So apparently Trump is dodging his security briefings.

 

Trump turning away intelligence briefers since election win

 

I also read that the UN is trying to make the case for the U.S. not to be the defacto 'head' of the organization come January after Trump is sworn in. Regardless of German elections, I wouldn't be surprised if Merkel's name pops up as an alternative. 

The word is that while in Peru, many world leaders came to President Obama concerned about the U.S.' place of leadership because of Trump. I think Trump's wild unpredictability bolster's Angela Merkel's case, whereas she previously may have been on shakier ground but other nations will want some sort of predictability and stability. Everyone may not particularly care for Merkel or Germany's lean toward austerity (which I've read that Germany has been re-thinking lately) but leaders know what they are going to get with her, and they may now crave a greater sense of predictability.

3 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

So apparently Trump is dodging his security briefings.

 

Trump turning away intelligence briefers since election win

 

I also read that the UN is trying to make the case for the U.S. not to be the defacto 'head' of the organization come January after Trump is sworn in. Regardless of German elections, I wouldn't be surprised if Merkel's name pops up as an alternative. 

The word is that while in Peru, many world leaders came to President Obama concerned about the U.S.' place of leadership because of Trump. I think Trump's wild unpredictability bolster's Angela Merkel's case, whereas she previously may have been on shakier ground but other nations will want some sort of predictability and stability. Everyone may not particularly care for Merkel or Germany's lean toward austerity (which I've read that Germany has been re-thinking lately) but leaders know what they are going to get with her, and they may now crave a greater sense of predictability.

 

Merkel's problem isn't so much world leaders as it is the uprising in Germany due to the refugee backlash and the general struggles of anyone who has been in power for such an extended period of time. Well that and the EU being headed by what seems to be a pompous fool. I think Merkel will always be a strong check to Trump on a global stage but the stage she's on is steadily being sawed away. The next big election will be in France, where the choice is between an extreme right wing quasi-establishment figure who unexpectedly made the final round of voting instead of that toxic Sarkozy, a weaker quasi-centrist-leftist, and the terrifying Le Pen dynasty. The best case scenario is the first guy wins, but even that shows how much has changed and is changing in Europe. 

 

Frankly I was surprised to read anyone was bothering with the briefs, even Pence. That crazy guy (Flynn) mouthing off during security briefings sort of said it all. The best I can hope for is someone relatively sane will have some sort of say. I know some seem to trust Mattis, the guy Trump may pick for Defense. Of course that likely means he won't pick him now...

1 hour ago, Nothin'ButAttitude said:

Trump adviser tells House GOP that they are no longer Ronald Reagan's GOP party: 

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/307462-trump-adviser-tells-house-republicans-youre-no-longer-reagans-party

 

Now y'all know that many of those GOP politicians that worship the altar of Reagan are going bananas right now. It's gonna be straight warfare on Capitol Hill come January. 

 

 

The man who said it is someone who drove the party to the right in purity contests galore (no new taxes ever). Part of the joke of Reagan worship with these types is that Reagan did raise taxes. They usually say that Reagan had to because Democrats controlled the House, but even with that, I don't believe Reagan would agree with most of what the GOP has become, even if he started all of this (the racist dog whistles, the "Reagan Democrats"). He was pretty extreme himself at various points, especially his first few years in office, but he did want to actually get something done. The Republicans in charge now just want to burn it all down. They lie to themselves by acting like it's for St. Ronnie, and it discomfits them that the Breitbart group don't even bother to hide their true goals - total destruction. 

Speaking of disagreements within, supposedly there is a split between those who want Romney and those who want Giuliani as SOS.

Who the hell wants Rudy?!

45 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

 

 

The man who said it is someone who drove the party to the right in purity contests galore (no new taxes ever). Part of the joke of Reagan worship with these types is that Reagan did raise taxes. They usually say that Reagan had to because Democrats controlled the House, but even with that, I don't believe Reagan would agree with most of what the GOP has become, even if he started all of this (the racist dog whistles, the "Reagan Democrats"). He was pretty extreme himself at various points, especially his first few years in office, but he did want to actually get something done. The Republicans in charge now just want to burn it all down. They lie to themselves by acting like it's for St. Ronnie, and it discomfits them that the Breitbart group don't even bother to hide their true goals - total destruction. 

 

Well when they burn it all down, I hope that results in the demise in Republican party as a whole. Hopefully, this leads to a total shift in our politics and have multiple parties generate veering left on the political spectrum like other countries do. 

3 hours ago, DramatistDreamer said:

Speaking of disagreements within, supposedly there is a split between those who want Romney and those who want Giuliani as SOS.

Who the hell wants Rudy?!

 

He'll say anything for money and he has ties to some of the dictators who wanted Trump in the first place. He's also a sycophant, whereas Romney was not "loyal." 

 

I imagine it will be Rudy in the end. If the Senate had any backbone I'd imagine they would give him a foot in the ass, but we know that isn't likely. 

Hopefully its Mitt Romney as he would be the best choice.

Jill Stein Can’t ‘Guarantee’ Money Will Go to Recount, Changes $$$ Goal

 

Who didn't see this coming?

12 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

Jill Stein Can’t ‘Guarantee’ Money Will Go to Recount, Changes $$$ Goal

 

Who didn't see this coming?

 

Sadly, I'd guess a lot of people, many of whom opened their wallets. 

 

She's a narcissist and a con artist. I truly hope that no one who donated was hurting financially. Shame on her. 

Edited November 25, 20169 yr by DRW50

10 hours ago, DRW50 said:

 

He'll say anything for money and he has ties to some of the dictators who wanted Trump in the first place. He's also a sycophant, whereas Romney was not "loyal." 

 

I imagine it will be Rudy in the end. If the Senate had any backbone I'd imagine they would give him a foot in the ass, but we know that isn't likely. 

Rudy sure has some screws loose. He needs to put in a straight jack!!

21 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

Jill Stein Can’t ‘Guarantee’ Money Will Go to Recount, Changes $$$ Goal

 

Who didn't see this coming?

 

Griftin' Jill conned her followers just like Trump conned his.

When I saw this woman's name as the latest Trump appointment I thought it sounded familiar from some crazy thing involving Hillary, and sure enough...

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/hillz-helicopters-spied-on-me

Some interesting and valid points being presented here. A good summary of the reasons why the two sides cannot connect and what must be sorted out.

 

Bernie Sanders — and many Democrats — keep confusing identity politics with tokenism

3 hours ago, DramatistDreamer said:

Jill Stein Can’t ‘Guarantee’ Money Will Go to Recount, Changes $$$ Goal

 

Who didn't see this coming?

 

Tacky ass. Can't they file a lawsuit against her ass? So glad I didn't donate at all. 

This isn't for real, but it's a funny tweet. 

 

I know I didn't donate. Don't trust Jill Stein at all.