Summations Only

Yikes!Fortunately for us all, reality has a liberal bias.

Is this consistent with your stance on capital punishment? Oooh. Good one.

Deleted in the interest of not being further provocative. This thread is already descending into more heat (or hate) than light.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

FWIW, I find your argument that he was not mocking the man for his disability compelling. However, you are still giving Trump a free pass. Let's not forget that Trump's mocking of Cruz, for example included indelicate comments about Mrs. Cruz as well as accusations that Cruz poppa was involved in the Kennedy assassination.So, no Trump's mocking is very way beyond the norm and I'd be happy to provide you any number of examples.Nonetheless, I think that's a total of three times I thought you were right during the past week including one time when being right meant admitting to an error. Nice. Again, I'd be happy to list them if you want.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Maybe Trump has done so since, but in September, Cruz decided to forgive Trump without the apology. I was not able to find any indication that Trump has apologized, but you are free to think whatever you want. What we do know is that Cruz did endorse Trump without receiving an apology.

The article you linked to is about Trump's non-apology. After making the allegations about Cruz's wife, Trump later tells the press that he should not have sent the photo. That is not an apology, and of course that admission does not change the facts regarding the statements about Cruz's father.

It was clearly not an apology; That you have a loose standard when Trump or your other favorites are concerned is what is truly irrelevant. Cruz does not consider it an apology and has said so.Perhaps you should have cited a better reference if you want to claim that anyone reasonably considers Trump's statement an apology.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

To be fair, RAZD's message included Snopes heavily quoting and analyzing an ABC news article. Are you really questioning the reliability of Snopes to do such a thing? Should RAZD have gone to the trouble of finding the actual ABC News article?Not trying to be combative. Just getting your take. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Is discussion about Trump's immediate advisors and cabinet nominees on topic or off for this thread?

Republican politicians certainly voiced those objections, but they also objected to the "floor" for coverage mandated by the ACA. Almost certainly anything the Ryan led House will pass is going to allow employers to provide piss-poor coverage, maybe without any minimum level at all.Both Trump and the Congress have plenty of exposure here. I expect "Teflon Don" to escape scrutiny by the people in exactly the way he has skated by on make financial disclosures and avoiding conflicts of interest.

I admit that I had thought about this until somebody suggested to me yesterday that Obama might do that. After hearing the suggestion, I thought there was a good chance Obama would do this, but the announcement was still a surprise!Chelsea Manning sentence commuted | CNN PoliticsCannot wait to see Trump's tweet in response to this.ABE:And then there is this:

quote:

---

Earlier this month, WikiLeaks said it would agree to a US extradition request for the site's founder, Julian Assange, if Obama granted clemency to Manning. It was not immediately clear if WikiLeaks would make good on its promise, though the group declared "victory" in a tweet Tuesday afternoon.

---

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I don't expect that Ginsburg will stay until the end of Trump's term, and perhaps Kennedy and Breyer will also retire. I cannot see any of the three lasting beyond a second term for Trump. I think it very likely that Trump could replace up to four Supreme Court Justices. And of course, there are the other federal courts.If you want to know where the evangelical support came from, it may well be based on the potential to turn the Supreme Court irrevocably right.

Exactly. Trump did not say much of anything specific.The inauguration speech was essential a Valentine's Day card for his base. I'm not surprised that it was full of stuff that I am not onboard with. Over the next few months, we are going to see Trump in action as president. If I am going to complain from this point on, it is going to be about what he does and tries to do as president.

Obama entered the white house with a net worth of something like 2 million dollars. Let's recall that both he and Michelle worked at large law firms before entering public service. The president drew a salary of 400K for 8 years, and now his net worth is estimated at something between 7 and 12 million dollars[1] depending on who does the estimating.Now at the upper end of the estimating, there are some questions one might ask, but at the lower end, prudent investing, plus 8 years of salary, plus book royalties from a book written before he became president, plus winning the Noble Peace Prize (something like a million dollar award) easily explains Obama's increase in fortune.[1]http://time.com/...9729/barack-obama-net-worth-55th-birthday

quote:

---

An analysis of Obama’s financial disclosure in 2015 showed a net worth between $2 million and $7 million, reported USA Today. Celebrity finance resource Celebrity Net Worth, however, reported that Obama’s net worth is as high as $12.2 million.

---

The same article lists the sources for Obama's income. I see nothing untoward in those sources. YMMV.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

One of the most disappointing things about Trump is his thin skin. Trump claims, again without any evidence, and in fact against all of the evidence, to have had the largest attendance for an inauguration ever. Reports that his attendance was about average or maybe less really irk Trump and when that happens, the press gets attacked.Trump's press secretary [Sean Spicer] went off on a screed yesterday complaining about the portrayal of the attendance. Spicer refused to answer any of the presses questions about his rant. Today on "Meet the Press", Kellyanne Conway told folks that it was not the presses job to call statements by the press secretary and the president ridiculous. She then called their version of things "alternative facts".Quite obviously, this idiocy is being directed by Trump himself.Conway: Trump White House offered 'alternative facts' on crowd size | CNN Politics

quote:

---

Trump himself directed Spicer to go to the White House briefing room to talk about the inauguration crowd size, Conway told CNN's Athena Jones on Sunday.

---

quote:

---

Your job is not to call things ridiculous that are said by our press secretary and our president. That's not your job," Conway said.

​

"I'll answer it this way: Think about what you just said to your viewers. That's why we feel compelled to go out and clear the air and put alternative facts out there."

---

The term "Alternative facts" apparently means a Trump narrative having no basis in reality and unsupported by anything except Trump's ego.So far the news folks have done a poor job of holding Trump accountable for lying since the election. I have no hope that being caught in lies will affect the base's support for Trump. However, Trump has historically low approval ratings for an incoming president, suggesting that his antics are having at least some effect on those folks who are at least amenable to hearing the truth.