Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

circadian

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

We used to have this thread stickied

Would mods be open to making it a sticky again? In the current political climate this is very much a topic that is front and centre and it would be nice if this could be cleared up and referenced to so we don't have the immigration rules merry-go-round.

Christy42

seamus wrote: »

I see Donnie throwing his oar into the EU/UK withdrawal agreement too.

So we know a few things;

1. He hasn't and won't read the WA
2. He hasn't and won't listen to someone else summarise the WA
3. Any "trade deal" between the UK and US is hot air, it doesn't exist.

So the only rational conclusion here is that someone else has told him to speak negatively about the WA. Probably because no WA means less stability in Europe.

I wonder who could want a less stable Europe....? Perhaps someone who is trying to annex some European countries...

If the UK rejects a trade deal with the EU then the US will have them over a barrel. They will dictate food standards to the UK and you can bet as much as you like that Rees Mogg and Garage won't go running around shouting about sovereignty then either.

oscarBravo

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

No mention of first country but the ecj have their own rules

Your turn. If you're going to claim the "first country" thing is true, link please.

dr.fuzzenstein

Christy42 wrote: »

If the UK rejects a trade deal with the EU then the US will have them over a barrel. They will dictate food standards to the UK and you can bet as much as you like that Rees Mogg and Garage won't go running around shouting about sovereignty then either.

Part of me wants the UK to crash out without a deal, just so the hardcore Brexiteers will be forced to publicly eat their words.
Instead of an effigy of Guy Fawkes, they should burn Nigel Farage.

Tell me how

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Part of me wants the UK to crash out without a deal, just so the hardcore Brexiteers will be forced to publicly eat their words.
Instead of an effigy of Guy Fawkes, they should burn Nigel Farage.

They will never eat their words.

They will blame the sitting government for not negotiating treaties correctly.
They will blame the EU for badmouthing them to other countries.
They will blame US/China/India etc for not being reasonable.
They will blame manufacturer's for chasing profits by moving abroad.
They will blame the public for complaining when they are the ones who voted for it.
They will blame global events and that everyone is going through hard times.
They will say nothing because they will have got their Brexit and will fade away as they always intended.

Gbear

Tell me how wrote: »

They will never eat their words.

They will blame the sitting government for not negotiating treaties correctly.
They will blame the EU for badmouthing them to other countries.
They will blame US/China/India etc for not being reasonable.
They will blame manufacturer's for chasing profits by moving abroad.
They will blame the public for complaining when they are the ones who voted for it.
They will blame global events and that everyone is going through hard times.
They will say nothing because they will have got their Brexit and will fade away as they always intended.

"Even when it was the bears, I knew it was the immigants!"

Will Trump take the blame for blue collar workers losing their jobs due to steel tariffs? Will he own the deficit he paid for with tax cuts when he starts implementing austerity measures to balance the books?

No. Whether through ignorance or malice, these people have set their stall out against reality and cannot afford a backwards step. They're like Wile E Coyote running in the air. They can only keep going so long as they don't look down.

Rjd2

oscarBravo wrote: »

"If it's a choice between honouring our obligations under the Geneva Conventions, or teargassing children... sorry kids."

It's one thing that that's official US policy now - after all, the commander in chief is a narcissistic sociopath, so sociopathic policy is about what you'd expect. What's truly appalling is that people will cheerlead his sociopathy, and wonder why that bothers normal people.

Its been a policy for years tbh, especially in the Obama years but nobody gave a flying **** then because they were caught in his cult of personality.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/26/obama-administration-used-tear-gas-border-once-mon/

People are free to criticise Trump over this as they should as its vile, but if you were not calling out Obama for it back in the day, then they really should sit this one out.

Professor Moriarty

Rjd2 wrote: »

Its been a policy for years tbh, especially in the Obama years but nobody gave a flying **** then because they were caught in his cult of personality.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/26/obama-administration-used-tear-gas-border-once-mon/

People are free to criticise Trump over this as they should, but if you were not calling out Obama for it back in the day, then they really should sit this one out.

Can't imagine Obama allowing kids to be tear-gassed or locked up in cages.

everlast75

Rjd2 wrote: »

Its been a policy for years tbh, especially in the Obama years but nobody gave a flying **** then because they were caught in his cult of personality.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/26/obama-administration-used-tear-gas-border-once-mon/

People are free to criticise Trump over this as they should as its vile, but if you were not calling out Obama for it back in the day, then they really should sit this one out.

