an enormous value ($24 billion.) Have yet to make a profit, and have dubious corporate governance.

They're not alone - lots of latecomer companies (Slack -really, Slack's going to IPO?), none of whom are profitable, setting up to IPO soon. If you're wondering where those corporate tax cuts and repatriation of $$ are going, its into things like this (yes, corporations buy shares in other companies, or buy them directly, too.)

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/lyft-stock-finance-opening-price-uber-unicorn-global-recession-nasdaq-silicon-valley-a8845826.html

Between this madness, and the recent news of the yield-curve inversion, and the aimless economic policies of the WH (tariffs on/tariffs off, NAFTA replaced/NAFTA not replaced, etc.) and as Stockman bang's on about, the market run-up is overdue for a crash, this is all very scary. Love the "no one has outlawed recessions" line.

Interesting you brought up LYFT,

Others might also be interested to know just like many other silicon valley 'unicorn' companies, must of them continue to tap up former Obama offiicals.
Silicon Valley is where much of Obamas ex-aides ended up .

Anthony Foxx, former President Obama's secretary of the Department of Transportation from 2013-2017, will serve as Lyft's chief policy officer and advisor to its co-founders.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/09/tech/lyft-anthony-foxx/index.html

If posters have issues with the power being centered and amassed by
Silicon valley , they would do well to consider how the previous administration facilitated and continue (ex Obama officials) to ease their path to this 'big brother' overlording of us all.


As to the other company you mention SLACK .
Well their CEO Stewart Butterfiled has been very openly critical of Trump

https://www.axios.com/slack-ceo-stewart-butterfield-tech-alone-cant-stop-trump-1513301041-2a191e92-4edd-4455-9a84-b4648f202879.html

Its easy to see the trend.
Way back long before Trump was ever on the scene I was very vocal as to why were Google (and many other tech execs) spending so much time visiting Obama and the White House . I can understand the need for a visit here and there , but 427 visits ...

https://googletransparencyproject.org/articles/googles-white-house-meetings

Google’s lobbying juggernaut reflected in more than 427 White House Visits during Obama’s presidency
A detailed examination of White House visitor logs reveals the extraordinary access to the Obama White House enjoyed by Google, its top executives and employees. Since President Obama took office in January 2009 through October 31, 2015,i employees of Google and associated entities visited the White House 427 times.

So if your only now concerned with social media, tech and silicon valley influence because Trump is in office, Id have to say your very late to this particular party .

Danzy

A recession is due, it's been a long run after the crash but from an American economic perspective it should not too deep, nothing out of the ordinary.

Unemployment is so low at the moment that a slow down might not feel as bad as other recessions there.

TomOnBoard

RIGOLO wrote: »

Others might also be interested to know just like many other silicon valley 'unicorn' companies, must of them continue to tap up former Obama offiicals.
Silicon Valley is where much of Obamas ex-aides ended up .

Ya reckon?

Maybe its because Obama did in fact hire the best people, and Silicon Valley knows that... Fancy betting how many Trumpexits they'll hire?

rossie1977

Danzy wrote: »

A recession is due, it's been a long run after the crash but from an American economic perspective it should not too deep, nothing out of the ordinary.

Unemployment is so low at the moment that a slow down might not feel as bad as other recessions there.

Us unemployment was low 4% in late 2006 just prior to last major recession. In 3 years it grew to 10%

US employment figures are weird. After a year, they're off the system, if I remember correctly.

reg114

It's becoming increasingly concerning that the dems don't have a central figure capable of taking on the Trump juggernaut. Ideologically Sanders makes the right noises but he reminds of grandpa Simpson, ranting and raving. I'm all for passion but Sanders is too old to consider running for office. I'd include Biden in the same category as far as age being against him. Biden is not intellectual enough to be able to go head to head with Trumps all consuming ignorance. Biden was kept out of the media as much as possible during the Obama years such was his propensity to put his foot in his mouth. Politically I don't believe he has the chops to steer America away from the Trump iceberg. Warren is a paragon of sense and a firebrand but has been damaged by her now disproven a assertion that she was of American Indian extraction. I also believe sadly that a woman of Warren's vintage running against Trump is too similar to the Clinton v Trump race and it would work against her.
Of all the Dem candidates, I like Kamala Harris the most. She has the legal background and intellect but is she politically and media savvy enough to take on Trump?

