Or Obama's policies.
Or Hilary and her severs.
Or just the Dems in general.

7/11/2018 11:15:47 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFvujknrBuE - pretty much

[Edited on July 11, 2018 at 11:46 AM. Reason : .]

7/11/2018 11:46:14 AM

https://twitter.com/mikedorning/status/1017068651533557760?s=21

We currently spend what? 3-3.5% of GDP? Imagine slicing that down to 2% and using the difference in collective benefits like healthcare and access to education.

[Edited on July 11, 2018 at 11:50 AM. Reason : JFC Sarah sanders confirmed it. Trolling as diplomacy.]

7/11/2018 11:49:08 AM

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/11/628137185/fact-check-trumps-claims-on-nato-spending

Quote :

"President Trump has been making plenty of claims about how much the U.S. contributes to NATO while portraying other members of the alliance as deadbeats. Here is some of what he has said and how those statements stand up to the facts. The Claim Sitting down to breakfast in Brussels just before the NATO plenary session Wednesday, Trump accused NATO allies of being freeloaders: "Many countries owe us a tremendous amount of money from many years back, where they're delinquent as far as I'm concerned, because the United States has had to pay for them. So if you go back 10 or 20 years, you'll just add it all up, it's massive amounts of money is owed." False The U.S. has not been stiffed for unpaid bills by NATO allies. "There is no ledger that maintains accounts of what countries pay and owe," says former Obama administration National Security Council staffer Aaron O'Connell. "NATO is not like a club with annual membership fees." NATO members did make a commitment four years ago to spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense by 2024. Just nine of the military alliance's 29 members are expected to reach or surpass that target this year. The Claim At the same pre-plenary breakfast, Trump excoriated Germany, the biggest economic power in NATO after the U.S.: "Germany is just paying a little bit over 1 percent, whereas the United States in actual numbers is paying 4.2 percent." True And False Germany indeed devotes only about 1.25 percent of its GDP to defense. While it has boosted defense spending the past two years, Germany, like about half the other NATO members, does not plan to reach 2 percent by 2024. But Trump's claim that the U.S. is spending 4.2 percent of GDP is at odds with the Pentagon, which puts it at 3.3 percent. NATO scholar Garret Martin says in any case, U.S. defense needs vastly surpass those of its European allies. "We're not comparing apples to apples," notes Martin, a lecturer at American University's School of International Service. "The United States is a global military power with global military commitments. "NATO and the trans-Atlantic geographical area is only a part of what the United States military does. That's not necessarily true for most of the European members of the alliance." The Claim At a July 5 rally in Montana, Trump said this about NATO funding: "We're paying for anywhere from 70 to 90 percent to protect Europe, and that's fine." Confusing Trump did not say 70 to 90 percent of what. It's true that if the overall defense budgets of all 29 NATO allies are tallied, the U.S. defense budget accounts for about two-thirds of that total. But as noted above, American defense expenditures are for much more than just protecting Europe. "There is a common budget that all NATO allies pay into," says O'Connell of NATO's direct expenses for shared headquarters and exercises. "It's about $2.8 billion and the U.S. pays 22 percent of that, not 90 percent." The Claim Trump sought to take credit in Brussels for NATO allies spending more: "This year, since our last meeting, commitments have been made for over $40 billion more money spent by other countries." Exaggeration NATO reported on July 10 that spending by European members increased from last fiscal year to the current fiscal year by about $35 billion. The increased spending predates Trump. "I think once the trend started changing in 2014, that created momentum even before he became president," says Martin. "Now maybe there's a bit more urgency now because he's blunter than his predecessors in criticizing his European partners." Despite Trump's complaints about American outlays for NATO, the U.S. is actually spending more in Europe than when he took office. "Actions speak louder than words," NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters as the NATO summit got underway. "Since Trump became president, U.S. funding for military presence in Europe — the European Deterrence Initiative — has been increased by 40 percent." That spending was approved by Congress, where both the House and the Senate overwhelmingly approved resolutions this week backing NATO."