I'm happy to hear all info, and I would be 100% happy to call Obama out on it if they are the facts, but can you elaborate please..

1) Did the Admin under Obama close the legal port of entry first?
2) Were there women and children part of the people upon whom the TG was fired?

I think they are the issues people have with Trump.

BTW - I've searched 7 pages of google and can only find reference to your statement on right wing sites, including breitbart. Can you provide other sources?

PS - cult of personality? Obama? really? You are saying that in this administration!?

demfad

NEW: Manafort Met Assange in Ecudorian Embassy Spring '16.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy

EDIT "well-developed conspiracy of cooperation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership was managed on the Trump side by the Republican candidate's campaign manager, Paul Manafort" Steele Dossier

VinLieger

Gbear wrote: »

Will Trump take the blame for blue collar workers losing their jobs due to steel tariffs? Will he own the deficit he paid for with tax cuts when he starts implementing austerity measures to balance the books?

Of course he wont because by the time such action is required the Dems will be back in power once again having to make the hard decisions and republicans will blame them for the problems just just like they have everytime they've done this before.

serfboard

Quin_Dub wrote: »

This article is an interesting take on the latest developments

Pure hypothesis of course , but an interesting theory none the less.

This makes sense when you think about it logically. I never understood why Manafort would have taken a plea deal, when he expects to get a pardon from Trump anyway.

So, taking the quotes the other way around:

Because he expects a pardon from Trump, Manafort felt free to lie to investigators.

and

Because ... Mueller has accused ... Manafort of ... lying to investigators, he will get a chance to air his Donald Trump collusion allegations in public

The question is why does Mueller want to air the allegations in public? To give some meat to the Incoming House? Or to prevent an attempted shutdown of the investigation by Trump?

everlast75

serfboard wrote: »

This makes sense when you think about it logically. I never understood why Manafort would have taken a plea deal, when he expects to get a pardon from Trump anyway.

So, taking the quotes the other way around:
and
The question is why does Mueller want to air the allegations in public? To give some meat to the Incoming House? Or to prevent an attempted shutdown of the investigation by Trump?

Probably this - in light of Whitaker's appointment.

It could also be the case that releasing certain information (presuming that report on Manafort is made public) might cause certain people to take certain compromising actions.

Remember, Mueller is about 6 months ahead of us in terms of what is going on. It's hard to see all the pieces at play on the board at the moment

everlast75

Manafort joins Trump campaign March 2016

Manafort secretly visits Wikileaks Assange in Ecuador, spring 2016 (allegedly)

Trump makes Manafort Campaign Manager (for free) June 2016

In June and July 2016, Wikileaks releases Democratic emails

mcmoustache

everlast75 wrote: »

Probably this - in light of Whitaker's appointment.

It could also be the case that releasing certain information (presuming that report on Manafort is made public) might cause certain people to take certain compromising actions.

Remember, Mueller is about 6 months ahead of us in terms of what is going on. It's hard to see all the pieces at play on the board at the moment

Mueller has been using speaking indictments so far.

In the United States, a speaking indictment is an indictment that goes beyond the mere statement of charges, thus putting statements about alleged events into the public domain. In 2018, it was reported that speaking indictments had been used as part of the Mueller Inquiry into Russian interference with the American political process.

On Manafort's recent fúckery, there has been a bit of speculation online about what it could mean.

We know that he, Trump and others are part of a Joint Defence Agreement. This allows some coordination and sharing between defence teams. There wouldn't be much stopping Manafort's team from telling Trump's team what sort of things Mueller's team had been asking about and what answers were provided by Manafort.

We also know that Mueller didn't object to or raise concerns about this when Manafort "started cooperating". I was surprised by this myself because it seemed a bit odd to have a situation where one subject of an investigation was cooperating while at the same time another subject could be benefiting from the knowledge of things like the questions asked and the answers given. It just seemed like this was an unnecessary bone to throw to Trump.

We now know that Mueller's team knew that Manafort was lying all this time. We also know that Mueller delayed the sentencing by 10 days in which time, Trump submitted his answers to Mueller's questions. If Trump was lead to believe that there were some lies that he could get away with in his submission due to getting that impression from Manafort, there's a strong chance that he would lie - I mean, it's Trump, after all.

If it turns out that Mueller just gave them some rope by playing dumb and not objecting to the JDA only to open the trapdoor on them both, I'll be impressed.

This is only speculation at this point but I guess we'll know soon enough.

