Khan

Yeah, I'm unhappy about this news. NBC doesn't need someone like Megyn Kelly. But what do you expect from an organization that hired the likes of Matt Lauer and Billy Bush?

Yep.

So, they're scared AND they're scared for their jobs. And they say politicians are out of touch with the working class. I, for one, would love to know what, if anything, the Russians have (allegedly) dug up on the GOP. IDK why, but I feel like that's the key to this mystery. (Yeah, I know, I watched soap operas for too long.)

Which explains why Trump loves the rag sheet so much. As to my original post: Originally, my understanding was that the authorities had detected possible Russian-ordered cyber-hacking in Vermont. Without knowing the actual date(s) on which the alleged hacking had occurred, I suspected 1) it was done pre-Convention, or at least during the primaries, when Bernie Sanders appeared to be surging in some polls; and 2) the Russians (or whoever) attempted to hack into Bernie's cyber accounts in order to find information that they could use against him if and when they needed to. (For example: in case Bernie, and not Hillary, had emerged as the Democratic nominee.) That was my hunch, anyway. Once it was clear Bernie was NOT going to beat Hillary for the nomination, all intel-gathering missions, had there been any ordered, probably ceased. So, IOW, they won't push back, because they're "scurred"?

Here's something that has nagged at me for the past few days: The theory goes that Republicans in both the House and the Senate are reluctant even to stand up to Trump, because they need him to push through their conservative agendas. But wouldn't they be able to carry out their plans now even if Trump were removed from office? After all, they now hold the majority in both houses of Congress. Impeaching him would not change that. Nor would it change the fact that Mike Pence, who would succeed him as President, is ALSO a Republican and ALSO conservative. (In fact, he's probably more conservative than even Trump.) The chances of Repubs succeeding in their overall agenda would be just as good with Pence, IMO, as they would be with Trump. So...what am I missing here?

I'd just like to know why the hell he quoted me. It isn't as if I were the one who posted the original link to the story.

That's because he would write down his answers and then submit them to the press via courier.

Ironically, Michael Storm and Janice Lynde (ex-Laurel) reportedly didn't get along.

And guess who is in Vermont? Yep.

And I'm afraid I've got even less. Four years from now, I think, we will be so desensitized to Trump, so accustomed to living under his brand of authoritarianism, the majority won't think twice about giving him a second term of office. And I'm sorry to say that that majority will include people who, at this moment, are outraged by him and swear he will never be "their President." (They're resisting now, but let's see what happens one, two, three years down the road when all that fire has left their bellies.) It won't matter that Americans will be worse off economically (no jobs, reduced or no entitlements, MASSIVE debts); that another terrorist attack of the same magnitude as 9/11 will occur under his watch (and probably as a consequence of some s**t he started on Twitter); that he and his minions will have rolled back so many liberties in the name of "keeping us safe" and "making America great again" that African-Americans, for one, might as well be back to pickin' cotton on the plantations. TrumpCo. will just spin it all their way like they always do; and people will either just lap it up or shrug and go on about their business. I am not even holding my breath anymore for the mid-term elections. I know what the stats say: that the mid-terms are always bad for the party in control. But I also know that the Democrats have had a poor record when it comes to those, too. (Besides, we also had stacks upon stacks of stats telling us there was no way in Hell that Trump could win. So you'll have to forgive me if I choose from here on out to take stats, polls, predictors/pundits, and even historical precedents with a grain of salt.) Add to that the Republican-led gerrymandering that is bound to go THEIR way and leave ethnic minorities further marginalized and disenfranchised from the electoral process, and as post-ers like Skin have convinced me upthread, the Republicans will ensure their stranglehold on the rest of the nation -- long after Trump and his ilk have left the building, and probably long after the actual demographics that were SUPPOSED to go the Democrats' way, with the US becoming a minority-majority nation, actually do. In other words: we're fucked. And we're gonna stay fucked for a very, very, very, very long time.

Y'all, we're politicizing sitcom characters. We need to stop.

Naomi would have been for Bernie. She would have found his tousled hair "sexy." No, I'm wrong, she would have been for Trump. I mean, any girl who would hook up with a slickster like Stony Hall....

At a certain point during the campaign, when people were dragging her yet again for Whitewater and Vince Foster, I reached a similar conclusion. But none of that is why I didn't vote for her. Nor, in my heart of hearts, did I not vote for her because of Benghazi, the emails, and the old adage "Where there's smoke, there's fire." If I were being truly candid with myself, I'd have to admit that I didn't vote for Hillary, because I haven't seen her be as authentic as she was when she made that infamous statement on "60 Minutes" about not being the kind of wife who stays home and bakes cookies while listening to Tammy Wynette records (or whatever). If THAT Hillary had run in 2016, I would have voted for her in a flash, because I feel that's always what America needs most (and ironically, what Trump Nation THINKS their new personal Jesus is giving them now). It's just unfortunate to me that that Hillary soon disappeared in the wilds of the Donna Karan pantsuit jungle. Jesus. You're right. "Mama for Mayor" is an excellent way to describe what a Trump administration will be like. But I'm drawing the line at "Facts of Life."