7/12/2018 9:58:26 AM

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6766531/trump-may-brexit-us-deal-off/

Fake news guys, totally didn't say that stuff.

7/13/2018 12:03:39 PM

Donald Trump 'hosted and attended alcohol and cocaine-fuelled parties where middle-aged men would prey on teenage girls'

Two models who say they attended the notorious parties in the 80s and 90s have been speaking to BBC's Panorama

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/donald-trump-hosted-attended-alcohol-12885756.amp

(watch video)

7/15/2018 2:19:45 AM

^ Deep state funded fake news.

!

7/15/2018 11:27:51 AM

Quote :

" The President [Trump] was frustrated that the leaders of other countries weren’t committing to spend more money on NATO — and suggested that countries should raise their contributions to 4 percent of GDP from 2 percent, which only a few meet. (The U.S. spends more money on NATO than any other country, a topic Trump has been focusing on for weeks). According to Bremmer [CBS News senior global affairs contributor], most of the leaders responding by saying they couldn’t just commit to spending more money: there’s a process, and they have to ask their parliaments. “Trump turns around to the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and says ‘except for Erdogan over here, he does things the right way,’ and then actually fist-bumps the Turkish president,” Bremmer said on CBS."

7/16/2018 1:27:11 PM

https://www.ft.com/content/15289aa0-8437-11e8-9199-c2a4754b5a0e

Quote :

"Want to damage Donald Trump? Boycott peanut butter Targeting the humble legume could help defeat Republicans in the US midterm elections Timothy Cooper JULY 11, 2018 Although former US president Jimmy Carter was famous for farming peanuts, they have rarely been thought of as an instrument of power. But citizens of the EU, Canada and Mexico who wish to retaliate against Donald Trump’s tariffs on their exports should give the humble legume a second look. If you want to weaken the US president, it is time to join together in a common cause and boycott peanut butter. By refusing to buy Jif, Skippy, Peter Pan and other brands, global consumers can form an alliance in opposition to Mr Trump’s tariffs and wield an economic power they never knew they had. Why peanut butter? It is a matter of geography and political demographics. Just 10 states grow 99 per cent of America’s peanuts: Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, Texas, Alabama, Oklahoma, Virginia and New Mexico. Other than Virginia and New Mexico, these states have one important thing in common: they all voted for Trump in 2016. And today, their Republican-leaning constituents represent a large percentage of the president’s base. Indeed, every Senate Republican from these peanut-growing states — 14 of their 20 senators — supports Mr Trump and his policies, including his biting trade tariffs. Recommended Trade disputes No bourbon party in Kentucky as tariffs drown exports So to paraphrase former British prime minister Winston Churchill, “We should defend our nation, our countries, whatever the cost may be?.?.?.?We shall fight them with?.?.?.?sandwiches.” That’s no joke. A global economic boycott of peanut butter could help defeat three Republican senators and re-elect three Democrats from peanut growing states who face the voters in November. A Democratic gain of just two seats would flip control of the Senate, making it possible to block bills and judicial appointments that Democrats oppose. Europeans already understand the political dynamics at play here better than most. The EU has retaliated against US steel and aluminium tariffs by imposing duties of its own on US motorcycles, bourbon, and, yes, peanut butter. But US Democrats and the rest of the world should take the campaign one step further. Rather than being content to simply pay more for peanut butter or buy less of it, they should boycott it altogether. Canada is the top importer of American peanuts. The EU is second, followed by Mexico. Japan imports huge quantities of US peanuts too. Together they buy 80 per cent of all US peanut exports. A major cutback in purchases would put a serious dent on the economies of southern red states because peanuts are a $3bn annual industry. If money is speech, as the US Supreme Court ruled when it struck down limits on campaign donations, then let the Republican senators hear the speech of their unhappy constituents when the global peanut boycott is in full swing. Mississippi has two Republicans running to hold their seats. Cindy Hyde-Smith and Roger Wicker are both passionate Trump backers, so a global boycott of Mississippi-grown peanuts could complicate their races — negatively. So, too, for Ted Cruz, who is running for re-election in Texas, which grows plenty of peanuts. While all three are leading in the polls presently, no one knows what the potential impact of a peanut butter boycott would be. A Democratic Senate would provide a healthy ballast to right America’s listing ship of state and put pressure on Mr Trump to end his tariffs. This could be our finest hour. We shall never surrender. The writer is a novelist and human rights activist"