On a completely unrelated note by a CIC who's definitely not freaking out at the news, here's some of today's twitterings.

The Phony Witch Hunt continues, but Mueller and his gang of Angry Dems are only looking at one side, not the other. Wait until it comes out how horribly & viciously they are treating people, ruining lives for them refusing to lie. Mueller is a conflicted prosecutor gone rogue....

....The Fake News Media builds Bob Mueller up as a Saint, when in actuality he is the exact opposite. He is doing TREMENDOUS damage to our Criminal Justice System, where he is only looking at one side and not the other. Heroes will come of this, and it won’t be Mueller and his...

....terrible Gang of Angry Democrats. Look at their past, and look where they come from. The now $30,000,000 Witch Hunt continues and they’ve got nothing but ruined lives. Where is the Server? Let these terrible people go back to the Clinton Foundation and “Justice” Department!

Billy Mays

Donnie swinging hard today

Why is Mueller investigating what he was asked to investigate and not something completely different???

Penn

serfboard wrote: »

The question is why does Mueller want to air the allegations in public? To give some meat to the Incoming House? Or to prevent an attempted shutdown of the investigation by Trump?

From different articles I've read, it seems like the following is happening:

- Manafort's legal team and Trump's legal team are allowed to work with each other to a degree under a Joint Defence Agreement, which Mueller didn't challenge
- Manafort (and/or his legal team) is now suspected of feeding Trump's team info on what he's being asked, the info he's given them and the answer's he's given them
- Trump & his team would then have been able to respond to Mueller's questions in such a way as to not implicate Trump in anything by contradicting Manafort
- Manafort likely hasn't given them anything which could implicate Trump. Even if Manafort takes all the blame himself, by the end of it all given how he would have helped Trump get away with things, he'd likely be pardoned by Trump
- Even if Mueller did find anything, his first port of call would be to issue a report to the Justice Department, and given that Trump has now installed Whitaker, the report would likely never see the light of day.

However, the speculation now is that Mueller laid a trap for Manafort in allowing him to work with Trump's legal team, and that Mueller had proof Manafort was lying all along. Mueller never needed Manafort to connect any dots or reveal any new information to him. Instead, he may now have Trump on perjury if his answers match Manafort's and Mueller has proof they're both lying, he has Manafort on more serious charges and has likely blocked off the chances of Manafort getting a pardon, and more importantly instead of it all going in a report to never see the light of day, Mueller's team can go public with it by revealing their evidence in Manafort's new hearing. This will also make it much harder for anyone on Trump's side, even Whitaker, to put the brakes on Mueller's investigation as now Mueller's findings on this issue will be made public.

If that is what's happening, and it's a fairly big 'if' in fairness, it could be the masterstroke that signals the beginning of the end, particularly with the Dems taking control of the House in January.

everlast75

Penn wrote: »

From different articles I've read, it seems like the following is happening:

- Manafort's legal team and Trump's legal team are allowed to work with each other to a degree under a Joint Defence Agreement, which Mueller didn't challenge
- Manafort (and/or his legal team) is now suspected of feeding Trump's team info on what he's being asked, the info he's given them and the answer's he's given them
- Trump & his team would then have been able to respond to Mueller's questions in such a way as to not implicate Trump in anything by contradicting Manafort
- Manafort likely hasn't given them anything which could implicate Trump. Even if Manafort takes all the blame himself, by the end of it all given how he would have helped Trump get away with things, he'd likely be pardoned by Trump
- Even if Mueller did find anything, his first port of call would be to issue a report to the Justice Department, and given that Trump has now installed Whitaker, the report would likely never see the light of day.

However, the speculation now is that Mueller laid a trap for Manafort in allowing him to work with Trump's legal team, and that Mueller had proof Manafort was lying all along. Mueller never needed Manafort to connect any dots or reveal any new information to him. Instead, he may now have Trump on perjury if his answers match Manafort's and Mueller has proof they're both lying, he has Manafort on more serious charges and has likely blocked off the chances of Manafort getting a pardon, and more importantly instead of it all going in a report to never see the light of day, Mueller's team can go public with it by revealing their evidence in Manafort's new hearing. This will also make it much harder for anyone on Trump's side, even Whitaker, to put the brakes on Mueller's investigation as now Mueller's findings on this issue will be made public.

If that is what's happening, and it's a fairly big 'if' in fairness, it could be the masterstroke that signals the beginning of the end, particularly with the Dems taking control of the House in January.