Actually, Pamela Norris, who wrote "Working Mother," was right. I'm just a guy in his late thirties who lives at home with his mom and watches bad sitcoms. Trust me: there will come a time when I will use an episode of "Mama's Family" to explain a complex moral issue facing this country, and you will rue the day you joined this board.

In a way, it's like that episode of "Designing Women" where Mary Jo and Charlene had a falling-out, because Charlene decided she needed to stay home and spend more time with Olivia, and Mary Jo, being a divorced mother of two with no financial or other help from her ex-husband (her choice), felt threatened by her best friend's choice. As Mary Jo said at the episode's climax (and yes, I'm paraphrasing): the "traditional moms" will always accuse the working moms of being selfish yuppies, and the working moms will always accuse the stay-at-home moms of being lazy, but that instead of turning on each other, the stay-at-home moms and the working moms need to stop blaming each other and ban together. And I can't believe I've just cited an episode of "Designing Women" in order to make a point.

A disquieting thought, but...true. Also true. Which is why I feel so...conflicted over Carl and Vee's brilliantly drawn arguments. Because I DO agree that they are a lost cause, incapable of growth or compromise; and I fear that reaching out to them (and not correcting or outright rejecting them) will only result in reinforcing their false ideas and keeping this country as divisive as ever.... And yet, Carl and Vee are right: the Democratic party can't regain any footing if they don't at least try.

Yes, it will. Frankly, though, I don't think Trump and his followers in this country will care all that much. He'll just rip up Obama's executive order, welcome back all those people, and throw them a parade (with us picking up the tab).

That's what I've done. I can't remember who said it, but it makes sense: the best way to understand what's happening in your country is to see how the rest of the world sees it.

Frankly, what's needed now is 20-30 more years of presidencies that are AS bad as Trump's promises to be (if not worse) or just plain ineffectual and/or mediocre. (Sort of like that period between Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt when you had all those presidents barely anyone remembers anymore.) By then, the demographics will have caught up, and White America will have no choice but to accept another non-white President who will bring us out of the doldrums and back to being a player on the international stage.

IA. Every other narrative that political pundits and the media have applied in order to explain Trump's victory -- that HRC was a "fatally flawed" candidate, that she and the Democratic party failed to get their message out to the nation, that Trump's voting base was tired of economic austerity and the intrusiveness of Big Government -- just doesn't wash when you examine the facts. HRC won the popular vote by a significant amount. Ergo, there was nothing wrong with her (despite garbage from the MSM and sycophants such as Little Jimmy that idiots such as yours truly bought only too readily) or with her party's platform. (And please, Fox News, spare me the argument that she only won the popular vote because of California. Trump only got the electoral vote because of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. No landslides for either candidate.) Although Trump ran on (among other lies and half-truths) a promise to bring back jobs and repeal Obamacare, the truth is that people from the states who voted most heavily FOR Trump are actually the ones who also benefit the most from government-sanctioned entitlements. Moreover, just about every financial and political wonk I've read from BOTH sides of the aisle agree that Trump cannot, in fact, bring back jobs without triggering a trade war and another recession, which will only exacerbate his voters' supposed economic woes in the end. So, yes, I can't help but think that those who voted for Trump did so because he wasn't Obama and didn't promise to continue Obama's policies. About the ONLY argument I will buy, in fact, is that Black and Latino males failed to show up for HRC the way they did for Obama. But, you know, it's like what Dave Chappelle intimated during one sketch on SNL: you can't ask Black men to feel as inspired by a 70-year-old White woman as they had (twice) by another, middle-aged Black man.

But as marceline said: "Pence is like debating pancreatic cancer vs. lung cancer. For me it's a matter of risk assessment and harm reduction. For all of his evil - and he IS evil - I'm not worried that Pence will actually use nuclear weapons."

Thank. Gawd.

Frankly, I think Trump is too egotistical even to consider resigning from office. To him, resignation is admitting failure. Heck, if he were actually impeached, I wouldn't put it past him to rebuke Congress publicly and say he isn't giving up the presidency without a fight. In which case, they'd probably have to send in the National Guard or something to escort him and his minions from the WH.

And most Republicans will never be satisfied until the United States has evicted everyone who isn't Caucasian, heterosexual and male. Personally, I think a nation of two dozen would be vulnerable to outside attacks, but whatevs.

As I was preparing for bed last night, I said, "Wouldn't it be ironic if THIS were the scandal that mushrooms and ultimately derails the Trump presidency entirely before it's really begun?" I realize that isn't going to happen and I shouldn't get my hopes up. Nevertheless, it'd be just like God or karma or "the fates" or whatever to have Trump Nation implode and disintegrate over something that doesn't even involve Trump himself directly. That's one reason why I've always believed that neither the Jews nor the Palestinians actually desire a two-state solution. Each side just wants the other gone and the land all to themselves. (To the Christians and Jews, though, the Jews have the edge, because biblical scripture designates the land as belonging to them.) So, I can't really blame us for abstaining. Chances are, Trump will side with Israel, which might cause some (but not all) Jewish Americans to defect to the Republican party. (I say "not all," because I hope -- I HOPE -- the majority of Jewish people in the Democratic party won't forget some of the xenophobic and flat-out anti-Semitic remarks he made throughout the campaign.) I just pray Trump will not drag us into a "holy war" with Palestine that, like Vietnam, will be costly and unwinnable.