7/16/2018 11:22:13 PM

fuck Virginia and New Mexico, amirite

7/17/2018 1:11:33 AM

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-groups/us-treasury-moves-to-protect-identities-of-dark-money-political-donors-idUSKBN1K704F

Quote :

"The U.S. Treasury said on Monday that it will no longer require certain tax-exempt organizations including politically active nonprofit groups, such as the National Rifle Association and Planned Parenthood, to identify their financial donors to U.S. tax authorities."

This comes after the NRA is being reportedly investigated for potentially funneling Russian money.

7/17/2018 10:02:15 AM

wouldwouldn't

credibility: -$Texas

7/17/2018 4:15:17 PM

So he meant to say this?

Quote :

"I have great confidence in my intelligence people. But, I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today. He just said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it wouldn't be. "

Yeah that totally makes sense.

7/17/2018 4:58:25 PM

7/18/2018 9:24:58 AM

Not surprised he can't spell collusion

7/18/2018 10:52:31 AM

For record keeping purposes - https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/trump-helsinki-summit-dismaying-comments-undercut-america/

7/18/2018 10:55:14 AM

What the hell is happening?

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/07/trump-putin-press-conference-transcript/565385/

Quote :

"It was perhaps the most explosive exchange in an incendiary press conference: Russian President Vladimir Putin appearing to frankly admit to a motive for, and maybe even to the act of, meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, despite repeatedly denying Russian interference in American politics during the rest of his appearance with Donald Trump in Finland on Monday. But the exchange doesn't appear in full in the White House's live-stream or transcript of the press conference, and it's missing entirely from the Kremlin's transcript of the event... Compare this transcript, of what actually happened, to the White House's version. Here is the record of what took place, starting with the last part of Putin's comments before Mason's questions. Putin is describing his willingness to assist with Robert Mueller's probe (bolding is mine): 'Vladimir Putin: That could be a first step, and we can also extend it. Options abound, and they all can be found in an appropriate legal framework. Jeff Mason: President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that? Putin: Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.–Russia relationship back to normal.' And here’s the key section from the White House transcript, which makes it seem as though Putin is still talking about the Mueller probe: 'PRESIDENT PUTIN: That could be a first step, and we can also extend it. Options abound, and they all can be found in an appropriate legal framework. Q: And did you direct any of your officials to help him do that? PRESIDENT PUTIN: Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.–Russia relationship back to normal.' Another strange wrinkle comes from the Russian government's English-language transcript of the press conference. In contrast to its footage of the press conference, which features what really happened, the transcript does not include any piece of that key exchange. Transcripts published by the Federal News Service and Bloomberg Government mirror the White House transcript, while NPR's contains the full exchange. Confusing matters further, C-span's footage contains Mason's full question but only the second half of Putin's answer..."

[Edited on July 18, 2018 at 2:59 PM. Reason : ]

7/18/2018 2:55:55 PM

https://twitter.com/johnjharwood/status/1019656469304799232?s=21

Ummm, how was this not a hard “No. No chance. Fuck off.” I mean the fact that Sanders didn’t completely and strongly condemn this is terrifying.

7/18/2018 3:17:34 PM

^^Terribly worded question, because you cant definitively know which part of the question Putin is responding to. Maybe he is saying yes, he did want Trump to win, but not responding to the second part of the question.

7/18/2018 3:30:55 PM

oh my god, just step into sanity for a second

7/18/2018 3:34:28 PM

^^ I'm not disputing that, but how does that address the crux of the referenced article?

[Edited on July 18, 2018 at 3:34 PM. Reason : ]

7/18/2018 3:34:31 PM

I'm not disputing the actual content of the quote or the article. I just wish the question was phrased more clearly so there isn't any doubt what he was responding affirmatively to.