So Rudy was right - Perjury trap!!!!!!!!!!!!!

prawnsambo

everlast75 wrote: »

So Rudy was right - Perjury trap!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Funny that they knew that and still couldn't take the obvious way out by not lying.

serfboard

Penn wrote: »

The speculation now is that Mueller laid a trap for Manafort in allowing him to work with Trump's legal team, and that Mueller had proof Manafort was lying all along. Mueller never needed Manafort to connect any dots or reveal any new information to him. Instead, he may now have Trump on perjury if his answers match Manafort's and Mueller has proof they're both lying, he has Manafort on more serious charges and has likely blocked off the chances of Manafort getting a pardon, and more importantly instead of it all going in a report to never see the light of day, Mueller's team can go public with it by revealing their evidence in Manafort's new hearing. This will also make it much harder for anyone on Trump's side, even Whitaker, to put the brakes on Mueller's investigation as now Mueller's findings on this issue will be made public.

If that is what's happening, and it's a fairly big 'if' in fairness, it could be the masterstroke that signals the beginning of the end, particularly with the Dems taking control of the House in January.

Wow! Thanks for posting this.

That's absolutely fascinating - House Of Cards (or any other political drama) could never come up with plot twists this brilliant!

oscarBravo

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

besticando :
https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf%3Freldoc%3Dy%26docid%3D4bab55da2&ved=2ahUKEwjP0OO04vTeAhUeOsAKHY3LBRIQFjAAegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw2w6eQv8tVPE0tbEVZvPm0E

The concept of first country of asylum is defined in Article 26 of the APD:
A country can be considered to be a first country of asylum for a particular applicant
for asylum if:
(a) s/he has been recognised in that country as a refugee and s/he can still avail
him/herself of that protection; or
(b) s/he otherwise enjoys sufficient protection in that country, including benefiting
from the principle of non-refoulement;
provided that s/he will be re-admitted to that country.

Being recognised as a refugee means that you have already applied for, and been granted, asylum. The document you have linked imposes no obligation on an asylum seeker to make an application in any particular country.

Can we put the myth to bed now?

Rjd2

everlast75 wrote: »

I'm happy to hear all info, and I would be 100% happy to call Obama out on it if they are the facts, but can you elaborate please..

1) Did the Admin under Obama close the legal port of entry first?
2) Were there women and children part of the people upon whom the TG was fired?

I think they are the issues people have with Trump.

BTW - I've searched 7 pages of google and can only find reference to your statement on right wing sites, including breitbart. Can you provide other sources?

PS - cult of personality? Obama? really? You are saying that in this administration!?

I'm not absolving Trump though and of course Trump has the same cult of personality on his side that Obama had when in charge.



The Washington Times article has enough detail for me, I can't imagine why they would be lying.

http://www.cbs8.com/story/24088325/dramatic-video-of-border-rush

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-border-patrol-rock-throwing-san-ysidro-2013nov25-story,amp.html?__twitter_impression=true

I don't have an issue with people slamming what they seen Sunday night as they should at least be uncomfortable, I have an issue with the takes such as " this is what America is now.!" etc and those insinuating that this never happened with migrants before.

Penn

serfboard wrote: »

Wow! Thanks for posting this.

That's absolutely fascinating - House Of Cards (or any other political drama) could never come up with plot twists this brilliant!

Again, that's just my reading and summation of a few different articles, but at this point it's all still speculation.

On the day of Manafort's previous sentencing, Cohen was revealed to have flipped and was co-operating with Mueller's investigation, for all we know possibly even to tighten the noose around Trump's neck a bit to make him more likely to work with Manafort to get inside the Mueller investigation. Mueller has been so far ahead of everyone else that we still may have no idea of what's coming down the pipeline.

Timberrrrrrrr

Looks like we are in for another twitter storm from the orange one

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1067395266511347713?s=19

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1067404517841518593?s=19

everlast75

Rjd2 wrote: »

I'm not absolving Trump though and of course Trump has the same cult of personality on his side that Obama had when in charge.



The Washington Times article has enough detail for me, I can't imagine why they would be lying.

http://www.cbs8.com/story/24088325/dramatic-video-of-border-rush

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-border-patrol-rock-throwing-san-ysidro-2013nov25-story,amp.html?__twitter_impression=true

I don't have an issue with people slamming what they seen Sunday night as they should at least be uncomfortable, I have an issue with the takes such as " this is what America is now.!" etc and those insinuating that this never happened with migrants before.

Right so the first link worked, the second didn't.

