Summations Only

Yes, it's an archaic system when they're in charge. But it's "checks and balances" when the other side is in power.It's called "a constitutional republic" when the courts strike down laws they don't like. It's "judicial activism" when the laws they do like are struck down.They don't really have any idea what the words they use mean. It all just means "stuff I like" vs "stuff I don't like."

Maybe people should start yelling, "LOCK HIM UP!" at Trump rallies.

Trump speaking about Comey, from the New York Times (bolding is mine): Edited by Chiroptera, : Typo.

Paul Krugman recently wrote a column in the New York Times saying basically the same thing about "coal jobs." Krugman points out that not very many West Virginians have jobs in the coal industry any more and the vast majority of jobs that have disappeared over the years aren't coming back.An industry that does employ a lot of West Virginians is health care and related services.Yet West Virginia went for Trump in a big way.

The Guardian reports that Trump shared highly classified intelligence with the Russians at that meeting last week."The report said that while Trump did not describe the specific source used to gather the intelligence, he provided highly classified details, apparently connected to an Isis plot related to the use of laptops on board passenger aircraft."Without more details, it's difficult to know how serious a problem Trump may have created, so I agree with Senator McCain: "Senior Republican senator John McCain told CNN that 'if it's true, it’s obviously disturbing.' But he cautioned: 'Let's wait and see what this was all about first.'"But I wonder: what do the Trumpistas think about this? This seems to be a bit more serious than Clinton's emails. Are they now going to start screaming, "LOCK HIM UP!"?

He's Trump so for him there's no such thing as intelligence.

Same NYT article Percy linked to: 'Course, that's "the power to declassify almost anything," not "blurt out anything you want to whoever you want when you feel like showing off." I would imagine that declassifying something requires a process; at a minimum, drawing up a legal document, signing it, and filing it with the appropriate agency. Something that requires a little bit of time and thought, giving the appropriate people a chance to weigh in on it.But Trump isn't a Democrat and his name isn't Clinton, so I suppose it's all good.

Well, only if the American electorate can be characterized by how less than even a plurality voted. Added by edit: Nonetheless, good point. I might steal this.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

Yeah, that's what makes this so serious. According to the news, this intel came from an important ally which didn't want us to share it; we hadn't even shared this info with our other, real allies.Reports say that Trump may have given the Russians enough information to let them know who this source is and an estimate of their intelligence gathering activities.There's the possibility that it will be more difficult for our intelligences services to get cooperation from other countries' intelligence services.When I first read this, I just thought this would be a funny tweak against the "Lock her up" nuts. But this may actually be a very, very serious issue.

From this morning's New York Times about Trump 's intelligence gaffe: For those who want to keep score: which Republicans keep to a consistent message, and which ones will start the "yabbuts"?

He also doesn't know what a "witch hunt" is. A witch hunt refers to a paranoid fear of hidden enemies that becomes so overwhelming that ordinary people (or low level employees) are accused and punished with no real evidence. Think of the Red Scare during the McCarthy period. Or the actual 17th century Salem witch trials.In this case, the people being accused of potential wrong doing are high level people that have actually met with and have done business with Russians or their agents during the campaign and after the election. Even if one believes the charges are groundless, "witch hunt" really isn't the proper phrase for this.Edited by Chiroptera, : Clarity.

The first thing I though when I saw the headlines that Malanie and Ivanka weren't wearing headscarves was, "Good for them!"But the about-face is pretty funny, too.Any "yabbuts"?

You mean like appointing his wife ambassador to the Vatican?

That would be...ironic.

That's what struck me about this provision: People will be able to choose (and remember, under free market libertarianism not being able to afford something is the same thing as making a choice) to essentially go without insurance...as long as the pay a fee to a private corporation.