Who's got time to read an entire article?

7/18/2018 3:44:28 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-loyalists-at-va-shuffling-purging-employees-before-new-secretary-takes-over/2018/07/18/a4462aae-892d-11e8-8aea-86e88ae760d8_story.html?utm_term=.d2d0b27f7c60

7/18/2018 6:23:32 PM

Quote :

"FBI Uncovers Al-Qaeda Plot To Just Sit Back And Enjoy Collapse Of United States"

https://www.theonion.com/fbi-uncovers-al-qaeda-plot-to-just-sit-back-and-enjoy-c-1819576375

7/18/2018 10:49:25 PM

We got 2 more years...

Honestly didn't see things getting this bad so fast.

So much bad stuff, it's impossible to keep up with everything, even for someone who obsessively is reading this stuff on twitter all day. This is amazing.

If Trump is trying to allow Russia to join up on cybersecurity and the Mueller investigation, isn't this just his attempt to bring in Russians to do the dirty work for him?

Imagine if at least the House doesn't flip in November too.

[Edited on July 18, 2018 at 11:19 PM. Reason : ]

7/18/2018 11:16:31 PM

Quote :

"someone who obsessively is reading this stuff on twitter all day."

I've spotted your problem.

7/19/2018 8:34:18 AM

President Trump’s doubling down.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1019936133147516929

Quote :

"The Summit with Russia was a great success, except with the real enemy of the people, the Fake News Media. I look forward to our second meeting so that we can start implementing some of the many things discussed..."

7/19/2018 11:32:29 AM

7/19/2018 2:23:20 PM

7/19/2018 10:13:47 PM

That's a strangly designed image there. I feel like I'm supposed to dislike the mouthbreathers on the left while giving the homeless cello player on the right a pass.

Naw. Not gonna click play.

7/19/2018 11:22:37 PM

7/19/2018 11:38:07 PM

The video is a breakdown of the book Anatomy of Fascism by Robert Paxton.

7/20/2018 12:02:06 AM

I refuse to accept that Wharton gave this man a degree. He lacks even the basic economic knowledge a college graduate would have.

7/20/2018 8:51:31 AM

Cohen recorded Trump discussing payments to McDougal
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/20/us/politics/michael-cohen-trump-tape.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes

7/20/2018 11:58:28 AM

Wonder what else Cohen has recordings of...

Also what will trump do to try and distract from this...

7/20/2018 12:24:58 PM

What possibly makes you guys think this is going to be any worse than Stormy Daniels? That really hurt his polling numbers.

I can't stand the guy any more than the next educated person, but I'm so sick of the constant barrage of crap. They're throwing everything at the wall hoping something will stick.

At this point, rather than wasting so much time disparaging Trump, everybody should focus on finding a good solid candidate, go ahead and get that person out there, touring the country, building a base, so they can have a shot at 2020.

A lot of people were surprised in 2016. Let's not make the same mistake for 2020.

7/20/2018 3:03:31 PM

the payments weren't reported, that's illegal, it's a campaign finance issue which means the president could have to testify

7/20/2018 3:08:55 PM

I'm ignorant of campaign finance rules and regs, so forgive the question. But say I'm running for congress, and I have a bank account that holds my public campaign funds. I have a private bank account that I use for personal purchases. I go out and buy a tablet from Best Buy because they've got that bundle deal, you know the one, where you get the Surface and a keyboard for free. I bought it for the home, not the campaign.

Anyway, do I have to be able to prove, at any point in time, that I didn't use my public campaign funds for that laptop purchase?

I mean shouldn't that be all he needs to do, just prove he didn't use campaign money to pay this model off?