The first indicates that the border point of entry was open and that a crowd of 100 or so rushed it anyway.

1) Did the Admin under Obama close the legal port of entry first?

The answer appears to be "no"

2) Were there women and children part of the people upon whom the TG was fired?

The answer appears to be "no"

On that basis, it doesn't appear to be "like for like"

duploelabs

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Looks like we are in for another twitter storm from the orange one

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1067395266511347713?s=19

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1067404517841518593?s=19

You'd think someone would've had a quiet word in his ear and told him how a 'server' actually works?

FatherTed

everlast75 wrote: »

So Rudy was right - Perjury trap!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That only works if you actually, you know, committed perjury.

rossie1977

Rjd2 wrote: »

I'm not absolving Trump though and of course Trump has the same cult of personality on his side that Obama had when in charge.

C'mon now that's not close to bring true.

Obama's record in terms of private life and his political career was pretty much close to as impeccable as it gets when it comes to a politician yet many of his biggest supporters at the beginning quickly became his biggest critics because they didn't seem to understand he was a right leaning corporatist.

On the flip side Trump can say and do anything and his supporters back him even more. If Obama had said or done half the stuff Trump has done last two years he would already be impeached. Trump doesn't even hide it, he was right in saying he could walk down the street and shoot a random passer by and people would say he likely celebrate as a hero.

With Trump you are seeing those who were his critics initially now becoming his biggest cheerleaders..so opposite to Obama.

Chips Lovell

Mod note

Troll banned. Folks, please report trolling. Don’t feed the trolls by responding on thread.

Thanks

B0jangles

Rjd2 wrote: »

I'm not absolving Trump though and of course Trump has the same cult of personality on his side that Obama had when in charge.

The Washington Times article has enough detail for me, I can't imagine why they would be lying.

http://www.cbs8.com/story/24088325/dramatic-video-of-border-rush

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-border-patrol-rock-throwing-san-ysidro-2013nov25-story,amp.html?__twitter_impression=true

I don't have an issue with people slamming what they seen Sunday night as they should at least be uncomfortable, I have an issue with the takes such as " this is what America is now.!" etc and those insinuating that this never happened with migrants before.

Just a quick note - do you mean the Washington Post or the Washington Times? The Post is a reputable paper, the Times is the one founded by the Moonies and apparently does not have the same reputation for quality.

prawnsambo

B0jangles wrote: »

Just a quick note - do you mean the Washington Post or the Washington Times? The Post is a reputable paper, the Times is the one founded by the Moonies and apparently does not have the same reputation for quality.

The Washington Times alright.

Rjd2 wrote: »

Its been a policy for years tbh, especially in the Obama years but nobody gave a flying **** then because they were caught in his cult of personality.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/26/obama-administration-used-tear-gas-border-once-mon/

People are free to criticise Trump over this as they should as its vile, but if you were not calling out Obama for it back in the day, then they really should sit this one out.

Rjd2

B0jangles wrote: »

Just a quick note - do you mean the Washington Post or the Washington Times? The Post is a reputable paper, the Times is the one founded by the Moonies and apparently does not have the same reputation for quality.

Ok fair enough, I genuinely thought it was regarded as a solid site, I would not consider it Breitbart/Daily Caller/ etc? I could be wrong though and I might do some reading up on the site later this week.

rossie1977 wrote: »

C'mon now that's not close to bring true.

Obama's record in terms of private life and his political career was pretty much close to as impeccable as it gets when it comes to a politician yet many of his biggest supporters at the beginning quickly became his biggest critics because they didn't seem to understand he was a right leaning corporatist.

On the flip side Trump can say and do anything and his supporters back him even more. If Obama had said or done half the stuff Trump has done last two years he would already be impeached. Trump doesn't even hide it, he was right in saying he could walk down the street and shoot a random passer by and people would say he likely celebrate as a hero.

With Trump you are seeing those who were his critics initially now becoming his biggest cheerleaders..so opposite to Obama.

Heh I'd have voted Obama twice if I was American and would be content to have him back again, compared to now and some of the populist silliness we will get in the next few decades, oh man.

I do think their is a cult of personality around him when it comes to certain areas of the media although as you said some of the right went absurd over him e.g calling him a Marxist etc.

Rjd2

everlast75 wrote: »

Right so the first link worked, the second didn't.

The first indicates that the border point of entry was open and that a crowd of 100 or so rushed it anyway.

1) Did the Admin under Obama close the legal port of entry first?