Igotadose

RIGOLO wrote: »

Int

https://googletransparencyproject.org/articles/googles-white-house-meetings

So, how can we see the visitor logs to the Trump WH? Most transparent administration ever if I remember that campaign promise.

Reality, of course, is 180 deg. out of sync.

There was a lawsuit, Trump lost but the WH isn't being particularly transparent: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/382720-white-house-releases-limited-visitor-logs-after-settlement

For all we know, there're thousands of visits to the WH from lobbyists.

Anyway, it's the economy, and the Lyft IPO seems to clearly be 'irrational exuberance.' Remembering back to the late '90s dot-com crash, where companies that didn't turn profits IPO at astronomical values, and then went splat. I had a coworker who'd done some work on a Linux distro that VA research was involved with. He got some VA options as a result. As I recall, when VA IPO'd they opened at 30, and by the end of the day the shares were trading at 300 (so, up 1000% in a day.) My coworker said, he held onto the options until it started to dip and sold then, and bought a new car with the proceeds. VA soon went away.

Can't be investing billions in companies that don't turn a profit nor have any idea how they're going to, which seems to be the case for Lyft. Really ignoring the past here.

Danzy

rossie1977 wrote: »

Us unemployment was low 4% in late 2006 just prior to last major recession. In 3 years it grew to 10%

In fairness that was the worst recession since the great depression.

A repeat event at that level so soon after would i reckon gurantee a global economic depression.

MadYaker

Danzy wrote: »

In fairness that was the worst recession since the great depression.

A repeat event at that level so soon after would i reckon gurantee a global economic depression.

I’d be interested to see your response to this post that was in response to an earlier post you made.

everlast75 wrote: »

I'll bite.

The U.S. intelligence agencies confirmed Russia interfered. It happened!

Trump has only himself to blame for people thinking something nefarious was afoot. Senior members of his campaign were in contact with Russia and when asked, lied about it.

If a bike goes missing from my house, and I'm asked about it, and when I am I continually lie about it, it is ridiculous to suggest that people should not be suspicious.

If Trump wanted to torpedo MSNBC etc ratings, all he had to do was

1) get Flynn, Manafort etc to tell the truth
2) get donny Jr to tell the truth
3) ditto with Jared
4) sit down with Mueller
5) not take private meetings with putin
6) not destroy the interpreter's notes
7) not take Putin's side over the intelligence agencise when he said he didn't do anything

Its pure gaslighting to act shady and then call someone paranoid when they get suspicious.

And one again, this time with feeling, WE DO NOT KNOW what Mueller found or didn't find with respect to collusion. We are being asked to give the benefit of the doubt to a 4 page summation of an over 300 page report, with zero complete cited sentences by an AG handpicked by Trump and who auditioned for the role by telling trump he could not be guilty of obstruction pursuant to his executive powers.

Seriously, take a step back and honestly tell me that the Dems made this all up.

aloyisious

I took a few days off to refresh and unwind from Don so I've missed out on what he's been doing lately. I see on Bloomberg just now that A. that up to 50 Rep Senators voted against him on the matter of federal funding for the Puerto Rica hurricane damage as it would help them get the same type of federal relief funding in their electoral areas and Don is supposed to be railing about the amount of funding sent to Puerto Rico, and B. that Don has asked a 3 judge court to dismiss an action (something to do with the 1st amendment) about his twitter account on the basis that it's his personal twitter account and not a presidential twitter account. Are item A and B correct as typed in the Bloomberg news description?