7/20/2018 3:32:41 PM

it's basically the same as the john edwards case, but i want to encourage you to start doing your own independent research so i'm not even going to give you a lmgtfy link

[Edited on July 20, 2018 at 3:35 PM. Reason : nah, no link]

7/20/2018 3:35:40 PM

Quote :

"I can't stand the guy any more than the next educated person, but I'm so sick of the constant barrage of crap. They're throwing everything at the wall hoping something will stick."

who are they and why are you mad at them and not the person who is guilty of all of the misdeeds?

you may wanna focus your disgust on the party the enables him

7/20/2018 3:59:00 PM

Trump’s tweeting about NFL now lol

Also, we all knew 100% trump was banging these women and paying them off using sketchy means. Having the recorded proof just shuts trump supporters up.

It also shows very clearly that Trump will call anything and everything “fake news” until he gets busted. There’s huge amounts of his 40% of supporters that have bought into Trump’s fake news mantra, his supporters harass reporters at his rallies about this, they chant it.

All of that is going to ring a bit more hollow now. It’s likely there’s more tapes on other issues, and we still have Mueller’s investigations.

When you look at polls on the generic ballot, these scandals are starting, finally, to take effect.

7/20/2018 6:34:42 PM

The recording 'helps Trump. without it, you could claim the enquirer made an illegal contribution similar to what Edwards did. The recording documents Trump as personally trying to pay her off with a check. it could be an elaborate plant by Trump and Cohen though.

7/20/2018 6:53:39 PM

^ lol

I know you’re just parroting Guiliani but Guiliani is an idiot

This in no way helps trump politically, we don’t know enough to determine where it puts him legally but you’d have to be extremely gullible to buy Guilianis assertion it helps trump, when we don’t know what was said on the recording and what other evidence or recordings they have.

We do know trump is sloppy and unethical, so the smartest bet is trump is in worse state than Edwards (who was found not to be in violation of the law).

7/20/2018 7:05:48 PM

oh my god eleusis is a trip

7/20/2018 8:12:42 PM

I'm not parroting anything. If you haven't figured out by now that the Trump team leaks this kind of information on a daily basis to redirect the media while also driving the narrative, then you're not paying attention.

Edwards sweet talked some 90 year old crony into paying off his mistress to keep his campaign hopes alive, while actively helping her and others make it look like campaign contributions. If they couldn't even get a conviction on that, what could possibly be worse about this situation?

7/20/2018 10:57:19 PM

Guiliani has been and continues to be a disaster for trump, but trump doesn’t have options

This is obviously his brainchild and doesn’t seem like a smart thing to do, just like all the other times he’s put his foot in his mouth

Also news came out today Mueller is subpoenaing the Manhattan madam (leader of upscale escort service)— can’t imagine that’s going to result in anything good

Edit:
Guiliani is a moron, can’t believe this idiot was “America’s mayor”
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/20/michael-cohen-recorded-trump-talking-about-playboy-model-payoff-report.html

Quote :

"A source familiar with the recording told CNBC that, in fact, it was Trump who raised the idea of paying McDougal with cash. The source also said that it was Cohen who told Trump they would use a check to pay her if they ended up making such a payment."

[Edited on July 21, 2018 at 12:40 AM. Reason : ]

7/21/2018 12:27:42 AM

https://twitter.com/mitchellepner/status/1020378106840911877?s=21

Here’s some details on campaign law spelling out exactly how Guiliani is an idiot

7/21/2018 1:12:26 AM

Holy crap February 2016:
https://twitter.com/torshin_ru/status/698742761160368128?s=21

(Hit the translate button):

“Maria Butina is now in the United States. Writes to me that D. Trump (member of NRA) is really for cooperation with Russia”

7/21/2018 12:01:46 PM

That's thin as hell IMHO.

Claiming that the Enquirer made a 150k campaign contribution because they bought and buried that story?

Thin as hell.

7/21/2018 9:35:53 PM

If they bought and buried the story for the purpose of helping Trump, that's pretty much the definition of a campaign contribution. Nothing thin about it, though it may be difficult to prove.

––––
Trump stole Spicer's green tie. That may actually be positive credibility points.

[Edited on July 22, 2018 at 8:14 PM. Reason : @#$_&-+()/]

7/22/2018 8:13:04 PM