The answer appears to be "no"

2) Were there women and children part of the people upon whom the TG was fired?

The answer appears to be "no"

On that basis, it doesn't appear to be "like for like"

Like for like might be unfair, but it wasn't a moment Obama will look upon fondly. Its not absolving Trump whatsoever but those suggesting that it was rosy on this issue before Trump came along is something I don't really agree with.

mcmoustache

Rjd2 wrote: »

Ok fair enough, I genuinely thought it was regarded as a solid site, I would not consider it Breitbart/Daily Caller/ etc? I could be wrong though and I might do some reading up on the site later this week.

I've always considered the Washington Times to be quite reliable. They're right-leaning but I never got the impression that they were deliberately trying to deceive like those other publications you listed.

Water John

On the Khasshoggi case, the WH have prevented Gina Haspel CIA from testifying to the Senate. This is unheard of.

mcmoustache

Water John wrote: »

On the Khasshoggi case, the WH have prevented Gina Haspel CIA from testifying to the Senate. This is unheard of.

And maybe not kosher...

§413. General Congressional oversight provisions

(a) Reports to Congressional committees of intelligence activities and anticipated activities

(1) The President shall ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity as required by this subchapter.
(2) Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed as requiring the approval of the congressional intelligence committees as a condition precedent to the initiation of any significant anticipated intelligence activity.

Itssoeasy

My main overarching issue with respect to trump is his complete and utter wilful ignorance on even the most basic norms and the structure of how his government works. People living in Ireland shouldn't have a better and deeper understanding of how a foreign democracy works and there are several posters here how fair outmatch the US president on.

8-10

Itssoeasy wrote: »

My main overarching issue with respect to trump is his complete and utter wilful ignorance on even the most basic norms and the structure of how his government works. People living in Ireland shouldn't have a better and deeper understanding of how a foreign democracy works and there are several posters here how fair outmatch the US president on.

In fairness to him he hasn't half helped get people interested in politics! Record turnout in the midterms!

rossie1977

Speaking of midterms here are current gains for Dems as it stands:

+39 House seats
+7 Governors
+349 state legislative seats
+6 state legislative chambers

pixelburp

rossie1977 wrote: »

Speaking of midterms here are current gains for Dems as it stands:

+39 House seats
+7 Governors
+349 state legislative seats
+6 state legislative chambers

It actually looks like the Democrats might end up with +40; there's still one more seat being counted, California 21st. After initially being called as a GOP win & a 7 point lead, subsequent counting of regions has given Democrat TJ Cox a 0.4 point lead. Remarkably it has taken weeks to count all the ballots; I get California's a big state, but it's crazy how poor the US' counting system can be.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-last-unresolved-house-race-of-2018/

Itssoeasy

Trump is "looking at cutting all GM subsidies" due to the company closing factories and laying off nearly 15,000 workers.

everlast75

MSNBC refusing to broadcast press conference and Trump's rallies.


CNN taking a different tack...


https://twitter.com/KaivanShroff/status/1067527142253178885?s=19

For Forks Sake

everlast75 wrote: »

MSNBC refusing to broadcast press conference and Trump's rallies.


CNN taking a different tack...


https://twitter.com/KaivanShroff/status/1067527142253178885?s=19

I love that. All the networks should employ factcheckers for all statements coming from this administration.

Professor Moriarty

For Forks Sake wrote: »

I love that. All the networks should employ factcheckers for all statements coming from this administration.

Excellent idea!

rossie1977

Fox news only show highlights of Trump's rallies now for the most part because the full rallies were doing a fraction of the viewers that Fox's normal programming does.

spacecoyote

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Trump is "looking at cutting all GM subsidies" due to the company closing factories and laying off nearly 15,000 workers.

Ah yes, because that will really help them to keep US operations open!

Stallingrad

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Trump is "looking at cutting all GM subsidies" due to the company closing factories and laying off nearly 15,000 workers.

Didn't Obama try to save the US auto industry while this fool just kicks it when it's down? Maybe he will incentivise coal powered cars.

duploelabs

Stallingrad wrote: »

Didn't Obama try to save the US auto industry while this fool just kicks it when it's down? Maybe he will incentivise coal powered cars.

Steam power!

Itssoeasy

That is a very clever idea by CNN actually. How regular are the press conferences now if not daily ?

everlast75

Itssoeasy wrote: »

That is a very clever idea by CNN actually. How regular are the press conferences now if not daily ?

Roughly once a month now